defining computational biodesign
design escapes definition, and is often butchered by its practitioners. definitions such as "design is the combination of art and science" or "design is the combination of art and engineering", obscure the exactness of how the discipline of design is different from others, and is the reason why redundant questions are asked repeatedly( 'why call it ux design if all design is about user experience', which is a curious but fairly ignorant question that flattens multiple things into one 'intelligent' question). returning to first principles is necessary if one is to have clarity about what one's role is.
for that reason, i often return to humberto maturana's definition from his essay published in an v2 anthology: technomorphica
"An artist or engineer makes a design by disposing a set of elements and a configuration of relations between them in a way that constitutes a dynamic totality in dynamic congruence with a medium that has also been designed ad hoc...any thing that we may choose to design can be implemented, if the design respects the structural coherence of the domain in which it takes place" -metadesign, maturana.
such a definition, when modified, becomes useful.
an 'x' design practice can be defined as the intentional configuration of relations between elements of x medium in a way that constitutes a dynamic totality in dynamic congruence with said medium, in order to serve certain concretely defined human needs, and which obeys the laws imposed by the structural limits of the given implemented domain.
graphic design is the configuration of graphical elements in a variety of mediums and domains: print, material, packaging, experiential, UI.
industrial design is the configuration of industrial/manufactured parts in a variety of mediums and domains: furniture, ceramic, glass, product, consumer electronics etc.
user-experience is the configuration of elements of cognitive models/processes in a variety of mediums and domains: XR, hardware, speculative, mobile apps, websites etc. this is why the confusion arises, because cognitive-models and processes can be applied to every single object in our lives, both physical and digital. at this point we begin to see the emergence of "universal design hammers", whose tools can be applied to a variety of disciplines in both design and non-design domains.
this is where the clarification of emerging disciplines such as "biodesign" and "computational design" becomes far easier, and we can begin to see from this definition that at some point, computational design and biodesign will ultimately become one discipline.
computational design is the configuration of elements of computational/algorithmic processes in a variety of mediums and domains: materials, spaces, software, graphics, products (such as robots). this makes computational design a sort of "universal hammer" because of the far reaching tentacles of compute entering everything.
biodesign is the configuration of biological elements and processes in a variety of mediums and domains. so far, the extent of what this exactly entails is yet to be seen, but we can observe certain traces of what this may look like. mycelial biomaterials and 3d printing provide an example in the material domain, while artificial-life and biology-inspired algorithms feature in computers. we also see some examples in india: the east kolkata wetlands and the root bridges of meghalaya.
biodesign and computational design seem to herald a new wave of "universal hammers", of which the latter seems to begin already rapidly spreading.
the computational biodesigner is one who at some level exists as a "meta-designer" practitioner.
meta design may refer to the design of the design process itself, and is widely applicable to design search algorithms set within a given n-dimensional theoretical design space, where the creativity is not only in the varying diversity of clades/phylogenetic lines that emerge from the space possessing sufficient fitness, but also in the formulation of the search process itself via implemented algorithmic rules and design constraints. thus, within the theoretical design space, evolutionary and algorithmic processes may converge toward adaptive peaks, with morphological and behavioral configurations stabilizing around recurrent attractor states.
the theoretical design space not only includes morphology parameters, but also behavioral, ecologic and physiological parameters, this subsuming the purely shape concerned theoretical morphospace. how a design adaptation "emerges" in nature, including its behavior etc, may require keen observation and extended mapping/creative endeavors.
morphogenesis is interesting as a designer, especially in living matter systems, because of the question of “designoid” structures: Structures that are designed but without a conscious designer, the design appearing as a continuity solution to a survival problem posited in an geo-ecological milieu. If the organism survives and outcompetes, its solution is “correct”. If it doesn’t, it simply disappears. The interesting thing about designoid structures is precisely the phenomenon of convergence: multiple organisms will converge on a similar body-plan simply because it’s an effective solution. Therefore, objective “designs” in terms of morphology and to some extent function exist regardless of a conscious “designer”.
these solutions do not exist on an infinite plane of possibility. Instead, it exists within the bounds of Phylogeny, Physics and adaptive peaks within the ecological environment. Therefore, rather than darwin's "endless forms most beautiful", we are stuck with a bounded set of accessible discrete body-plans.
so we can redefine the original x definition to:
An 'X' design process can be defined as the configuration of relations between elements of an X medium in a way that constitutes a dynamic totality in dynamic congruence with said medium, in order to serve certain defined needs, while obeying the structural limits of the implemented domain.
The search for design solutions need not originate in human cognition, and can occur through non-human processes such as evolution, morphogenesis, and self-organization. Once design search is understood in this way, the question of design shifts from simply determining an outcome to determining the principles, constraints, and evaluative criteria by which a search is directed.
Human-centered design is therefore not a medium of design, but one of many modes of directing the design process: it privileges human needs, values, experiences, and capacities in the framing and evaluation of possible solutions.
Planet-centered design can thus be understood as a mode of directing computational biodesign that extends this evaluative frame beyond the human. It considers not only human needs, but also the needs and ecological conditions of the diverse forms of life with which we share the planet; upholds ecological values; considers forms of experience beyond the merely human; and seeks to understand more-than-human capacities in the framing and evaluation of possible solutions.
This requires design to interface with science, but not simply to reproduce scientific knowledge. Science becomes a means through which design can investigate the conditions, processes, and constraints from which solutions emerge: how living systems respond to phenomena within the Earth system; how biological and computational processes can be encoded, coupled, or translated across different substrates; and how designed systems might respond to ecological needs. The objective is therefore not merely to design for the planet, but to develop methods by which planetary conditions themselves can participate in the direction of the design process.
we can then engage with such a practice through common ground: -> scale free systems -> morphology -> behavior strategy and game theory -> evolution and adaptation -> networks -> emergence -> information structures -> constraints and rules -> feedback, control and perception -> morphological commputation -> embodiment -> robustness and error