72 lines
3.1 KiB
Org Mode
72 lines
3.1 KiB
Org Mode
---
|
|
title: Retrospect on Foresight
|
|
author: Chris Hodapp
|
|
date: January 8, 2018
|
|
tags:
|
|
- technobabble
|
|
- rambling
|
|
draft: true
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# See my org notes from 2015-07-25 for more ideas
|
|
|
|
/(Spawned from some idle thoughts around 2015-07-25.)/
|
|
|
|
Why are old technological ideas that were "ahead of their time", but
|
|
which lost out to other ideas, worth studying?
|
|
|
|
We can see them as raw ideas that "modern" understanding never
|
|
refined - misguided fantasies or even just mistakes. The flip side of
|
|
this is that we can see them as ideas that are free of a nearly
|
|
inescapable modern context and all of the preconceptions and blinders
|
|
it carries.
|
|
|
|
In some of these visionaries is a valuable combination:
|
|
|
|
- they're detached from this modern context (by mere virtue of it not
|
|
existing yet),
|
|
- they have considerable experience, imagination, and foresight,
|
|
- they devoted time and effort to work extensively on something and to
|
|
communicate their thoughts, feelings, and analysis in a durable way.
|
|
|
|
To put it in another way: They give us analysis done from a context
|
|
that is long gone. They help us think beyond our current context.
|
|
They help us answer a question, "What if we took a different path
|
|
then?"
|
|
|
|
[[http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html][Epigram #53]] from Alan Perlis offers some relevant skepticism here: "So
|
|
many good ideas are never heard from again once they embark in a
|
|
voyage on the semantic gulf." My interpretation of it is that we tend
|
|
to idolize ideas, old and new, because they sound somehow different,
|
|
innovative, and groundbreaking, but attempts at analysis or practical
|
|
realization of the ideas leads to a bleaker reality, perhaps that the
|
|
idea is completely meaningless (the equivalent of a [[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deepity][deepity]], perhaps),
|
|
wildly impractical, or a mere facade over what is already established.
|
|
|
|
* Examples
|
|
|
|
* Scratch
|
|
|
|
- Douglas Engelbart is perhaps one of the canonical examples of a person
|
|
who was an endless source of these ideas. Ted Nelson arguably is
|
|
another. Alan Turing is an early example widely regarded for his
|
|
foresight.
|
|
- Engelbart: http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/
|
|
- 'The problem with saying that Engelbart "invented hypertext", or
|
|
"invented video conferencing", is that you are attempting to make
|
|
sense of the past using references to the present. "Hypertext" is
|
|
a word that has a particular meaning for us today. By saying that
|
|
Engelbart invented hypertext, you ascribe that meaning to
|
|
Engelbart's work. Almost any time you interpret the past as "the
|
|
present, but cruder", you end up missing the point. But in the
|
|
case of Engelbart, you miss the point in spectacular fashion.'
|
|
- "If you truly want to understand NLS, you have to forget
|
|
today. Forget everything you think you know about
|
|
computers. Forget that you think you know what a computer is. Go
|
|
back to 1962. And then [[http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-3906.html][read his intent]]."
|
|
- [[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/][As We May Think (Vannevar Bush)]]
|
|
- "Do you remember a time when..." only goes so far.
|
|
- Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
# Tools For Thought
|