What we can X depends on what we can Y
From apm
Take the "we" in the following as us humans and our computer systems combined.
- (0) "What we can say (to our computers) depends on
how good our programming languages / human-computer-interfaces are." - (1) "What we can think depends on what we can say."
– this relates to Linguistic relativity (aka Sapir–Whorf hypothesis) - (2) "What we can make depends on what we can collectively think"
– interpreting communication structure as collective thinking – this relates to Conway's Law - (3) "What we can do depends on what we can make." – by Eric K. Drexler (?)
Chaining all these together (which is kinda ridiculous, yes) gives:
- "What we can do depends on what we can say"
– Whorf-Conway-Drexler - "What we can do depends on how good our programming languages / human-computer-interfaces are"
– extended Whorf-Conway-Drexler
This is nonsense ...
Yes, quite likely, this is a perfect example of puzzling barely matching pieces together in a long questionable logical chain
in order to arrive at exactly the result that initially was desired.
With no way of formalizing and fact checking it provided.
Reminds a bit on That children's game "telephone" ("silent post" in German).
Good chance the other end only gibberish comes out.
Still, it seems kind of like an interesting idea, so here ↕ is a page about it.
Related
Some of these find mention here:
