Hi, Dave,
I have to think about what you say here, apart from the etymology.
Speaking of etymology, I can't tell if etymonline SUPPLEMENTS or DISPUTES your
etymology of "design". See what you think. Here it is:
design (v.)
late 14c., "to make, shape," ultimately from Latin designare "mark out, point
out; devise; choose, designate, appoint," from de "out" (see de-) + signare "to
mark," from signum "identifying mark, sign" (see sign (n.)).
The Italian verb disegnare in 16c. developed the senses "to contrive, plot,
intend," and "to draw, paint, embroider, etc." French took both these senses
from Italian, in different forms, and passed them on to English, which uses
design in all senses.
>From 1540s as "to plan or outline, form a scheme;" from 1703 as "to contrive
>for a purpose." Transitive sense of "draw the outline or figure of,"
>especially of a proposed work, is from 1630s; meaning "plan and execute,
>fashion with artistic skill" is from 1660s. Intransitive sense of "do original
>work in a graphic or plastic art" is by 1854. Also used in 17c. English with
>the meaning now attached to designate. Related: Designed; designing.
design (n.)
1580s, "a scheme or plan in the mind," from Middle French desseign, desseing
"purpose, project, design," from the verb in French (see design (v.)).
Especially "an intention to act in some particular way," often to do something
harmful or illegal (1704); compare designing. Meaning "adoption of means to an
end" is from 1660s.
In art, "a drawing, especially an outline," 1630s. The artistic sense was taken
into French as dessin from Italian disegno, from disegnare "to mark out," from
Latin designare "mark out, devise, choose, designate, appoint" (which is also
ultimately the source of the English verb), from de "out" (see de-) + signare
"to mark," from signum "identifying mark, sign" (see sign (n.)).
[T]he artistic sense was taken into Fr. and gradually differentiated in
spelling, so that in mod.F. dessein is 'purpose, plan', dessin 'design in art'.
Eng. on the contrary uses design, conformed to the verb, in both senses. [OED]
General (non-scheming) meaning "a plan our outline" is from 1590s. Meaning "the
practical application of artistic principles" is from 1630s. Sense of "artistic
details that go to make up an edifice, artistic creation, or decorative work"
is from 1640s.
Related Entries
Nick Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
thompnicks...@gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 8:21 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] Digital Monism — was (re: constructive explanations which (was
Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?))
re: creation
"Design," is associated, in contemporary times, with novelty, creation, and
innovation — something that "springs forth in the mind of the designer,
appearing from nowhere and grounded only in the genius of the designer." [West
& Rikner, Design Thinking, 2018]
This is antithetical to roots of the term in ancient Greek (according to Kostas
Terzdis, Harvard Graduate School of Design) - 'de' in the constructive sense
of derivation, deduction, or inference + schedio from the root schedon which
means nearly, almost, about, or approximately. Schedon derives from eschein
(past tense of eho) which means have, ho9ld, or possess. Design, for the Greeks
was about something we once had, but have no longer.
Design, now, is about stepping into the future; for the Greeks it meant
recovering something lost in the past. The word "sketch" has similar ancient
roots and when you sketch you are not creating, you are recalling something
from, often primordial, memory.
This makes sense, philosophically, since the earliest uses of these terms was
in the age of Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Zeno who held the position that
nothing could come from nothing, nor return to it. No 'creation" as we
understand it, no "destruction."
Programmers, (with their patent and copyright attorneys at their elbow) like to
think they are "creating" in the modern sense of the term. Really great
programmers — Dykstra (with the first Algol compiler), Parnas, Cray and Chen
(Cray I operating system), Ward Cunningham (Wiki), and others I have known or
read about — are less quick to take credit for the product of their activity.
Like novelists, the often use the metaphor of "channeling" the novel or the
program as it expresses itself via their brain and fingers. Object programs
that I would consider to be excellent in every way were written by programmers
letting the objects express themselves the same way that a novelist allows
characters to express themselves.
These ideas were recalled to mind as I thought about the "digital monism"
inherent in the Turing Machine metaphor discussed earlier.
There is but one "stuff" — bits (albeit with two values).
"Data," "Programs," and "Virtual Machines" are but ordered bits.
