Message to the ‘Amigos’ community with hope to restart conversations…

Yes, a graph is good, wether on The Brain or DebateGraph. We need a ‘moon’ to point though, to use Dino’s evocative language.

I think we get stuck on the division of importance and focus on a human system vs a tool system even though we all agree we should develop tool systems and human systems together. The second point I think we get stuck on is ‘for what purpose? and I would propose we adopt Doug’s seminal paragraph and build out from that. What do you all say?

_____________________

By “augmenting human intellect” we mean increasing the capability of a man to approach a complex problem situation, to gain comprehension to suit his particular needs, and to derive solutions to problems.

Increased capability in this respect is taken to mean a mixture of the following:
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.

And by “complex situations” we include the professional problems of diplomats, executives, social scientists, life scientists, physical scientists, attorneys, designers — whether the problem situation exists for twenty minutes or twenty years.

We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations.

We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human “feel for a situation” usefully coexist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.

AUGMENTING HUMAN INTELLECT : A Conceptual Framework. October 1962. By D. C. Engelbart
http://www.1962paper.org/web.html
_____________________

IF we could agree that this is is what we are working on, then we could look at how we can develop NICs to support this vision and how his following philosophies flow for this and how we can contribute.

Frode Hegland
The Liquid Information Company
www.liquid.info

On 31 Jan 2017, at 16:20, Jack Park <jackpark@topicquests.org> wrote:

I am happy to start the graph. My intention would be, first, to link it to all the zillions of other graphs we already have at Debategraph; there are wormholes to be discovered and navigated.

Huge issue: what to call the graph?  “FrodeianDilemma”?  “Something”?

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Frode Hegland <frode@hegland.com> wrote:
Yes! Let’s have a chat with no sharing of faces just debate graph. Let’s map this!

Frode Hegland
www.liquid.info

On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:12, Jack Park <jackpark@topicquests.org> wrote:

As it turns out, we have orbited those talks, with no apparent movement, for several years now.

I just forwarded to myself from my gmail account a conversation we had pretty much about all of this one year ago. I might forward that to this tribe.

I really, let me say, strongly believe that such a conversation is best conducted in an IBIS fashion, at Debategraph, in a public graph.  There are far more moving parts than we could ever marshal in emails. I agree with you, Frode, that we should be having the conversation you seek, albeit with renewed focus, given all the international, national, and local Hail Mary passes being tossed around these days;

Over.

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Frode Hegland <frode@hegland.com> wrote:
Thanks Jack,

Yes, there is some activity but can we actually do something, anything, together?

Dino has Knowledge Federation and Polyscopy and you have Knowledge Gardens and I am working on Views and there is more, as you mention…

Sounds awfully related. Can we maybe have talks about how to join forces?

