It is truly fascination how online think tank discussion and Blogs of science nature such as SlashDot.com and WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs can have a relatively simple post or concept and turn that into a giant round table discussion of Epic Proportions. For some this aggravating as hell, especially if you are the one posting and simply want to state an idea or concept. In this case study we will point out a post made by Warren Powers on this web page: http://worldthinktank.net/wttbbs/index.php?s
=e591851823d44d11d2f04f521c8a089a&showtopic=1915&st=0 The originator of the concept Warren became concerned as too much new information he felt irrelevant had been added and he wanted to KISS so to speak and therefore Warren states; The thread starts out pretty clear, direct, and simple. Then when anyone else reads the thread the departures begin. That is simply amazing to me. Seeing this is one of the longest threads I have ever been apart, I can see why projects rarely turn into products. It must be well defined, even written within human DNA to divert from the direction of the original concept. It simply must be in our DNA to do this. Interesting indeed. Could one say that the human mind is set up to create complexity? Well that is a truism in many regards. In fact the simplest of linear equations can turn into quite complex looking systems if you read Stephen Wolframs book discussing Mathematica. Warren indicates that he believes that this is why so many projects do not turn into products. He has a point and to that point lets add procrastination too. Humans often say ready get set 50 times before they say go. Warren is amazed, but should he be amazed? And as you read the entire thread in the case study does it really divert from the original topic or does it merely pull in incessant details, which could be worthy of consideration for potential killer applications? In other words are the diversions in subject matter more details to utilize the technology and not merely extraneous? After all once you build it or prove concept? What in the hell are you going to do with it? And if you use it will it work? Additionally with many application it does indeed make the original project more enhanced and inviting for funding. Warren states; Possibly the reader has very likely been introduced to the notion of listening more to the message within the message than to listen to the message itself. This is classic: Wasn't it Moses who was to have brought the 10 commandments down and given them to the people: diversion was the order of the day; as if the whole purpose of their introduction was to prove to all who know of the account; that diverting and diverse lines of reason are incorporated into what is primarily offered as a unique concept at the language level. Of course this is an interesting point, perhaps so. Reading is not understanding after all. Warren next states; It is as if we as humans do NOT listen at all to the original content, the simply stated thread (as above) but within that thread are complicated and varied messages, which emanate (and in many directions) from that single thread of thought. Poor Warren feels his message was drown out in incessant and irrelevant non-ending verbiage. This is unfortunate and although the message is stated clearly and later he re-states the message the incessant details keep coming in at a faster rate, further drowning out his message in his opinion. Yet in looking at this it does appear that Warrens theory and potential discovery could be the tip of the ice-berg to an entire new industry of sound energy and a continuation of some lost science in acoustic transducers. Warren states; It is as if it does not matter what the content of the original thread even is; it simply does not matter; the messages within the message is the point of the post; the point of the thread. Indeed Warren could state this and be right, however the message with in the message could have 100 meanings all left up for perception based interpretation. If one takes the message and interprets it 85 of the 100 ways then, wouldnt that be the person who gets the most out of it? And one could say that the original message was in fact interpreted at least 85 ways and therefore it has propelled thought and well isnt that what an online think tank is all about. The winner would be the reader who reads and understands, because simply reading does not guarantee understanding. Warren of course is still concerned with all the information and diversion from topic and states; So, happy trails to this thread, it warrants not much more energy from me. The diversion from the original is overwhelming and is also an eye opener for me, the new-be as you say. I'm simply amazed. Should Warren be amazed? That my friends it the thought of the day? |
