4 ms·

> Taken at face value, the phrase tool for thought doesn't have the word 'computer' or 'digital' anywhere in it. It suggests nothing about software systems or i

by mhep 4y ago

> Taken at face value, the phrase tool for thought doesn't have the word 'computer' or 'digital' anywhere in it. It suggests nothing about software systems or interfaces. It's simply meant to refer to tools that help humans think thoughts; potentially new, different, and better kinds of thoughts than we currently think. I think the omission of technology helps obscure a key part of the most recent rise in "tools for thought". "Tools for thought" are not so much about thinking as they are about substituting thinking with the exploration of technologies and tools (something I am certainly guilty of). "Tools for thought" give you the feeling that you are doing thinking much in the same way that TikTok videos might give you the feeling that you are learning something. That is why so many tools can proliferate in this space: they are not satisfying the desire to think, they are satisfying the desire to use (new) tools. Hence people keep switching and finding new and 'better' "tools for thought". You would think that the people most popular in the "tools for thought" space would be those producing the most interesting or novel ... thoughts. Instead, they are people who explain how to use "tools for thought", introducing new taxonomical systems and technologies. To what end?

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Definitely. The novelty of new technology usurps novel thought. The experience of the medium supplants the message. The ecstasy of communication negates meaning... etc. I'd honestly have thought that after 50 years we'd have overcome this, settled into a plateau of productive, reflective progress that uses digital tools instead of indulging in them. But the churn of form and fashion, relentless progress of the tools and their markets needed to fuel growth has actually kept us mentally paralysed, enchanted, in an era where deep human thought is more necessary than ever. Perhaps long-lived alien civilisations know this as the real answer to the Fermi Paradox. It isn't war and nuclear weapons that kills species. They just get PlayStations and amuse themselves to death.
- CrypticShift 4y ago
  > after 50 years we'd have overcome this, settled into a plateau of productive, reflective progress that uses digital tools. IMO The problem is that, for all these years, "digital tools" progress was highjacked in service of corporation’s goals. the tft spirit is kind of different in that respect. > has actually kept us mentally paralysed, enchanted, in an era where deep human thought is more necessary than ever. Every time I take a deep dive into "quality" journalism/academia/books, I 'm reminded that all that necessary "deep human thought" we crave is already out there for the taking. We don't need more of it or even better. We need more people do open their minds to it. But if billions of those people amuse themselves to death with media, and millions fashionably consume their digital tools as they do for everything else in their life, I think you should solely blame the influence of crass capitalism for that. Tft kind of ideas, are a solution-in-waiting, not the cause of it.
CrypticShift 4y ago
> That is why so many tools can proliferate in this space: they are not satisfying the desire to think, they are satisfying the desire to use (new) tools. > Instead, they are people who explain how to use "tools for thought", introducing new taxonomical systems and technologies. To what end? At a higher level, I see this as natural evolution feeding off all that "desire for new tools" to (in the longer term) create better design for our "Information machines". It is like this is the Cambrian explosion for the "information level" of life (Whatever that is). I say "let it be". But (to return to the personal level) We should indeed explicitly police the boundaries between the 2 activities: experimenting (or even playing) with new stuff on one hand, and producing/thinking on a stable healthy (but still evolving) system on the other. It is confounding the two that is the real problem, not the "tools of thought" in themselves. I'm not saying it is easy either. (I'm guilty as charged)

by mhep 4y ago

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Definitely. The novelty of new technology usurps novel thought. The experience of the medium supplants the message. The ecstasy of communication negates meaning... etc. I'd honestly have thought that after 50 years we'd have overcome this, settled into a plateau of productive, reflective progress that uses digital tools instead of indulging in them. But the churn of form and fashion, relentless progress of the tools and their markets needed to fuel growth has actually kept us mentally paralysed, enchanted, in an era where deep human thought is more necessary than ever. Perhaps long-lived alien civilisations know this as the real answer to the Fermi Paradox. It isn't war and nuclear weapons that kills species. They just get PlayStations and amuse themselves to death.

CrypticShift 4y ago
> after 50 years we'd have overcome this, settled into a plateau of productive, reflective progress that uses digital tools. IMO The problem is that, for all these years, "digital tools" progress was highjacked in service of corporation’s goals. the tft spirit is kind of different in that respect. > has actually kept us mentally paralysed, enchanted, in an era where deep human thought is more necessary than ever. Every time I take a deep dive into "quality" journalism/academia/books, I 'm reminded that all that necessary "deep human thought" we crave is already out there for the taking. We don't need more of it or even better. We need more people do open their minds to it. But if billions of those people amuse themselves to death with media, and millions fashionably consume their digital tools as they do for everything else in their life, I think you should solely blame the influence of crass capitalism for that. Tft kind of ideas, are a solution-in-waiting, not the cause of it.

CrypticShift 4y ago

> That is why so many tools can proliferate in this space: they are not satisfying the desire to think, they are satisfying the desire to use (new) tools. > Instead, they are people who explain how to use "tools for thought", introducing new taxonomical systems and technologies. To what end? At a higher level, I see this as natural evolution feeding off all that "desire for new tools" to (in the longer term) create better design for our "Information machines". It is like this is the Cambrian explosion for the "information level" of life (Whatever that is). I say "let it be". But (to return to the personal level) We should indeed explicitly police the boundaries between the 2 activities: experimenting (or even playing) with new stuff on one hand, and producing/thinking on a stable healthy (but still evolving) system on the other. It is confounding the two that is the real problem, not the "tools of thought" in themselves. I'm not saying it is easy either. (I'm guilty as charged)