42 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2020
    1. NexistWiki exists at the intersection of Weblogs, Wikis, and Douglas Engelbart's call for massive improvements in addressability and evolvability of information resources. Each object presented on a Webpage with NexistWiki is followed by two objects

      object followed by two objects

  2. May 2019
    1. a working station that has a visual display screen some three feet on a side; this is his working surface, and is controlled by a computer (his "clerk") with which he can communicate by means of a small keyboard and various other devices

      Here's an example of a state of the art workstation in 1962.

      Tektronix 4014.jpg<br>By The original uploader was Rees11 at English Wikipedia. - Transferred from <span class="plainlinks">en.wikipedia</span> to Commons., CC BY-SA 2.5, Link

    2. different planes here and there, curved surfaces occasionally

      Many new technologies were combined to realize this prescient sentence.

      WaltDisneyConcertHall.jpeg<br>By Jon Sullivan - PDPhoto, Public Domain, Link

    3. can be of significant benefit to the human in nonmathematical processes of planning, organizing, studying, etc.

      I'll be interested to see if this report is entirely Positivist, or if Engelbart recognizes the possibility of computing being weaponized in sectors like politics, economics, security and warfare.

    4. He is designing a building. He has already dreamed up several basic layouts and structural forms,

      I find it interesting how decades of using computers has led to "new methods of thinking and working that allow the human to capitalize upon the computer's help." With all the new technologies, I think the central intellectual development has been to reverse the sequence of design decisions Engelbart describes. Best practice these days is to start with "the people who will occupy this building, and the daily sequences of their activities."

    1. The individual does not use this information and this processing to grapple directly with the sort of complex situation in which we seek to give him help. He uses his innate capabilities in a rather more indirect fashion, since the situation is generally too complex to yield directly to his motor actions, and always too complex to yield comprehensions and solutions from direct sensory inspection and use of basic cognitive capabilities.

      The mention here of "innate capabilities" and the importance to yielding motor actions toward complex challenges, is noted. A question arises, regarding "basic cognitive capabilities" and their role in the process?

  3. Feb 2019
    1. These are only a few of the total, I'm sure

      As an educator, it's encouraging - in an odd sort of way - that formal schooling, the work of teaching, and (especially) K12 learning was not mentioned in this list given dominant narratives about technology replacing/improving the practices of teaching and learning.

    2. such that computer processes based upon these rules can be said to extract meaning from these statements and to do operations based upon this meaning.

      Given both recent research and highly publicized corporate missteps, is it not prudent to ask: What role does human bias play in designing the computer processes that extract meaning and perform operations?

    3. if you were being given a personal discussion-demonstration by a friendly fellow (named Joe)

      I thought it might be useful, at the outset of this section, to inquire about Engelbart's choices as an author. I'm struck by his decision to craft this expository and hypothetical description, to provide us readers with another set of entry points and scaffolds to better understand his prior arguments. Though the style and tenor is quite different, I'm reminded of Bernard Suits' book The Grasshopper that relied upon dialogue and extended analogy to rebut Wittgenstein's claims of "family resemblances." In any case, perhaps I'm most curious about unpacking authorial motivation and decision-making, for this section differs in so many ways from more conventional technical reports, literature reviews, or surveys of theory. This section may not have been necessary, but - presumably - it was included because it accomplished something the previous sections were unable to capture? Or is this "merely" for the purposes of exposition?

    4. maintain stoutly that a practical augmentation system should not require the human to have to do any computer programming—they feel that this is too specialized a capability to burden people with

      Jon Udell's conversation with Gardner Campbell touches upon this point, around minute 11. https://youtu.be/-lClojNraK4

    5. we very rarely go back to it in its original form

      I'm reminded of the Annotation for Transparent Inquiry project that is part of the Qualitative Data Repository.

    6. something like footnotes, only much more flexible

      Something, perhaps, like open annotation?