Sensible expressions (sound, images, even matter) are directly reducible to
ordered bits.
Neat and clean, BUT, from whence the "ordering?" Plato might suggest the realm
of ideals; Descartes, the mind of God, the quantum scientist, the collectivity
of observers. [The last explanation gets circular real fast.]
Earlier I suggested that there might be but one Turing Machine and one Infinite
Tape, each and both of which are co-extensive with the Universe. If that were
so ...
... is The Universe "creating itself," modern sense; or "remembering itself,"
ancient Greek roots sense?
No, this posting is not the result of evening with Molly and Lucy.
(MDMA and LSD)
davew
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019, at 6:24 PM, <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Glen,
>
> I like what you wrote below .... a lot.
>
> It is redolent with Pragmatism ... a concern with the "practicial", as
> Eric insists that I say. But there is something else lurking here
> which blind sided me and which I need to think hard about. It's the
> word "creation". Now, you computer folks are truly Gods to me; to me,
> you create stuff all the time. To me, perhaps in my naivety, one of
> those crazy-mad cellular automata, that's life and somebody has
> created it. Did Schelling create segregation. By god, I think he
> did. Did Steve Guerin create ants. Yup, by god, he did. So when a
> computer scientist, programmer, software engineer, ai person, whatever
> you guys prefer to call yourselves, starts talking about "creation",
> my ears perk up.
>
> What the hell is the meaning of 'creation" in those sentences above?
> Here's a proposal: One has "created", when one has written a recipe
> for emergence. One collects stamps; one creates a cake.
>
> Is it possible that my model of monism is based on my understanding of
> a line of code. It would not be the first time that a theory in once
> discipline was based on an imperfect understanding of another.
>
> How you drive my thinking on!
>
> Nick
>
>
> Nick Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University
> <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com> thompnicks...@gmail.com
> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com>
> On Behalf Of glen?C
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 7:47 AM
> To: <mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] constructive explanations (was Re: A pluralistic model
> of the mind?)
>
> OK. I'm going to focus on this distinction. When you explain some thing
> to someone, you have a choice between 2 styles. You can tell them how
> to make it happen or you can tell them how that thing fits in with
> everything else. So, in your eraser behind the book setup, you focus on
> the latter. Erasers are this, books are that, eyeballs are this,
> gravity is that. But you *could* explain what's happening by providing
> the setup recipe and then saying "go do it... I'll wait." I.e. tell
> them to get a friend who sits some distance away, get a book, get an
> eraser, hold the eraser above and behind the book, drop the eraser.
>
> That's the explanation. That is the "methods section". There is no more
> that we need to say. Anything you say after that is speculation and
> *should* be ignored.
>
> So, if you're trying to "explain" killdeer behavior, you lay out a
> recipe for *creating* a killdeer ... maybe with a wrench and some
> pliers in your garage. If you cannot create a killdeer, then you cannot
> understand killdeer.
>
> That's it. That's all I meant.
>
> Now, you might think I'm throwing in the towel. But there are things we
> can do to remedy the impasse presented by not being able to create
> killdeer. We can make our descriptions of killdeer more constructive.
> For example, we can snatch one, put it into an aviary and *manipulate*
> it. Manipulation is the next best thing to creation. But, again, you
> don't need to skip to the end and "explain" why this, why that, how it
> fits in with the universe. All you need do to provide an explanation is
> to say *how* to make the killdeer *do* some behavior. A detailed recipe
> for how some other person can snatch their own killdeer and make it do
> things.
>
> If you can reproducibly *generate* the behavior, then your recipe for
> doing so, is a constructive explanation.
>
> On 12/11/19 9:01 PM, <mailto:thompnicks...@gmail.com>
> thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Friam < <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com>
> > On Behalf Of u?l? ?
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:17 PM
> > To: FriAM < <mailto:friam@redfish.com> friam@redfish.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXT] Re: A pluralistic model of the mind?
> >
> > The thing being left out of this still seems, to me, to be constructive vs
> > ... what? ... analytical explanation.
> >
> > Your larger document beats around that bush quite a bit, I think. But I
> > don't think it ever names/tackles the point explicitly.
> >
> > */[NST===>] I am not sure I quite understand that distinction. Can
> > you say more? /*
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
