Hi Paul
When I said "even scientists go against their training" I was also pointing out
really deep problems in humanity's attempts at thinking (we are quite terrible
thinkers!).
If we still make most decisions without realizing why, and use conventional
"thinking tools" as ways to rationalize them, then technologists providing
vastly more efficient, wide and deep, sources for rationalizing is the opposite
of a great gift.
Imagine a Google that also retrieves counter-examples. Or one that actively
tries to help find chains of reasoning that are based on principles one -- or
others -- claim to hold. Or one that looks at the system implications of local
human desires and actions.
Etc.
I'm guessing that without a lot of training, most humans would not choose to
use a real "thinking augmenter".
Best wishes,
Alan
________________________________
From: Paul Homer <paul_ho...@yahoo.ca>
To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>
Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
Hi Alan,
I agree that there is, and probably will always be, a necessity to 'think
outside of the box', although if the box was larger, it would be less
necessary. But I wasn't really thinking about scientists and the pursuit of new
knowledge, but rather the trillions? of mundane decisions that people regularly
make on a daily basis.
A tool like Wikipedia really helps in being able to access a refined chunk of
knowledge, but the navigation and categorization are statically defined.
Sometimes what I am trying to find is spread horizontally across a large number
of pages. If, as a simple example, a person could have a dynamically generated
Wikipedia page created just for them that factored in their current knowledge
and the overall context of the situation then they'd be able to utilize that
knowledge more appropriately. They could still choose to skim or ignore it, but
if they wanted a deeper understanding, they could read the compiled research in
a few minutes.
The Web, particularly for programmers, has been a great tease for this. You can
look up any coding example instantly (although you do have to sort through the
bad examples and misinformation). The downside is that I find it far more
common for people to not really understanding what is actually happening
underneath, but I suspect that that is driven by increasing time pressures and
expectations rather than but a shift in the way we relate to knowledge.
What I think would really help is not just to allow access to the breadth of
knowledge, but to also enable individuals to get to the depth as well. Also the
ability to quickly recognize lies, myths, propaganda, etc.
Paul.
Sent from my iPad
On 2013-09-08, at 7:12 AM, Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Paul
>
>
>I'm sure you are aware that yours is a very "Engelbartian" point of view, and
>I think there is still much value in trying to make things better in this
>direction.
>
>
>However, it's also worth noting the studies over the last 40 years (and
>especially recently) that show how often even scientists go against their
>training and knowledge in their decisions, and are driven more by desire and
>environment than they realize. More knowledge is not the answer here -- but
>it's possible that very different kinds of training could help greatly.
>
>
>Best wishes,
>
>
>Alan
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Paul Homer <paul_ho...@yahoo.ca>
>To: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>; Fundamentals of New Computing
><fonc@vpri.org>; Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 12:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>
>
>
>Hi Alan,
>
>
>I can't predict what will come, but I definitely have a sense of where I think
>we should go. Collectively as a species, we know a great deal, but
>individually people still make important choices based on too little
>knowledge.
>
>
>
>In a very abstract sense 'intelligence' is just a more dynamic offshoot of
>'evolution'. A sort of hyper-evolution. It allows a faster route towards
>reacting to changes in the enviroment, but it is still very limited by
>individual perspectives of the world. I don't think we need AI in the classic
>Hollywood sense, but we could enable a sort of hyper-intelligence by giving
>people easily digestable access to our collective understanding. Not a 'borg'
>style single intelligence, but rather just the tools that can be used to make
>descisions that are more "accurate" than an individual would have made
>normally.
>
>
>
>To me the path to get there lies within our understanding of data. It needs to
>be better organized, better understood and far more accessible. It can't keep
>getting caught up in silos, and it really needs ways to share it
>appropriately. The world changes dramatically when we've developed the ability
>to fuse all of our digitized information into one great structural model that
>has the capability to separate out fact from fiction. It's a long way off, but
>I've always thought it was possible...
>
>
>Paul.
>
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>
>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 7:48:22 AM
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Jonathan
>>
>>
>>We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others
>>on "burning issues" and "better directions" in computing.
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Jonathan Edwards <edwa...@csail.mit.edu>
>>To: fonc@vpri.org
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>
>>
>>
>>That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
>>problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems to
>>work on or are you soliciting proposals?
>>
>>
>>Jonathan
>>
>>
>>
>>From: Alan Kay <alan.n...@yahoo.com>
>>>To: Fundamentals of New Computing <fonc@vpri.org>
>>>Cc:
>>>Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Subject: Re: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>>
>>>Hi Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>It actually got written and given to NSF and approved, etc., a while ago,
>>>but needs a little more work before posting on the VPRI site.
>>>
>>>
>>>Meanwhile we've been consumed by setting up a number of additional, and
>>>wider scale, research projects, and this has occupied pretty much all of my
>>>time for the last 5-6 months.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>> From: Dan Melchione <dm.f...@melchione.com>
>>>To: fonc@vpri.org
>>>Sent: Monday, September 2, 2013 10:40 AM
>>>Subject: [fonc] Final STEP progress report abandoned?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Haven't seen much regarding this for a while. Has it been been abandoned or
>>>put at such low priority that it is effectively abandoned?
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fonc mailing list
>>>fonc@vpri.org
>>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>fonc mailing list
>>>fonc@vpri.org
>>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>>
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>fonc@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fonc mailing list
>>fonc@vpri.org
>>http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
>>
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