Frode Hegland
The Liquid Information Company
www.liquid.info

> On 30 Jan 2017, at 23:37, Jack Park <jackpark@topicquests.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Frode,
>
> First thought: I feel your pain!
> Second thought:
>
> I’m inclined to disagree with your underlying premise, which might read thus: “we are all just sitting on our duffs <quote>feel[ing] smug and chat[ing] about all being equal and there should be peace in the world and invoke intellectual and spiritual greats in discussion</quote>”
>
> That’s just not the case, as I see it.
>
> Here is the case, as I see it.
>
> The Rudan twins are hard at it building, to use your term, something.
> Lazar Kovacevic is building something.
> Alf Martin Johansen has built something.
> You built something.
> I and a small not-for-profit tribe called the TopicQuests Foundation, we are building something.
>
> I think that what’s missing in your rant is this: we are all as cats, and nobody found the right meow mix to herd us.  We once thought that meetings in Dubrovnik will provide some of the required nutrients. I’ll leave it to others to judge whether that happened, but will say this: Dubrovnik, if nothing else, and thanks in large part to Dino’s monumental efforts, did succeed in bringing together a really cool collection of people and ideas.
>
> I shall now speak for myself, since you asked.
>
> Way back in the early 80’s, I got the idea that “me and my computer” could eventually make a team that could exhibit a far higher IQ than either of us alone.  I developed software, first called Cognitive Companion, later: The Scholar’s Companion (TSC). That program was used to perform research necessary to write and defend a dissertation in polymer curing, and was used to discover diving chamber protocols for wound healing.  When Adam Cheyer introduced me to Doug in late 1999, I described that work. His response: “What’s that *me* stuff?”.  That provoked a massive “turn the ship around” == from me to we, and to open source.  When I was invited to give a talk on the future of education in Seoul in 2007, I planned to talk about Doug’s DKR; Ted Kahn suggested “Dynamic Knowledge Garden”.  “Knowledge Garden” stuck, and that’s my stuck record du jour.  Me and my tribe, we are doing something.  Everybody reading this knows that.
>
> In my talk a few weeks ago in Tokyo, I was asked to talk about citizen science and about the garden, even though the subject was open source Watson-like agent systems.
>
> We have a website now:
> http://www.topicquests.org/
>
> My own slideshare documents everything I am doing:
> http://slideshare.net/jackpark/
>
> So, let me conclude “what I am feeling” with this question:
>
> What does it take to herd a few more cats in the direction of building knowledge gardens?
>
> After all, I am not asking you to work on *our* code; you can work on *your* code, and participate in the massive knowledge federation that lies at the core of the garden.
>
> Over.
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Frode Hegland <frode@hegland.com> wrote:
> Guys,
>
>
> Dino and I had a pretty frustrating call today, on Doug’s Birthday, stemming from our deep frustration with the world and our lack of progress in furthering Doug’s vision. So I decided to email this to the group:
>
> Personally, I am confused.
>
> We are witnessing a time in history when angry people vote for a strong man to get things done (republicans and Trump) and thoughtful people who care about others and the process of democracy (democrats) like to sit with a warm cup of tea and feel smug and chat about all being equal and there should be peace in the world and invoke intellectual and spiritual greats in discussion. Like this group for most of our association.
>
> Sure, people are taking to the streets this week and that is amazing, but what about the longer term, what about creating structures to make sure the world becomes a better place?
>
> How can this community not manage to gel around anything?
>
> By ‘better place’ I mean that which comes from empathy; a world where there is less of a notion of ‘them’ and more ‘us’ – where we all feel part of a larger community.
>
> By mid-May, our son will be born and at this point I am embarrassed by the community he is being born into. Can we PLEASE actively work on SOMETHING?…
>
> So for the question: Should we build a piece of software to make everything better?
>
> Yes, I think we should.
>
> But not on its own. I hear from so many of you that ‘we have enough tools’, now we must focus on changing how we work together’. Fine, sure. OK: Tell us explicitly what you mean by that, within maybe a page of text, not a massive, bloated blog post or book.
>
> Do not forget, Doug changed the world through building tools. Leaving tools to simple ‘tool builders’ is naive bull in my opinion.
>
> Doug did not change the world through sitting and thinking and writing that we should all cooperate better and ‘be nice’, nor did he point to a specific religion we should all take up.
>
> Let’s build SOMETHING together. And let’s have a series of structures conversations as to what that might be. Let’s do that ALONG side of working on working protocols.
>
> I am not saying what we should build should be the only thing we do – we should definitively work on better working practices and systemic innovation, but systemic innovation and better working practices can greatly benefit from tools to augment their implementation right?
>
> An argument I see is that it is now our job to work to realise Doug’s ideas beyond the tools and I agree with NCIs and ABC and all of that – I worked with Doug for quite a while, he once refer to me as being like his son. But how can we hope to make progress with his philosophical work (which even he didn’t manage to get into the world) if we don’t ALSO build something amazing, something useful?
>
> If we cannot build something together, maybe we can all help each other building different aspects of the bigger picture – and let our dialogue evolve while doing so?
>
> What are we going to be doing on the 50th anniversary of Doug’s Demo? Will we issue an academic paper to the world? Will we throw a quiet party?
>
> Or will we demonstrate a more effective means of working together to really make the world a better place?
>
> Please, honestly, tell me what you feel. Let’s create brilliance, let’s do something together.
>
>
>
>
> Frode Hegland
> The Liquid Information Company
> www.liquid.info
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On the importance of building *something*.

Dino and I had a pretty frustrating call today, on Doug’s Birthday, stemming from our deep frustration with the world and our lack of progress in furthering Doug’s vision. So I decided to email this to the group:

Personally, I am confused.

We are witnessing a time in history when angry people vote for a strong man to get things done (republicans and Trump) and thoughtful people who care about others and the process of democracy (democrats) like to sit with a warm cup of tea and feel smug and chat about all being equal and there should be peace in the world and invoke intellectual and spiritual greats in discussion. Like this group for most of our association. 

Sure, people are taking to the streets this week and that is amazing, but what about the longer term, what about creating structures to make sure the world becomes a better place? 

How can this community not manage to gel around anything? 

By ‘better place’ I mean that which comes from empathy; a world where there is less of a notion of ‘them’ and more ‘us’ – where we all feel part of a larger community. 

By mid-May, our son will be born and at this point I am embarrassed by the community he is being born into. Can we PLEASE actively work on SOMETHING?…

So for the question: Should we build a piece of software to make everything better?

Yes, I think we should. 

But not on its own. I hear from so many of you that ‘we have enough tools’, now we must focus on changing how we work together’. Fine, sure. OK: Tell us explicitly what you mean by that, within maybe a page of text, not a massive, bloated blog post or book. 

Do not forget, Doug changed the world through building tools. Leaving tools to simple ‘tool builders’ is naive bull in my opinion. 

Doug did not change the world through sitting and thinking and writing that we should all cooperate better and ‘be nice’, nor did he point to a specific religion we should all take up.

Let’s build SOMETHING together. And let’s have a series of structures conversations as to what that might be. Let’s do that ALONG side of working on working protocols. 

I am not saying what we should build should be the only thing we do – we should definitively work on better working practices and systemic innovation, but systemic innovation and better working practices can greatly benefit from tools to augment their implementation right?

An argument I see is that it is now our job to work to realise Doug’s ideas beyond the tools and I agree with NCIs and ABC and all of that – I worked with Doug for quite a while, he once refer to me as being like his son. But how can we hope to make progress with his philosophical work (which even he didn’t manage to get into the world) if we don’t ALSO build something amazing, something useful?

If we cannot build something together, maybe we can all help each other building different aspects of the bigger picture – and let our dialogue evolve while doing so?

What are we going to be doing on the 50th anniversary of Doug’s Demo? Will we issue an academic paper to the world? Will we throw a quiet party? 

Or will we demonstrate a more effective means of working together to really make the world a better place?

Please, honestly, tell me what you feel. Let’s create brilliance, let’s do something together.