Musings on tools for thought

Posted by MadaboutDana
May 11, 2022 at 09:26 AM

Thanks for your two replies, Dellu – both very sensible.

I was amazed and impressed to hear that Neal Stephenson deliberately eschewed his usual digital knowledge bases when putting together his plans/references etc. for the amazing Baroque Cycle trilogy of novels about the 17-18 centuries. The books (all around 1000 pages) are crammed with erudite knowledge, as well as amazingly complex, interrelated references plus, of course, a vast cast of characters, all with their little foibles and obsessions – again, all interlinked and wittily leveraged at appropriate moments.

The thought of putting something like that together without some kind of digital support brings me out in a cold sweat! But it certainly makes one think.

And yes, Neal Stephenson is extremely intelligent!

Dellu wrote:
It seems to me that extremely intelligent people might not need
>computers that much to generate innovative ideas; and to connect
>concepts that they read a year ago with the concepts that they are
>thinking about right now.
> >If you are very brilliant, and have a powerful memory, your brain does
>most of the connection and remembering: you don’t need an external
>assistance. From interviews and other peoples comments, that is exactly
>how Noam Chomsky works, for example. He doesn’t use technology for
>thinking. He uses paper and pen. Computers are used only for typing.
>Still, he produces the most mind boggling ideas; and connects the
>present events with the event that happened in the 60’s and 70’ with
>ease.
> >I cannot do that. I would be paralyzed if I don’t have the data (notes)
>and stuff on my computer, because I have weaker brain—cannot remember
>details, and cannot connect complex ideas once they reach a certain
>level of complexity.
> >Yes, Einstein might not have benefited from computers. But, for the
>regular Joh, they are the tools which help us as close as possible to
>the thinking capacities of these powerful brains.