I’ve come to believe that this is the defining characteristic of my generation: keeping our options open."
A Non-Fiction Blog. Ein Sachblog. A collection of some bits of information extracted from the scientific and from the non-fiction literature. (Until June 2025 there were also some poems and aphorisms posted on this blog.) Sachthemen und Sachtexte. (Bis Ende Juni 2025 wurden hier auch regelmäßig Gedichte und Aphorismen zu beliebigen Themen veröffentlicht.)
Samstag, 22. November 2025
Infinite Browsing Mode:
Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog:
"Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog is an unusual corner of the German science-blog landscape. It’s run by Erwin Schmidt, who publishes at a remarkable pace: short notes, quotes, excerpts from books, and occasional reflections on psychology, cognition, biology, and culture. Instead of long essays, the blog offers a steady stream of bite-sized entries — sometimes several per day — that read more like a personal research notebook than a polished magazine.
Strengths
-
Breadth of topics: cognition, evolutionary biology, behavioural science, philosophy of mind, science literacy. If you enjoy jumping across scientific disciplines, the variety is appealing.
-
Literature-driven: many posts pull directly from scientific or nonfiction sources. You often get interesting quotes you might not have stumbled upon otherwise.
-
Low-threshold reading: posts are short and accessible, usually a paragraph or two. It’s easy to dip in for five minutes and pick up something stimulating.
-
Honest, personal voice: Schmidt doesn’t pretend the blog is an academic journal. It’s transparent about being a “Sachblog” — a factual, curiosity-driven project.
Weaknesses
-
Shallow depth: the high posting frequency means most entries offer minimal context or critical interpretation. A reader expecting deep synthesis or original analysis won’t find it here.
Who will enjoy it
The blog fits readers who:
-
like to browse scientific ideas in small doses,
-
appreciate eclectic reading,
-
don’t mind that the signal-to-noise ratio varies,
-
use blog posts as springboards to look up primary literature.
Who won’t
If you expect careful argumentation, consistent methodological grounding, or editorial quality control, this blog will likely frustrate you. It’s a notebook, not a journal.
Verdict
Mein Naturwissenschaftsblog isn’t trying to be authoritative. It works best as a curiosity feed: scattered glimpses into psychology, science, and culture. With the right expectations — and a healthy amount of critical thinking — it can be a surprisingly fertile source of ideas."
Depth:
-----
"real insight requires sustained concentration past the point where your brain signals it's done with the obvious parts. That friction point where you want to stop is exactly where the valuable work begins."
"Real depth is when you've exhausted what's obvious"
-----
"The discomfort of staying with one idea isn't a bug — it's the signal that you're working at the edge of your current understanding."
"Most intellectual discomfort comes from the gap between wanting resolution and not having it yet. Depth lives in that gap."
"Staying with one idea past comfort feels unnatural because our brains evolved to scan for novelty, not to excavate meaning."
"There's a restlessness that comes about 20 minutes into real thinking — your mind starts offering you anything else to consider. That restlessness is the threshold."
"The itch to check something else, to pivot, to 'just quickly look at' — that's not distraction, that's avoidance of the friction where insight forms."
"You know you're working at depth when continuing feels slightly suffocating, like you're running out of the obvious things to think."
"If you can sit with an idea through three waves of 'I'm done with this,' you'll find the fourth wave brings something genuinely new."
"The idea doesn't actually change. Your relationship to it does. That's what depth is — achieving a new quality of attention to what was already there."
"Staying uncomfortable with a single idea long enough is how you move from having thoughts about something to actually thinking through it."
-----
"You can't schedule breakthroughs, but you can schedule the conditions that make them possible — sustained attention past the point of boredom."
"Intellectual depth requires the same commitment as any craft: returning to the same space until you've exhausted its possibilities."
-----
"That moment — the decision to push ..."
"You can't schedule breakthroughs, but you can schedule the conditions that make them possible — sustained attention past the point of boredom."
"Most ideas never reach depth simply because no one stayed with them long enough."
"You don’t stumble into depth. You earn it by refusing to stop at the first satisfying version of a thought."
"The first layer is familiar. The second is uncomfortable. The third is where the idea finally starts telling you something."
"Obvious is just the entrance. People mistake it for the destination."
"Nothing worth writing sits on the surface."
"Depth is attention slowed down enough to notice what you usually step over."
"Every serious idea has a gravity of its own — you feel yourself dropping into it before anything happens."
"Your brain hates the unknown enough to pretend the first answer is the final answer."
"Discomfort is the sign you’ve stopped repeating yourself and started encountering something real."