    7. Let us use what we call 'antecedent links'
    8. 'What's this?', 'How come?', and 'So what?'

      Oh, it's a dissertation defense.

    9. Golly, you could be writing math expressions, ad copy, or a poem, with the same type of benefit.

      Coming to this observation, as I read more deeply into this narrative, I'm curious about the generative tension between text (n) and text (v). How have others perceived, and perhaps also contributed to, the augmentation of text (n/v) - in terms of composition, editing, visualization...

    10. far-reaching effects throughout the rest of your capability hierarchy

      This is making me think of complaints about people's capabilities being reduced as we become more reliant on technological tools (e.g., not having the same acumen for arithmetic because we rely on calculators, or not remembering things as well because we rely on external memory aids). I suppose that if these claims are true we could say that in a way we are losing capabilities, but it might also be the case that we are relegating to a kind of composite or purely artifact process capability (as described above) something that was an explicit-human process capability. We aren't losing it, we're just moving it to a different aspect of our capabilities. And what other changes in our capabilities higher up the hierarchy might be made possible by doing this that wouldn't have been possible otherwise?

    11. We assume that it is our H-LAM/T system (Human using Language, Artifacts, Methodology, in which he is Trained) that has the capability and that performs the process in any instance of use of this repertoire.

      I'm really wishing right now that I knew more about cognitive science because I wonder to what degree empirical evidence suggests that our minds work in this very logical, hierarchical, organized way that sounds to my untrained ear like how one might conceive of computers working...is this an adequate model for the human mind as well given what we know empirically?

    12. just as the mechanic must know what his tools can do and how to use them, so the intellectual worker must know the capabilities of his tools and have good methods, strategies, and rules of thumb for making use of them.

      I keep thinking here about how many of these processes and sub-processes are likely unconscious or habitual to the extent that we don't actually know our tools well. Perhaps this is part of the model as well, though this way of putting it (that we need to know our tools and when to use each one) is not encompassing that idea for me.

    13. augmentation means, and we define four basic classes of them

      On a first read, this list is striking me as possibly too individualistic. Meaning, augmenting the intellect is about providing the individual with tools, methods, language and training. Is there a way in which we can augment our intellects, improve our problem-solving capacities, through better interactions with other people? A basic idea here would just be the ways in which we distribute our problem-solving capacities amongst people with different expertise, and find ways to bring our thoughts and capabilities together. Perhaps that is part of the "methodology," but the way that category is described here it's about how the individual uses methods rather than a larger description of the systems and structures and practices through which we are able to collaborate well (or not) to augment our collective problem-solving abilities. In what ways do these structures help or hinder our ability to solve complex problems, together?

    14. changes in our technology or in our understanding of the human being.

      Or changes in the human being that occur through changes in our technology (and our social relationships and practices as well).

    15. the intelligence of a human being, derived ultimately from the characteristics of individual nerve cells,

      Reduction/anti-reductionism debate awaits here.

    16. executive capability

      Executive capabilities/processes compared. Latter are tied to metacognition in some learning theories. Here tacit knowledge is included in capabilities and excluded from processes (i.e. as inferior or biasing?)- if I'm reading correctly.

    17. In other words, the human mind neither learns nor acts by large leaps, but by steps organized or structured so that each one depends upon previous steps.

      Learning theory.

    18. more-rapid comprehension, better comprehension, the possibility of gaining a useful degree of comprehension in a situation that previously was too complex, speedier solutions, better solutions, and the possibility of finding solutions to problems that before seemed insoluble.

      "Better, stronger, faster" like the Six Million Dollar Man. Clynes & Kline proposed the Cyborg in 1960. Engelbart's vision seems at once more far-reaching and less like science fiction.

    19. involving the unconscious processing and mediating of received and self-generated information, and the unconscious mediating of conscious processing itself.

      Anticipating more on this...

