[hliyan]

At some point, I think we'll be limited by limitations in the way we think, rather than the inputs (media). Humans think by spatializing[1] (I'm using Julian Jaynes' definition here). Which is why pen-and-paper and electronic analogs thereof endure -- it's a 2D version of what goes on in our mind.

[1] http://www.julianjaynes.org/origin-of-consciousness_english_...

    Moreover, things that in the physical-behavioral world
    do not have a spatial quality are made to have such in
    consciousness. Otherwise we cannot be conscious of them. 
    This we shall call spatialization.

    Time is an obvious example. If I ask you to think of the
    last hundred years, you may have a tendency to excerpt
    the matter in such a way that the succession of years is
    spread out, probably from left to right. But of course
    there is no left or right in time. There is only before
    and after, and these do not have any spatial properties
    whatever — except by analog. You cannot, absolutely
    cannot think of time except by spatializing it.

[didgeoridoo]

The goal of Bret Victor's interactive visualization work is to take concepts that are inconceivable (because, as you say, they are not immediately tractable to spatialization) and, through clever transformation, MAKE them conceivable. Are there "inputs" where this doesn't work? Maybe — but I'm not sure where they could be found in nature.

[nitrogen]

Does everyone think spatially? There are those who lack a "mind's eye" entirely, which seems like it would at least help with spatialization, and I've worked with businesspeople who said they thought entirely in terms of time, and space was a much less concrete concept for them.

[corysama]

If you want to think about thinking via spatializing, you would probably appreciate the more recent BV talk "Humane Representation of Thought"

https://vimeo.com/115154289