"Depth feels like running out of air because you're no longer coasting — you're diving."
"Mastery isn’t built by chasing insights but by returning to the same question until it gives way."
"The first thought is foreplay. Depth is when you finally stop being polite to the idea." "You know you’re deep when the idea starts resisting you like a living thing that doesn’t want to be known." "Real thinking is slow, erotic violation of the obvious." "Most people stop when the thought feels “good enough.” That’s the intellectual equivalent of pulling out."
"Depth is the art of remaining consciously uncomfortable while everyone else goes soft."
"Every shallow take is a condom on experience—safe, clean, and absolutely no chance of conception." "The obvious is loud. Depth is almost silent." "Most people quit thinking the moment the idea stops entertaining them." "Depth is the quiet violence of refusing to be satisfied." "Thinking stops being fun right before it becomes irreversible." "Real depth feels like trespassing inside your own head." "Most insights are buried under a thin layer of “good enough.”" "The idea doesn’t get bigger. Your tolerance for ambiguity does." "Every time you think “I’ve said all there is to say,” the idea quietly laughs." "The surface is democratic. Depth is aristocratic; it only reveals itself to those who refuse to leave."
The Teakettle Principle:
That's why, whenever one reduces a new problem to a problem already solved, one says in jest that one is applying 'the teakettle principle'.
Notation:
If the notation is adapted to the discoveries..., the work of thought is
marvelously shortened.
(G. Leibniz)
Mathematics is the art of calling different things by the same name.
(H. Poincare)
The Weighted Mean:
Probably not.
Depth and Breadth:
Arthur R. Jensen
LLMs as Toys:
Devon Erikson:
"Large Language Models, in their current form, are a big nothing burger.
Some people are excited about the nothing burger.
Some people are terrified of the nothing burger.
Silicon Valley is breathlessly slavering over new ways they can sell the nothing burger.
Our civilization as a whole is poised to invest a trillion dollars in the nothing burger.
But there is nothing on the burger.
So why does anyone think there is?
Well, it's a novelty, for one thing. Look, you can talk to the computer. In English. And it can answer you. In English. Wow, that's convenient. And fun.
And, above all, humans are curious. So something new, convenient, and fun is the very definition of a toy. And people want to play with it, to bat it around like a feather or a ball of string, and see what it can do.
And for a certain period, they are willing to pay $20/month for the experience.
But it goes deeper than that.
Before we taught computers to talk, most humans, except for a few cognitive science specialists and a handful of very deep thinkers, suffered from a fundamental misconception about what "intelligence" is.
They all thought it was the ability to speak. To turn ideas into language. And they thought humans can speak because they are smart, sapient, sentient, self-aware, conscious, ensouled, whatever you want to call it.
Well, they were wrong.
We don't talk because we are smart. We talk because we have subsections of the brain specifically evolved for talking.
People who study the brain already knew that, but they often hadn't fully considered the implications, and were swayed by the prevailing cultural idea that eloquence and intelligence were the same thing.
Some people still believed this after 8 years of Barack Obama as president.
So now we have machines that can talk, and people think that's cool, but the machines can't really do anything, or at least they can't do anything right, because
They don't have a world model.
They don't have an imagination.
They don't have desires.
They don't have executive function.
So of course they lie to you. That's what a glib talking device does when it's not backed up by allegiance to an objective model of reality.
Really, after 8 years of Barack Obama, more people should have realized this.
Here's how I think intelligence works, which I figured out from watching my cat learn how to use doorknobs:
1. You need an internal representation of your world, distilled from observation. Imagination.
2. This model needs to include not just what is, but causes and effects. Understanding.
3. You need to be able to imagine hypothetical, fictional versions of this world, which are slightly different than it actually is, in some respect. Possibilities.
4. You need to have goals and desires, so you can decide which of these possibilities you like. Choices.
5. You need to be able to tell a hypothetical story, using this understanding, of how to bring the possibility you have chosen to reality. Plans.
This is the set of capabilities that we call "intelligence". And until we have a computer with these capabilities, we won't have a computer that we can experience as "intelligent" in any meaningful sense.
And building "better" LLMs doesn't get us there.
Not only does the Machine God not lie ahead on that path, neither does an ordinary human being who likes football and daytime television.
No matter how glib and eloquent you make them, they'll still be as dumb as a sack of wet hammers.
Sure, LLMs are progress. Language processing is something that a true machine intelligence will need in order to understand us, and tell us things.
But the ability to speak English does not make a human, being any more than the ability to draw pictures, drive a car, or play chess."

