[1] http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-consciousness_english_...

    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.

https://vimeo.com/115154289

>>Media are our thinking tools. Our representations of a system are how we understand it.

I got this quote from the site, seems to be the central premise for this endeavor. Is this even valid? Are media our 'thinking tools' or something else, like our 'communicate to others what I'm thinking tool'? There's a big difference imo. This person appears to be going for a Sapir Whorf Hypothesis applied to media. Seems to be similarly fraught with peril ie open to debate as SWH is.

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how's the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

Of course the invention of representations like written language, equations, and graphs changed the way people think. It's just hard to see at first because you've grown up immersed in them.

Interesting. Media are definitely enablers of better understanding, in my experience. There are often occasions where writing it down, or drawing a picture/graph have aided my thinking drastically. It's a method for channelling and organising thoughts so that my brain suggests the right next step, rather than getting hung up on peripheral matters, dinner, etc.

Having said that I can get similar epiphanies by also explaining the problem to someone else. That might suggest the benefit is less media, more a form of communication, as you suggest.

Personally though, I think the message is that structuring thought can yield great benefits and that's what these guys are aiming for as far as I can figure out. Great stuff.

What you're saying essentially is that the only times digestion of input would benefit from the things Bret Victor talks about is when those inputs are others' output. It seems that this suggestion would have only come from someone who finds themselves dealing almost entirely with the output of others and trying to make sense of it, rather than any original research or thought. What's more, is that I feel like I'm in some sort of Escherian loop here, because to anyone for whom is the case, they'd never have been interested in trying to make the suggestion that these tools wouldn't necessarily help elsewhere (having no "elsewhere" to contrast it to.)

The types of tools Bret focuses on are as important if not moreso for solo endeavors of research/discovery/understanding as they are for trying to achieve person-to-person communication with the smallest possible time-to-understanding penalty.

Indeed. More to the point, what I'm implying is similar to the Allegory of the Cave. Thoughts are not constrained by time, space, or physics. I can build whatever structures in my mind, create, theorize, hypothesize, but if I can't communicate that to others, what have I done? Navel gazing I wager. Example, Einstein was really good at communicating his ideas thru writing and mathematics. But whatever one communicates is a projection, a shadow on the wall of the real content of the thoughts within. The point being physical media of any sort is a poor substitute for the canvas of the mind.

Most of the types of tools being discussed here are ones to help with the first part. Not being able to communicate something after having figured it out is an appreciable problem, but not being able to satisfy the preconditions—of having figured it out for oneself to begin with—has necessarily at least as many negative consequences.

As for the question, there exist plenty of contexts where a realistic answer would be "quite a lot". There are lots of engineering problems that fit in here. It doesn't matter that you're able to communicate to someone the novel discovery you made that went into the implementation of the software they're using. That the software/bridge/ag technique/etc simply exists comes packed with benefits all on its own.

This isn't even to mention that, in regards to communicating to others something that you've worked out for yourself, the tools that you would have used to do that work initially (e.g., visualizations) are apt not to be described for that purpose as "completely useless".

The real leap forward here? User interface.

Everywhere I look, I see instances of that same pattern:

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.

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.

Progress is not algorithms, progress is not ease of use; it's (power of an algorithm / ease of its use).

In the end, progress in user interface is progress, _period_.

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.

And probably that is whats the next step in evolution for us?

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.

At the meta level, I remain of the belief that this class of activity privileges the concrete over the abstract, and the instance over the general. Having specific examples is useful, but they remain specific.

I remain persuaded that symbolic analysis via mathematics and the written word beat all other forms of communication in ability to express complex concepts.

Agree, however here are other considerations.

Symbolic analysis won over words for tasks like x^2+10x=39 , so advantages like these are not absolute.

Math notation continue to evolve - e.g., APL language invention attempted strict inline notation. I'd say instead of written "word" a generic form of communications is free-form drawing - including schemas, diagrams, graphs, blueprints. Of course here we use pen and paper, and smart computers would be careful not to get in the way of what we can do "with the speed of thought". E.g., the oscillator schema which Bret displayed and then analyzed had to be first created, and to "record a thought" scribbling on paper a shape of a transistor is likely faster than, say, dragging it from an electronic components library, which first has to be ready for that.

When you don't know a symbolic method, you use specific numbers in specific examples, look into many examples and then generalize - moving to symbols. When you already know an appropriate symbolic method, you can switch gears and instead of "specific" numbers use "specific" symbolic manipulations.

There are relatively few people who actually know enough of the abstractions of math and language for this to be true universally. For the rest of us, alternate representations are essential to building our abstract understanding.

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.