Enlightenment is Complex, Boring, and Expensive Wednesday, Jun 27 2007
philosophy 7:42 pm
To gain the best possible perspective on any given situation or problem, one must be familiar with as many different views on it as are available. One must be familiar with all the background statistics, and related past cases. Jaynes writes:
- You and I form simultaneous judgments not only as to whether it is plausible, but also whether it is desirable, whether it is important, whether it is useful, whether it is interesting, whether it is amusing, whether it is morally right, etc. If we assume that each of these judgments might be represented by a number, then a fully adequate description of a human state of mind would be represented by a vector in a space of a rather large number of dimensions.
- Not all propositions require this. For example, the proposition, “the refractive index of water is less than 1.3″ generates no emotions; consequently the state of mind which it produces has very few coordinates. On the other hand, the proposition, “Your mother-in-law just wrecked your new car” generates a state of mind with many coordinates. A moment’s introspection will show that, quite generally, the situations of everyday life are those involving many coordinates. It is just for this reason, we suggest, that the most familiar examples of mental activity are often the most difficult to reproduce by a model.
- We might speculate further. Perhaps we have here the reason why science and mathematics are the most successful of human activities; they deal with propositions which produce the simplest of all mental states. Such states would be the ones least perturbed by a given amount of imperfection in the human mind.
One might argue that the simplest of all mental states also tend to be the most boring. I know that not everyone agrees on this, and the human brain provides a baseline dopamine dividend for any problem-solving activity, no matter how unidimensional. But most everyone would agree that the best expositions of science or math are peppered with intriguing analyses and comments, a la Feynman.
Even if you don’t believe that science and mathematics are boring, reading the necessary literature to thoroughly understand a situation or problem can be very time-consuming and challenging, if one has not had prior exposure to the field. It is expensive for the opportunity cost in economically productive work. It is complex due to the innate complexity of math and science.
For more on the idea that science is hard, see The Onion.

June 28th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Sounds like a similar thread to my arguments for the need for data-in BMI to acheive “information suffrage“; though admittedly I’m a more political creature than you are, at least in tone here.
June 28th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
For more on the idea that science is hard, see The Onion.
It’s only hard if you don’t read the economist. There’s times I really love the onion.
June 28th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
“For more on the idea that science is hard,”
Science can actually be very easy- simply observe stuff, make up theories, and keep only the theories that match observation. “Science” covers both really easy material and really hard material- for example, the Simplified Theory of Gravitation (”stuff falls down”) and General Relativity are both valid scientific theories.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 am
Technological enlightenment is not the same as spiritual enlightemnent.
Perhaps a more balanced approach to ‘progress’ is needed by all you transhumanists?