Hi, Terry,
You have not yet responded to my reply yesterday. I requested a substantive argument with empirical evidence to support the claims you made yesterday when you stated that my position on knowledge and knowing was a “dead duck.” I’d still welcome a response.
With respect to your latest post, I’ll answer after you state your position on six simple questions:
1) Do you assert that computers or other machines can make preferential choices? By this, I mean, do you assert that computers or other machines can make self-motivated choices as distinct from programmed algorithms where human beings create programs of the form “If [x] then choose [1], if [y] then choose [2]”?
2) Do you assert that computers or other machines warrant an ontological status equal to that of human beings or other living creatures such as horses, dogs, primates, or birds?
3) Do you assert that human beings owe to computers or to other machines the same ethical consideration that we owe to other human beings or to living creatures such as horses, dogs, primates, or birds?
4) In the nations that subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would you assert that computers or other machines are covered by the clauses governing laws that meet the standards established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
If you have not read the UDHR, you will find it at:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
5) You have stated that you believe designers will soon be licensed and held responsible for their professional decisions and actions in much the same way that engineers, physicians, lawyers, and psychologists are licensed and held responsible for their professional decisions and actions. Do you believe that computers or other machines can be licensed in this way?
6) If you believe that computers or other machines can be licensed in this way, who is to pay the penalty when a design project is found faulty in the same way that an engineer would be liable for a faulty engineering project or a surgeon physician would be liable for negligence in a flawed medical operation – including the possibility of criminal negligence in a severe case?
When you answer these six questions, I will be able to respond to your recent post.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Phone +61 3 9214 6102 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|