How can we develop transformative tools for thought?

By Andy Matuschak and Michael Nielsen.

But retrospectively it’s difficult not to be disappointed, to feel that computers have not yet been nearly as transformative as far older tools for thought, such as language and writing.

This is the wrong standard to apply, one that not even Engelbart claimed. It shares with Engelbart’s mission a core problem: the singularity. If you did invent a widget that is as transformative as language, that widget would carry you to the far side of the singularity. Engelbart viewed that as a problem that the widget could solve, but of course the final solution of the post-human overlords might not be precisely what one would hope.

Instead of aiming for tools as transformative as language, how about tools as transformative as bookkeeping? Or library shelving?

Many people have spent years working on projects in this area. Some of those whose work doesn’t seem to be mentioned here include Ted Nelson, Doug Lenat, Norbert Streitz, Heiko Haller, Catherine C. Marshall, Claus Atzenbeck, Frank Shipman, Jamie Blustein, Ken Anderson, and me. (That’s just off the top of my head. Sorry for all the omissions.)

Matuschak and Nielsen assume that meaningful work in tools for thought occurs in big companies like Adobe. That’s not been my experience, though of course I’d say that.

Still, it’s 20,000 words and a lot of the ideas are important. Central: the importance of emotion to learning, and the crucial requirement that tools for thought be developed in tandem with deep, original creative work.

Tinderbox’s suggestion for a relevant link: As We May Think: New Notes.