Dear colleagues,

 

I would like to initiate a conversation at the crossroads of two seemingly distant fields: philosophy and design. While philosophy traditionally concerns itself with abstract questions of knowledge, existence, and values, design operates in the realm of concrete problem‑solving and artifact creation. Yet, I argue that their convergence reveals profound insights about human cognition and the nature of practical reasoning.

Core Question: How does the designer’s mode of thinking—iterative, prototypical, and context‑sensitive—challenge or complement classical philosophical epistemologies (e.g., rationalism, empiricism)?

Key Points for Discussion

Design thinking embodies Aristotle’s phronesis (practical wisdom): solutions emerge not from universal laws alone, but through situated judgment. Can we view design processes as a modern embodiment of virtue epistemology?

The role of prototyping in knowledge generation

Unlike theoretical inquiry, design validates ideas through material experimentation. Does this suggest a non‑propositional form of knowledge (similar to Michael Polanyi’s “tacit knowledge”)?

Design manipulates sensory experience to shape understanding. Could this inform phenomenological accounts of perception (e.g., Merleau‑Ponty’s embodied cognition)?

Let’s explore whether design, far from being merely “applied aesthetics,” might offer a new lens for understanding how humans co‑create meaning with the material world.

 

Respectfully, Tonia

Modern methods of creating AI/LLM involve designing a world in which this new creation learns everything on its own, i.e., there is no stage of imposing knowledge on it that is provided by humans during training. It has to go through this millions, billions of times to understand and remember what it can and cannot do, and how “physics” works in a given “world”.

For example, we have an 8x8 chessboard and pieces, but we do not tell the AI/LLM what the possibilities are for each pieces. We only do f(x)=[giant number of parameters] which returns true or false. If it tries to move a piece to a place that the piece cannot move to, it immediately fails (return false) the entire game. From this, the AI/LLM deduces what possibilities each piece has. It learns “physics”. Later, through millions and billions of repetitions, it figures out how to play the game. *)

If you create a function f(x,....) = (....) that returns true or false, and you start randomizing the parameters, eventually some combination may work.. You just need a very long time for randomization.

You have four blocks in your DNA, and you arrange them in some order, e.g., random, and it either works or it doesn't. The creatures that survive are those that have the right combination of these random blocks in a given environment ( f(x,....) = true for them)

*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaZero

54 minutes ago, tonia.saprykina said:

Let’s explore whether design, far from being merely “applied aesthetics,” might offer a new lens for understanding how humans co‑create meaning with the material world.

Welcome Tonia and thank you for an interesting topic.

Not sure which side of this divide you are coming from but the subject fits nicely into my observation that our consideration processes can be divided into two camps (though there is obviouly overlap as well as each can be used to support the other).

I call these Analysis and Synthesis.

Analysis is the study of something that is already there.
This may involve measurement, observation, comparison, description, recording.

Synthesis is the production of something that is not already there.
I hold that synthesis is actually the more difficult of the two.

For instance it is one thing to take photographs, measurements and so on of a bridge across a valley, and analyse how strong it is.

It is quite a different matter to look at an empty valley and buiild a bridge across it, that can carry say a railway train.

The Romans built multi-tier multi-arch viaducts.

It is instructive to find out how they knew where to start the base of the arches so that when the got to the top and the edges it would all end up in the right place and fit together.

Take care how you respond in your first 24 hours as you only have 5 posts available. After that you can post at will.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is quite a different matter to look at an empty valley and buiild a bridge across it, that can carry say a railway train.

It's just a matter of purpose (aim/goal in AI/LLM world). Before they build that bridge, they have to get around by boat..

The only questions are: 1) how, 2) how much will it cost, and 3) will it ever pay for itself?

Some say that the goals in the current LLM are poorly set, which is why they make statements (hallucinate) when they don't know something.

If someone plays a game where you live or die, you will choose your answer without batting an eyelid.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

It is instructive to find out how they knew where to start the base of the arches so that when the got to the top and the edges it would all end up in the right place and fit together.

If someone can place a piece of wood across a river that is 2 meters wide so as not to get their feet wet (or if the tree fell down on its own due to old age), then they can imagine everything you are talking about right now. Don't go to extremes. Bridges were built long before the Romans.

If you give a three-year-old child building blocks e.g. Lego, they will figure out how to build an arch bridge on their own. All they need are the blocks.

Arkadiko Bridge (Greece) is from 1300-1200 B.C. (i.e. 400-500 years before Roma establishment).

Edited November 16, 2025Nov 16 by Sensei

50 minutes ago, Sensei said:

It's just a matter of purpose (aim/goal in AI/LLM world). Before they build that bridge, they have to get around by boat..

The only questions are: 1) how, 2) how much will it cost, and 3) will it ever pay for itself?

Some say that the goals in the current LLM are poorly set, which is why they make statements (hallucinate) when they don't know something.

If someone plays a game where you live or die, you will choose your answer without batting an eyelid.

If someone can place a piece of wood across a river that is 2 meters wide so as not to get their feet wet (or if the tree fell down on its own due to old age), then they can imagine everything you are talking about right now. Don't go to extremes. Bridges were built long before the Romans.

If you give a three-year-old child building blocks e.g. Lego, they will figure out how to build an arch bridge on their own. All they need are the blocks.

Arkadiko Bridge (Greece) is from 1300-1200 B.C. (i.e. 400-500 years before Roma establishment).

Softly Softly please.

I am hoping that Tonia is a real human being and that "dear colleagues" is only an excruciation of a translator.

I stand firmly by my bridge example.

I could have chosen all sorts of examples say a garden or a stand that the Chelsea Flower Show.

Or I could have quoted Brouwer "All architects should actually be designing a chair".

1 hour ago, tonia.saprykina said:

Core Question: How does the designer’s mode of thinking—iterative, prototypical, and context‑sensitive—challenge or complement classical philosophical epistemologies (e.g., rationalism, empiricism)?

It complements those mentioned and challenges others.

Much of the design process involves the resolution of conflicting specifications. I found the approach of dialectical materialism a very helpful tool here.

In contrast, idealist and post-modern thinking would tend I think to lead to lengthy project overruns.

1 hour ago, tonia.saprykina said:

Unlike theoretical inquiry, design validates ideas through material experimentation. Does this suggest a non‑propositional form of knowledge (similar to Michael Polanyi’s “tacit knowledge”)?

Just because it looks right doesn't mean that it is right: but if it looks wrong, then wrong it invariably is.

Not always easy to explain exactly how it's wrong but one red flag too many; some niggling lack of symmetry; a certain slapdash character in the detailing...

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Or I could have quoted Brouwer "All architects should actually be designing a chair".

So that it's difficult to understand what it's really about? ;)

It is difficult to come up with something innovative. One innovation is a development of an innovation from years ago, which is a development of an innovation from hundreds of years ago, etc.

Innovative, it is a flying chair (magnetic? drones?) with a built-in toilet for waste disposal.. ;)

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

I am hoping that Tonia is a real human being and that "dear colleagues" is only an excruciation of a translator.

I did not suggest what you are suggesting.

The use of a translator is obvious because it makes mistakes that are easy to spot, which ordinary people do not use in their speech ("dear colleagues", this is not what I meant - translators put quotation marks with an internal comma or period, e.g. “blah,” whereas someone writing it by hand would write “blah", ).