Y'all don't know what a tool of thought is. I don't either, but I know one isn't when I see one. Specialized notation is only ever useful for specialized tasks. Given that thought is not...
Y'all don't know what a tool of thought is.
I don't either, but I know one isn't when I see one.
Specialized notation is only ever useful for specialized tasks. Given that thought is not specialized in any way, it would require something equally generalist. Not necessarily broad, but at the very least powerful.
Writing and language is sort of there, but even that is significantly limited relative to what we experience as thinking.
This seems a rather narrow reaction that might have more to do with the title than the content of the article. This is only true if you never think about specialized things ;) Both the original...
This seems a rather narrow reaction that might have more to do with the title than the content of the article.
Given that thought is not specialized in any way, it would require something equally generalist.
This is only true if you never think about specialized things ;)
Both the original "Notation as a Tool of Thought" paper and this article are specifically referring to the moderately specialized task of "thinking about and writing software", but thoughts about specialized topics are still thoughts, and techniques like re-framing a problem in a new language (or notation) are reasonably called "tools of thought" if they allow us to do that thought-work more efficiently and with less effort.
A simplistic example from my own experience occurred during last years Advent Of Code puzzles, where written problem described a situation that I realized, after some false starts and dead ends, could be represented in its essentials as a boolean logic expression. Writing the constraints of the puzzle out in algebraic terms immediately allowed me to cut out extraneous pieces that couldn't impact the solution, and to explore the actual problem space much more efficiently than if I had kept trying to hold the whole problem in my head as originally described.
No, this is always true. Thought is not divided into contexts until it is, at which stage we begin referring to it by the title of the context. "Planning", or "rumination", or "ideation", or even...
This is only true if you never think about specialized things ;)
No, this is always true. Thought is not divided into contexts until it is, at which stage we begin referring to it by the title of the context. "Planning", or "rumination", or "ideation", or even "considerations about software design".
You wanna find a tool of thought? This ain't it.
Using imprecise terminology is not conducive to promoting the very topic you're writing about.
And yet, I am myself, a human, an ape, and an animal all at once, and a carving knife is still a tool of cutting. Thoughts about something in particular don't stop being "thought". I think you're...
And yet, I am myself, a human, an ape, and an animal all at once, and a carving knife is still a tool of cutting.
Thoughts about something in particular don't stop being "thought".
I think you're latching on to an overly restrictive definition of what constitutes "thought". In the same way that it is accurate to call both a chainsaw and an egg slicer a "cutting tool", it is accurate to call a tool for manipulating thoughts about software (or math, or music) a "thought tool".
Cooking something in an oven doesn't stop it from being cooking, either, but that doesn't mean tools for cooking are the same as, or as effective at it as, tools for baking. You're right: I am...
Cooking something in an oven doesn't stop it from being cooking, either, but that doesn't mean tools for cooking are the same as, or as effective at it as, tools for baking.
You're right: I am being restrictive; not in scope but in the nature of the thing being discussed. It's narrow-minded to a degree that doesn't sit well with me to call this notation, or most others I've seen around, "tools of thought". Cutting is fairly straightforward: you apply ultrathin edge to a surface in such a way that the edge damages said surface along the side of the edge. Thought? I'm struggling to come up with a similar plausible definition without contriving it along the way.
I don't have anything against notations; in fact I'm fond of ways in which we record the processes of the world. I don't even have anything against notations as ways to expand our understanding of the world, or to embrace it in a more-comfortable fashion. (Mental models tend to do that.) What I have a thing or two against is the usage of the phrase "tool of thought" in such a high-brow way without there being not much behind it to back such a high praise.
I also find the notation itself lacking in usefulness, which doesn't help my perception of it.
It seems like you have a particular definition for "thought" that you're not being clear about. Do you think that thought is something that only happens in the brain? Many people disagree with...
It seems like you have a particular definition for "thought" that you're not being clear about. Do you think that thought is something that only happens in the brain? Many people disagree with that. I'm reminded of a Feynman anecdote:
The physicist Richard Feynman once got into an argument with the historian Charles Weiner. Feynman understood the extended mind; he knew that writing his equations and ideas on paper was crucial to his thought. But when Weiner looked over a pile of Feynman’s notebooks, he called them a wonderful “record of his day-to-day work.” No, no, Feynman replied testily. They weren’t a record of his thinking process. They were his thinking process:
“I actually did the work on the paper,” he said.
“Well,” Weiner said, “the work was done in your head, but the record of it is still here.”
“No, it’s not a record, not really. It’s working. You have to work on paper and this is the paper. Okay?”
Although that's a quote involving a high-status person from history, the concept isn't all that deep. A shopping list is also a tool of thought. Even when we don't take notes, leaving stuff in certain places is another way we organize the thinking that goes along with our work.
