
Media for Thinking the Unthinkable - cefstat
http://worrydream.com/MediaForThinkingTheUnthinkable/
======
hliyan
At some point, I think we'll be limited by limitations in the way we think,
rather than the inputs (media). Humans think by _spatializing_ [1] (I'm using
Julian Jaynes' definition here). Which is why pen-and-paper and electronic
analogs thereof endure -- it's a 2D version of what goes on in our mind.

[1] [http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-
consciousness_english_...](http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-
consciousness_english_book-one-chapter-two.php)

    
    
        Moreover, things that in the physical-behavioral world
        do not have a spatial quality are made to have such in
        consciousness. Otherwise we cannot be conscious of them. 
        This we shall call spatialization.
    
        Time is an obvious example. If I ask you to think of the
        last hundred years, you may have a tendency to excerpt
        the matter in such a way that the succession of years is
        spread out, probably from left to right. But of course
        there is no left or right in time. There is only before
        and after, and these do not have any spatial properties
        whatever — except by analog. You cannot, absolutely
        cannot think of time except by spatializing it.

~~~
didgeoridoo
The goal of Bret Victor's interactive visualization work is to take concepts
that are inconceivable (because, as you say, they are not immediately
tractable to spatialization) and, through clever transformation, MAKE them
conceivable. Are there "inputs" where this doesn't work? Maybe — but I'm not
sure where they could be found in nature.

------
jrodl3r
IMO bret is a truly revolutionary thinker in the field of CS, really a genius
of our time. understudy of the similarly gifted Alan Kay. Inventing on
Principle ([https://vimeo.com/36579366](https://vimeo.com/36579366))
profoundly changed my perspective on life and software when I first saw it
years ago, much like the Hubble photos. I wish our culture and society
cherished and gave more credit to these individuals.

~~~
marktangotango
I don't know, seems like a lot of bloviating and hand waving to me.

>>Media are our thinking tools. Our representations of a system are how we
understand it.

I got this quote from the site, seems to be the central premise for this
endeavor. Is this even valid? Are media our 'thinking tools' or something
else, like our 'communicate to others what I'm thinking tool'? There's a big
difference imo. This person appears to be going for a Sapir Whorf Hypothesis
applied to media. Seems to be similarly fraught with peril ie open to debate
as SWH is.

~~~
carussell
> Are media our 'thinking tools' or something else, like our 'communicate to
> others what I'm thinking tool'?

What you're saying essentially is that the only times digestion of input would
benefit from the things Bret Victor talks about is when those inputs are
others' output. It seems that this suggestion would have only come from
someone who finds themselves dealing almost entirely with the output of others
and trying to make sense of it, rather than any original research or thought.
What's more, is that I feel like I'm in some sort of Escherian loop here,
because to anyone for whom is the case, they'd never have been interested in
trying to make the suggestion that these tools wouldn't necessarily help
elsewhere (having no "elsewhere" to contrast it to.)

The types of tools Bret focuses on are as important if not moreso for solo
endeavors of research/discovery/understanding as they are for trying to
achieve person-to-person communication with the smallest possible time-to-
understanding penalty.

~~~
marktangotango
>> What's more, is that I feel like I'm in some sort of Escherian loop here