    1. effective intellectual augmentation was always realized within a system, and that any intervention intended to accelerate intellectual augmentation must be understood as an intervention in a system.

      "“the success of an intervention depends on the interior condition of the intervenor.” - Hanover Insurance's Bill O'Brien, quoted by Otto Schamer in The Blind Spot of Leadership: Presencing as a Social Technology of Freedom. This is the core of Theory U, a set of practices for individual and group self-awareness, intentionality, and innovation - i.e., the Human System as a complex, adaptive, anticipatory system.

  4. Jan 2019
    1. Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework

      You are in the right place for annotation Doug Engelbart's paper as part of the February 2019 Framework Project - see https://framework.thoughtvectors.net/

      For an overall view of activity here, see the paper's entry on CROWDLAAERS

    2. Are you curious about the collaborative annotation activity occurring atop Engelbart's conceptual framework? Use the CROWDLAAERS ("crowd layers") dashboard to view real-time analytics associated with text-participants, total annotations and replies, collaborative threads, active days, and tags. This link will always show updated learning analytics associated with this conversation as it grows over time - enjoy!

  5. Dec 2018
  6. Nov 2018
    1. Links in Images. It is of course possible to create image maps but the current tools do not support this for non-graphics people. Doug had the example of showing a basic map where each location name could be clicked on to jump to its corresponding document. This is not quick to do today. https://youtu.be/M5PgQS3ZBWA?t=953

      show picture of link

  7. May 2017
    1. An opportunity arises for interested NICs to connect and collaborate in a NIC of NICs, or MetaNIC, for collectively improving core capabilities like DKRs. This introduces an accelerative multiplier for member NICs and their constituent NICs.1g One type of MetaNIC will have special strategic significance – a NIC whose focus for improvement would be improving the development and utilization of DKRs. I would encourage many such NICs to explore this frontier.
  8. Mar 2017
    1. Distributed Cognition

      I heart this word, Heart heart heart it. What is the story of our species, if not the story of inventing tools for thought? Our global lightspeed telecommunications network has vastly expanded the distribution and the potential for tool using and tool making. We will be the victims of our own ingenuity unless we get smarter about distributed cognition. A very Engelbartian moment in Jenkins' paper.

  9. Jan 2017
    1. Three or four years later, Engelbart repeated his hypertext-meets-desktop-sharing-meets-video-conferencing demo. In the audience was an MIT prof described by Andries van Dam, another east-coast prof in attendance, as among "the best and the brightest" of the early 1970s computing cognoscenti. According to van Dam, at the end of the presentation, the MIT man raised his hand and said "I don't get it - everything you've shown me today I can do on my ASR-33."

      MIT profs don't see the value in Engelbart's technology.

    1. "Doug's demo was not unlike a flying saucer dropping out of the sky and landing on the White House lawn,Â" Saffo continues. Â"It just electrified this industry because it showed people the potential of computers that they never considered."

      Disruptive potential of inventions.

    1. People say that the 1968 Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco was a watershed. After seeing your demonstration, people left that room never thinking about computers the same way again. Would you say that's an accurate encapsulation?

      Reception of the Mother of All Demos

  10. Apr 2016
    1. In 1968 Doug Engelbart showed a hypertext system that could link to regions within documents. I

      I love the YouTube videos of his demos. I was only recently made aware of them and was blown away by how many of their ideas are now realities.

  11. Mar 2016
    1. payoff will come when we make better use of computers to bring communities of people together and to augment the very human skills that people bring to bear on difficult problems

      This quote by Doug Engelbart was selected for the IBM THINK Poster 2015 http://bit.ly/1DHBLYI. For more on the IBM THINK Exhibit see http://bit.ly/1oZu1RN.

      The quote is from Engelbart's paper "Improving our Ability to Improve" http://bit.ly/1po1K7p which he presented at the World Library Summit in Singapore in 2002.

  12. Jan 2016
  13. Oct 2015
  14. Sep 2015