At some point, I think we'll be limited by limitations in the way we think, rather than the inputs (media). Humans think by <i>spatializing</i>[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.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-consciousness_english_book-one-chapter-two.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-consciousness_english_...</a><p><pre><code> 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.</code></pre>
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 (<a href="https://vimeo.com/36579366" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/36579366</a>) 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.
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.<p>The real leap forward here? User interface.<p>Everywhere I look, I see instances of that same pattern:<p>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.<p>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.<p>Progress is not algorithms, progress is not ease of use; it's (power of an algorithm / ease of its use).<p>In the end, progress in user interface is progress, _period_.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>And probably that is whats the next step in evolution for us?
Ah, this one again!<p>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.<p>At the meta level, I remain of the belief that this <i>class of activity</i> privileges the concrete over the abstract, and the instance over the general. Having specific examples is useful, but they remain specific.<p>I remain persuaded that symbolic analysis via mathematics and the written word beat all other forms of communication in ability to express complex concepts.
Has anyone any Idea what software he uses?
I would give an arm for that...<p>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.