Indeed. More to the point, what I'm implying is similar to the Allegory of the
Cave. Thoughts are not constrained by time, space, or physics. I can build
whatever structures in my mind, create, theorize, hypothesize, but if I can't
communicate that to others, what have I done? Navel gazing I wager. Example,
Einstein was really good at communicating his ideas thru writing and
mathematics. But whatever one communicates is a projection, a shadow on the
wall of the real content of the thoughts within. The point being physical
media of any sort is a poor substitute for the canvas of the mind.

~~~
carussell
> I can build whatever structures in my mind, create, theorize, hypothesize,
> but if I can't communicate that to others, what have I done?

Most of the types of tools being discussed here are ones to help with the
first part. Not being able to communicate something after having figured it
out is an appreciable problem, but not being able to satisfy the
preconditions—of having figured it out for oneself to begin with—has
necessarily at least as many negative consequences.

As for the question, there exist plenty of contexts where a realistic answer
would be "quite a lot". There are lots of engineering problems that fit in
here. It doesn't matter that you're able to communicate to someone the novel
discovery you made that went into the implementation of the software they're
using. That the software/bridge/ag technique/etc simply _exists_ comes packed
with benefits all on its own.

This isn't even to mention that, in regards to communicating to others
something that you've worked out for yourself, the tools that you would have
used to do that work initially (e.g., visualizations) are apt not to be
described for that purpose as "completely useless".

------
slashnull
There's that bit which made me chuckle at first, then think. A lot. When he
shows an algorithm written in prose, then in modern mathematical notation.

The real leap forward here? User interface.

Everywhere I look, I see instances of that same pattern:

One person or small team of very clever people develops a given technique or
algorithm, and a gigantic army of technological lumberjacks go out and
progressively make it easy to use.

And it's not just UI as in "the paying consumer of a product"; it's UI as in
the person which will build the previous UI, and to person which builds that
person's tools, and so on, turtles all the way down.

Progress is not algorithms, progress is not ease of use; it's (power of an
algorithm / ease of its use).

In the end, progress in user interface is progress, _period_.

------
kriro
This is actually very interesting. The title is pretty misleading though. I
fully expected some site dedicated to sensitive political issues or ethical
problems but instead it's about thinking about hard problems or things that
are hard to reason about without standard methods. Looks like one can spend a
lot of time with the material linked there. I've seen it before (it's "just"
the Victor tale spread into sections) but alas I have forgotten a lot of it
already.

------
bokononon
How do you think the unthinkable? With an ithberg.

------
deanstag
When i saw this talk, it got me thinking. Does anybody else feel that human
beings inherently have limit to the amount of things and concepts they can
think by themselves. His talk presents tools that helps push this limit by
some amount. Its not just about thinking, its about how much information can
be processed, modified and assimilated.

The books, media and the internet has been able to help us push this limit
slightly more. A single person doesnt have to learn every science, but can get
the updates from each if he wants to. He doesnt have to work hard in that
field to learn from it. Maybe true advances in AI would take more of this
processing from the person and help him move higher in terms of understanding
and knowledge.

And probably that is whats the next step in evolution for us?

------
pnathan
Ah, this one again!

At the specific level, I don't consider this strongly useful information being
presented: the examples are generally more useful when represented in math in
the usual abstractions.

At the meta level, I remain of the belief that this _class of activity_
privileges the concrete over the abstract, and the instance over the general.
Having specific examples is useful, but they remain specific.

I remain persuaded that symbolic analysis via mathematics and the written word
beat all other forms of communication in ability to express complex concepts.

~~~
avmich
> this class of activity privileges the concrete over the abstract

Agree, however here are other considerations.

Symbolic analysis won over words for tasks like x^2+10x=39 , so advantages
like these are not absolute.

Math notation continue to evolve - e.g., APL language invention attempted
strict inline notation. I'd say instead of written "word" a generic form of
communications is free-form drawing - including schemas, diagrams, graphs,
blueprints. Of course here we use pen and paper, and smart computers would be
careful not to get in the way of what we can do "with the speed of thought".
E.g., the oscillator schema which Bret displayed and then analyzed had to be
first created, and to "record a thought" scribbling on paper a shape of a
transistor is likely faster than, say, dragging it from an electronic
components library, which first has to be ready for that.

When you don't know a symbolic method, you use specific numbers in specific
examples, look into many examples and then generalize - moving to symbols.
When you already know an appropriate symbolic method, you can switch gears and
instead of "specific" numbers use "specific" symbolic manipulations.

------
Radle
Has anyone any Idea what software he uses? I would give an arm for that...

It is a really great Tool for communication, I have spend a high amount of
time with my Team re-talking things to make sure everyone is clear about
what's going on. It feels wasted after watching the talk.

------
pointernil
... imagine coming back from this to a power-point presentations in your
office.

------
Ftuuky
What a great talk.

