I'm not Ken but I don't agree.
I read this piece of TerryWorld as a well-intended but innocent technocratic
view that the experts who program their smart machines will always do so
with value-free representations of "the right situations" and that the
results should therefore be received as "good" for everyone.
The innocence comes I think from believing that interest and power is
non-existent or benign, that cultural evolution is rational, and that human
life can be accurately and satisfactorily represented mathematically. To
paraphrase Korzybski, the math is not the world.
I also prefer "workspace" to "solution space, 1,2,3,4,..." because it has
people in it democratically representing and working out their interests
with one another.
Jerry
On 5/15/14 8:34 AM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I suggest that in light of the above, ANY and EVERY perspective on design
> that focuses on design as choosing selections from within a solution space
> must naturally assume that design is not a purely human activity, and
> instead can be computerised and automated. Do you agree?
--
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|