I have a pretty good example of this. I would like to look up whether there's a difference between cigarettes and e-cigarettes for short and long term health. I know people who experience weight gain on e-cigarettes, and lose weight on regular cigarettes. On Sep 8, 2013 9:46 AM, "Alan Kay" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Alan Kay <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Alan Kay <[email protected]>; Fundamentals of New Computing < > [email protected]>; Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> > *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 <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> > To: Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *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 > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
