.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
Technical Essay # 72 - FAF 6 April 1992

.ce Smartness


People ask me once in a while: How come you are so smart? That has always been a
puzzling question to me, and it brings up some interesting philosophical points, which is why
I would mention it here.

Because deep down inside I know that I am really stupid and confused. I have learned to say
"Thank you" and accept the compliment, but really I don't quite mean it.

The thing is that I stay stupid and confused longer than most people I know. Most people,
when presented with a new subject, will be stupid at first but will relatively quickly get to a
point when they decide that they know what the subject is. From then on they have trouble
learning a whole lot more, because they decided that they already know it.

To learn something you must apparently first decide that you don't know it.

I never decide that I know something, and if I do I usually regret it. When confronted with a
new subject I will stay confused and fumbling for a long time, even when people around me
seem to master it easily. I really don't know how they do that. I can't fake knowing very well.
As long as I am confused I will keep looking and learning to find out what is going on. The
subjects I am the most interested in are the ones I will be the most confused about. I would
only decide I know something when I grow tired of it and I am ready to give it up. I get very
surprised when I find that I do better than many others in subjects that really are great
mysteries to me. That really makes me wonder what other people actually are doing when
they appear to be learning something.

Does it mean that you can know more by not knowing, that you get smarter by being stupid?
I really don't know - I'm confused.

Now, thinking about it, it appears that Smart/Stupid or Know/UnKnow is a two-pole polarity.
You can't really have one without the other. One is meaningless without comparison with the
other. The balance or the game between knowing and not knowing is what makes learning
possible. The moment you fixate on only one side, like deciding you already know it, or
deciding that you couldn't possible know it, well then you can't learn anything.

Optimum learning, as well as Optimum-anything-else in this universe, contains optimum
randomity. There has to be a randomity. In learning, it represents the stuff you don't know yet.
And you better not fool yourself into thinking the randomity isn't a randomity before you know
everything about it.

Plus randomity would be when you think there is nothing you could possibly learn, the
subject is unlearnable, and is complete and random motion, and there is absolutely nothing
you can do about it.

Minus randomity would be when you decide that the whole subject is already explained in a
few simple rules, there is really nothing more to say. The subject is in no motion, because the
laws are fixed in stone. Anything that will happen will have to fit the existing rules or you
aren't going to deal with it.

I guess that optimum randomity doesn't have to mean confusion. Confusion is rather
unpleasant. It should be possible to have a more enjoyable way of doing it. I haven't quite
figured it out yet.

Existence and the universe as we know it is a dynamic, fluid, multi-dimensional affair. There
is a lot of randomity and motion there. The truth of it is exactly what it is, and that includes all
the elements and all the motion. Any simplified model you make of it is just that: a simplified
model. No model is the real thing. Models and simplifying principles and theories are very
useful to work with, as long as you realize that they are only symbols, and you are ready to
revise them when appropriate.

The more sane way of operating is probably to fully realize when you are working with a map
and when you are looking at the actual territory. And to be able to do either of them or both of
them fully. That would be a wonderful Clear state. Full cause over the subjective
representation you make in your mind, and ability to see the world objectively as it is without
any kind of biasing filters. That is an absolute of course, but a worthwhile one to pursue, I
think.