Is there a Universal Tool for Thinking? If not, What Would Such a Tool Look Like?

I know there are many, many tools for storing information in computers. There are Outliners, Word Processors, Spreadsheets, Mind Mapers, Notepads, Text Editors, Web Browsers, Reference Managers, and sites like blogs, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, you name it, but are there tools to assist with thinking? I see these tools as modern pencil and paper, or paint brush and canvas. Are there higher level tools to store and organize data? Are search engines any closer to thinking?

I’d like a system that could be used to capture ideas, tasks, projects, links to data, information about people (friends, idols, fans, celebrities, co-workers, neighbors, etc.), technologies, history, films, books, natural languages, dictionaries (spelling/meaning), encyclopedias, geography, music, photographs, etc.

With the ability to interconnect all of the captured items in various manners and display the relationships between various facets of them.

I’ve posted about a number of the aspects of my digital life that I’m trying to utilize/organize on the https://www.theproductivists.club/ forum. I’ve been reading about Outlining and Organizing on https://www.outlinersoftware.com/ and Zettelkasten on the https://forum.zettelkasten.de/ forum. Are there any other methodologies or forums that you make it a habit to frequent?

What would a Universal Tool to Aid Thinking look like?

Input:

Here are some miscellaneous ideas.

  • The headline “Is there a Universal Tool for Thinking?” seems to ask for a single comprehensive tool.
    Perhaps this concept can be challenged in productive ways - for example with a more granular starting question like
    ** “Which types of tools (paper-based, digital, specific types of software, …)
    ** using which types of representations (text-only, diagrams, formulas, non-graphical representations, …)
    ** can provide support of which relevance (marginal, optimal, game-changing, …)
    ** for which types of thinking processes (learning facts, learning skills, understanding complicated things, generating ideas, documenting ideas for communication or for later use, …)
    ** in which types of domains (writing nonfiction prose, solving math problems , creating works of art, …)
    ** for which groups of users (age groups, novices and experts, users of different cognitive styles, …)
    ** in which types of communities of practice (single user case vs. teams, classrooms, institutional use, …)?”

  • I understand that a single tool could bring massive benefits by supporting cross-connections between items. On the other hand, the requirements for
    A) a tool for generating ideas
    seem to me fundamentally different from the requirements for
    B) a tool for information storage -
    namely, for A) you want maximum freedom in representing and interacting with ideas, for B) you want a system that works reliably over years and even decades and supports easy retrieval of items. Focusing on a single universal tool could create conflicts that simply disappear if you decide to use one system for A) and another for B).

  • I know nothing about other people’s concepts about “capturing” an idea. If this indicates some sort of “catching” an idea that is “out there” - I suspect that a large number of relevant ideas have been generated by very different processes, namely by users manipulating externalized idea representations in a substrate like paper or blackboards or on a screen. I look at the work notes of Newton or Leibniz or at whiteboards used daily in research facilities worldwide.
    Ideas that emerge from discussions between people are a different case, but again - for me, interacting with ideas seems more relevant than “capturing” them.

Thanks for the thoughts. Many valid areas of exploration in there. I’d be interested in exploring any of the approaches you suggest, however; I’m hoping that if you don’t get too deep into the details, that there is one generic description of a system that might be used to approach the various specific needs that you specified. You may be right, and there are just so many specific needs, that no one tool, could possibly address all that is necessary, for any given task. My hope is that there is a lot of common ingestion, digestion, excretion mechanism that supports a lot of the more specialized processes that you have specified. Maybe one small module needs to be tweaked to make the system handle each particular requirement.

I’m trying to formulate a picture of a system that would help me process idea discovery and understanding. I listed a number of sources of concepts, projects, possibly related thoughts in my first post. I guess I’m seeking pointers to any type of system that would allow input, processing, manipulation, and output in various formats.

I’m assuming that if there does exist such a system, that someone is already charging a lot of money for it and government agencies or corporate research departments are using it to make even more money. I assume IBM’s Watson might be such a system, although I know nothing about it, except what they used to show, on their TV commercials. Their marketing made it look pretty powerful.

I’m seeking to find, or create, something that I can understand and afford to interact with. It’s my very strong belief, that we are not utilizing the computer processing power that is available to us these days. I just got a couple of new cell phones for me and my wife. They have an Octa-core (what ever that is - think it means 8 cores) CPU, 12GB RAM, 256GB storage (flash). Not to mention GPU and all the stuff to do with communications. That just blows my mind, and I know it’s no where near the top end, just for phones, these days.

There used to be a web site named brainspace.com. As far as I can tell, the functionality that I remember, no longer exists. It was kind of like a search engine, but would gather information based on sample input. You could provide keywords, or a sample paragraph or web page, and it would attempt to locate similar documents, web sites, etc. I think it was hosted by a company whose business is providing discovery tools for lawyers. I believe their product is still available for purchase, if you can afford it. Again, I don’t really know what it does.

Refind.com seems to be doing an interesting thing around, selecting a few interesting article suggestions, based on areas of interest. You can upload your bookmark collection and I guess they use that information as a starting point, in some way. I’m not sure if they know what they are trying to create, or are just making it up as they go along. It seems to be getting more feature rich as time goes on. It’s interesting to see it evolve.

Deepstash.com says: Discover, Create & Share Inspiring Ideas. Deepstash brings you key ideas from the most inspiring online sources. Join us for free to read more, save what inspires you & remember everything. I’m not sure I really get what they are trying to do, but it kind of seems like a similar, help organize and make sense of things, kind of approach.

I’m very interested in some kind of drag 'n drop, or outline manipulation, or mind map drawing/editing component, or a range of predefined functions which could be triggered in some way to manipulate the ideas/thoughts/nodes in the system.

I’m not sure if any of this makes any sense. I’m just trying to put into words some of the many thoughts that keep bouncing around in my head.

Is the universal thinking tool, actually a discussion forum?

Again, here’s a collection of thoughts.

  • “Is there a universal tool for thinking? If not, what would such a tool look like?”
    First, imagine answers like “Yes, there is a universal thinking tool, and it’s called… a notebook, or a zettelkasten, or mind mapping software…” - why would that seem highly unsatisfactory? What requirements are not met? And can we imagine an improved tool where one specific requirement after another is met - is there still something missing?
    Second, what happens if we replace “thinking” by something else, for example “transportation”? May this be a hint that we have to ask different questions?
    Third, I wonder how a concept like “universality” squares with an evolutionary view on thinking tools - can we expect such an evolution to stabilize in a final product that does not evolve further? (We are in a situation where we have the tools of today to create the tools of tomorrow.)
    Fourth, if we just focus on outlining the next steps in the evolution of thinking tools, what makes sense, in a continuum between over-the-top SciFi and somewhat boring cumulations of existing features? Which promising nonexistent features are worthy of our attention? The features with high impact and high feasibility are arguably likely candidates.
    Fifth, let’s compare
    A) the evolution of paper-based mind mapping and
    B) the evolution of software-based mind mapping.
    From all I know, B) has been vastly more active and successful, but I couldn’t name the key factors for this. What can be learned from this example about general mechanisms of tool development?
  • Besides these fairly anaemic contemplations, there are several hands-on practices I find useful, for example specific methods of thinking on paper. And there are some self-evident-ish ideas on how one could amalgamate key features from various types of software.
  • “Is the universal thinking tool, actually a discussion forum?” Michael Nielsen presents a number of ideas around this in his 2011 book “Reinventing Discovery”.