I disagree profoundly. Thought is very specialized. First off, as humans, we have evolved to be able to think about our environment in ways that are useful to, or benefit, ourselves. But second,...
I disagree profoundly. Thought is very specialized. First off, as humans, we have evolved to be able to think about our environment in ways that are useful to, or benefit, ourselves. But second, and more importantly, we have specific domains for which we have call to think about repeatedly in similar ways.
Think about musical notation. That is notation, which is a tool for thinking about music. And it's very effective notation for that purpose. You wouldn't try to use musical notation to plan what to wear to your friend's wedding. (Nor would you use english—nor j, either.) But musical notation is still indisputably an incredibly powerful domain-specific tool for thinking about music.
It isn't. We maintain contexts within which we operate using mental models. These are specialized. Thought is of significantly wider scope than any notation I know of could allow for.
Thought is very specialized
It isn't. We maintain contexts within which we operate using mental models. These are specialized. Thought is of significantly wider scope than any notation I know of could allow for.
Y'all don't know what a tool of thought is.
I don't either, but I know one isn't when I see one.
Specialized notation is only ever useful for specialized tasks. Given that thought is not specialized in any way, it would require something equally generalist. Not necessarily broad, but at the very least powerful.
Writing and language is sort of there, but even that is significantly limited relative to what we experience as thinking.
This seems a rather narrow reaction that might have more to do with the title than the content of the article.
This is only true if you never think about specialized things ;)
Both the original "Notation as a Tool of Thought" paper and this article are specifically referring to the moderately specialized task of "thinking about and writing software", but thoughts about specialized topics are still thoughts, and techniques like re-framing a problem in a new language (or notation) are reasonably called "tools of thought" if they allow us to do that thought-work more efficiently and with less effort.
A simplistic example from my own experience occurred during last years Advent Of Code puzzles, where written problem described a situation that I realized, after some false starts and dead ends, could be represented in its essentials as a boolean logic expression. Writing the constraints of the puzzle out in algebraic terms immediately allowed me to cut out extraneous pieces that couldn't impact the solution, and to explore the actual problem space much more efficiently than if I had kept trying to hold the whole problem in my head as originally described.
No, this is always true. Thought is not divided into contexts until it is, at which stage we begin referring to it by the title of the context. "Planning", or "rumination", or "ideation", or even "considerations about software design".
You wanna find a tool of thought? This ain't it.
Using imprecise terminology is not conducive to promoting the very topic you're writing about.
And yet, I am myself, a human, an ape, and an animal all at once, and a carving knife is still a tool of cutting.
Thoughts about something in particular don't stop being "thought".
I think you're latching on to an overly restrictive definition of what constitutes "thought". In the same way that it is accurate to call both a chainsaw and an egg slicer a "cutting tool", it is accurate to call a tool for manipulating thoughts about software (or math, or music) a "thought tool".
Cooking something in an oven doesn't stop it from being cooking, either, but that doesn't mean tools for cooking are the same as, or as effective at it as, tools for baking.
You're right: I am being restrictive; not in scope but in the nature of the thing being discussed. It's narrow-minded to a degree that doesn't sit well with me to call this notation, or most others I've seen around, "tools of thought". Cutting is fairly straightforward: you apply ultrathin edge to a surface in such a way that the edge damages said surface along the side of the edge. Thought? I'm struggling to come up with a similar plausible definition without contriving it along the way.
I don't have anything against notations; in fact I'm fond of ways in which we record the processes of the world. I don't even have anything against notations as ways to expand our understanding of the world, or to embrace it in a more-comfortable fashion. (Mental models tend to do that.) What I have a thing or two against is the usage of the phrase "tool of thought" in such a high-brow way without there being not much behind it to back such a high praise.
I also find the notation itself lacking in usefulness, which doesn't help my perception of it.
It seems like you have a particular definition for "thought" that you're not being clear about. Do you think that thought is something that only happens in the brain? Many people disagree with that. I'm reminded of a Feynman anecdote:
Although that's a quote involving a high-status person from history, the concept isn't all that deep. A shopping list is also a tool of thought. Even when we don't take notes, leaving stuff in certain places is another way we organize the thinking that goes along with our work.
I disagree profoundly. Thought is very specialized. First off, as humans, we have evolved to be able to think about our environment in ways that are useful to, or benefit, ourselves. But second, and more importantly, we have specific domains for which we have call to think about repeatedly in similar ways.
Think about musical notation. That is notation, which is a tool for thinking about music. And it's very effective notation for that purpose. You wouldn't try to use musical notation to plan what to wear to your friend's wedding. (Nor would you use english—nor j, either.) But musical notation is still indisputably an incredibly powerful domain-specific tool for thinking about music.
It isn't. We maintain contexts within which we operate using mental models. These are specialized. Thought is of significantly wider scope than any notation I know of could allow for.