Tools for thought https://twitter.com/keikreutler/status/1537395739277549571

These things can be — dare I say? — dialectic. There’s no reason influence has to be exclusively one way. Replace “tools for thought” with “literacy” and you’ll see what I mean, because, of course, the context of a “literate society” will undoubtedly change the way people think, but you need the “tool” of literacy (with many other circumstances) to get there

This is Engelbart's notion of "bootstrapping", right?

Engelbart was certainly describing a dialectic process as far as I’m concerned

Thinking comes from intimations, and intimations come from a smaller complex in relation to a larger context – change either the smaller or larger thing, and you'll get new intimations – social or otherwise, doesn't matter

I like to think about a broader context for “tools for thought” which is based on the relationship between computer science and mathematics. I’d argue that the most impressive “tools for thought” are being made and examined by mathematicians. However, the most useful/advanced ones fail to reach even a moderately sized userbase, since actually using the tools requires a long time of specialized training. An undertaking focused on creating a good “user interface” to these mathematical tools would be greatly beneficial for the society. This would have the potential to raise mathematical literacy, which I believe is partly a prerequisite for advancing computing literacy.

I’m not sure about the exclusivity of math angle. After all, contemporary mathematics is just one framework built atop conventional literacy. Of course, that criticism depends on whether or not you think computing can be a truly literate-like medium in the first place. I stand by the analysis that conventional literacy is the most effective, internalized, and consequential “tool for thought” yet devised. It’s an open question whether computing can fit alongside it

@Eric Gade I think we might have a different view of the relationships between "literacy", "[insert adjective] literacy" and "tools for thought". Of course, these are just agreed upon terms, so I'll try to explain just my personal view. "Literacy" denotes, for me, the ability to use written language (of any kind, even graphical) to store ideas and to aid in communicating them. "[Adjective] literacy" denotes the ability to appreciate and make use of ideas that make up knowledge generated by the field of [adjective]. It doesn't prescribe any medium through which the ideas should be communicated. "Tools for thought" I view as any "stuff" that strengthens someone's ability to think. Thinking is a process, so I don't recognize eg. Obsidian as a tool for thought (it's a knowledge base; it doesn't transform your way of thinking). I'm aware that this is very different from the self-description of the TfT community. Mathematical objects (some of them) do qualify as tools for thought because they actively enable new ways of thinking / they transform your thinking. Mathematics itself is concerned solely with the study of mental objects, mental tools, and mental processes. I'd say that mathematics and literature (and their corresponding literacies) are complementary, being examples of "thought-toolmaking" and "knowledge-toolmaking", respectively. The latter is concerned with preserving and representing ideas, the former is concerned with manipulating and generating those. Computing can be used to realize both of these, although it's being used mainly for the latter (proof assistants don't really provide a good math UI, simulations aren't composable). Perhaps this is what I should've said, as it more reflects my view of the real potential of computing. Please, feel free to challenge these views, descriptions and relations. Also, be aware that the term "tool for thought" / "thought-tool" is overridden here to mean a different thing, the original meaning being replaced by "knowledge-tool". However, the notions of "literacy" and "[adjective] literacy" aren't meant to replace their "actual meaning" - so they in particular should be challenged!

Actually, I think we are largely in agreement on the definition of terms here and I think you've done a good job laying them out

Ah, now I see your point! I agree with you, on the assumption that a computing medium exists as a separate thing. What I see today (and frankly all I can imagine sufficiently concretely), is just computing being used for emulating and broadening "thinking-tools" and "knowledge-tools" separately.

The concrete imagining is the hardest part about all this for sure, mostly because we don’t have the language with which to do so. It’s like trying to describe the full force of reading and writing without having reading and writing in the first place