Francis,
Please post this on the PCP mailing list. I have been trying to update my
account for permission to post on PCP (is CJOSLYN out of town?) but to no
avail. I wrote this a couple of weeks ago...
--------------------ORIGINAL TEXT BEGINS HERE------------------------------
I seem to recall a reply by Bruce to Francis' initial "WWW-SuperBrain"
post, which involved the question of questioning the VALUES of such an
experiment.
(sorry that the original text is not here, but we can all use our
non-electronically extended memory.)
Francis did reply saying that the WWW Super-Brain *WAS* happening, so that
any "questions of value of such a system" were missing the point.
In other words: It has happened already, It is in the process of happening,
It will happen whether you like it or not.
It seems however, that may still be something to question here, in terms of
values.
To connect the recent thread on religion to the previous WWW-SuperBrain
thread, here is a quote from Bruce which I direct to Francis:
> I think that if we all together do
> not take questions related to higher values seriously we will all together
> suffer, but we may suffer in any case, even in the process of coming to
> terms with such values.
As an architect-in-training and a designer of hypertextual environments
(esp. on the WWW), I have certain concerns about the values - or to use a
more loaded term - the ETHICS, involved in the design and implementation
(ie creation) of environments... particularly those environments which form
the background for human relationships.
Some food for thought on this matter was provided for me last Fall by Dr.
Alberto Perez-Gomez, a prof here at McGill University. I summarize:
The name Daedalus (the mythological architect and father of Icarus), is
derived from the root 'daedale,' which was a term used to describe a broad
range of tools and objects...usually small, carefully designed and
skillfully crafted. The architect of these daedele would have a tricky role
to play... as an creator of daedale she would be have the ethical
responsibility to evaluate these things and the proper way they should be
used. In other words, one does not merely create, but create with an
INTENTION. ('moral intention' sounds too harsh, but you can use that if
you'd like.)
The role of the architect is therefore one of a tight-rope walker, because
even with the best intentions, daedale get misused, or worse still, the
architect herself does not understand the inherent values (ethical
implications) of the particular tool.
Therefore Daedalus' maze had its problems (for the architect himself,
actually), and we all know what happened to Icarus when he used the wings
improperly.
Lest you think these notions are archaic and superstitious (but remember, I
am involved directly with this WWW-beast), I will throw-in two more
contemporary references which I admit don't come from the most rigourously
academic sources, but nevertheless have content worthy of mention:
* Marshall McLuhan saw all media as "extensions of ourselves," and his
infamous epithet "The Medium is the Message" means that our creations
(technologies, esp. technologies for communication) carry VALUES with them.
He told people to become AWARE of their environment and CHOOSE which modes
of communication to use (and to what extent), because a blind acceptance of
technology often leads to great suffering.
* Michael Crichton (ok, snort quietly and just listen), in his BOOK
_Jurrasic Park_, wrote a little paragraph somewhere in the beginning about
how science and technology has a value problem in that it offers people
power through inheritance, not earning. Compare the years of training to
become a Samurai with a Somalian tribesman acquiring of an M-16 assault
rifle. The problem is compounded by the fact that not only does science
offer its fruits to anyone who can press a trigger, but it does not provide
a framework for questioning the value of its creations even for those who
DO learn and earn their technology.
Francis, before we embrace the SuperBrain, can't we decide, through design,
what values we want it to propagate? Somebody is GOING to design it, so
shouldn't those people take its ethical implications as part of the design
criteria?
peace love and good happiness stuff,
Daniel Spira
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGill School of Architecture
spira@architecture.mcgill.ca