Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: landman@sun.com (Howard A. Landman) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: A fallacy: That which evolved can be rationally designed. Message-ID: Date: 7 Jul 89 00:07:30 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View Lines: 18 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article truesdel@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov (David Truesdell) writes: >I fail to see a significant distinction between duplication/emulation, and >"design". To duplicate, you need to know what's there, to emulate, you need >to know how what's there works. Anyone with a copier can duplicate Escher. Emulating Escher (creating a new artwork in his style) is *MUCH* harder. Designing (creating an artwork in your own style, and creating your own style) may be harder still. The information content of a copy, given the original, is very small. You can choose to make a copy by pressing one button. The information content of a *de* *novo* design is very large. There is no one button to push. You must make many decisions. Howard A. Landman landman@sun.com