Never mind understanding probability & sharp statistical skills; despite gains in IQ points, many folks still tend to lack abstract thinking skills & are concrete thinkers unable to leverage categories &/or metaphors, lack a theory of mind, & have trouble with logic both committing fallacies &/or erroneously being convinced by fallacious arguments!
Did we get wiser? Yes we did. Dr. Flynn shows us that over the decades we got so wise that the least of men could be relied on to wisely vote for a government. Then the least of women were accepted. Forty years back 18yo youths were. Now people are seriously proposing 16yo. They are truly as informed and wise as their grandparents were at 21.
Knowledge and Understanding: In the domain of Knowledge there are different types: True, false, questions, distinctions, predictions, contradictions, procedures, nonsense, and the list goes on. In the domain of Understanding where the knowledge type 'procedural' is the how-to instructions included in the body of knowledge that makes up the understanding. You can view your list of understandings by listing all the words you use that end with the suffex ing. Like: Reading, writing, thinking, talking, seeing, believing, typing, tweeting, etc. Understandings are the program code that runs all the things that you do. Understandings consume energy (calories) when operating whereas knowledge does not require extra energy just to remain in state. Its good to know the difference between Knowledge and Understanding. Knowledge Directs, Understanding Affects. The brain organizes knowledge into ten knowledge contexts for every issue in its knowledge library. These contexts are: Name, Authors, Purpose, Environment, Language, Configuration, Operation, Owners, Market, and Value. These are the Ten Directors that control the function of any issue. All procedural knowledge that drives understandings are stored in the Operation Director. You can change your life my meditating on each one of the ten directors individually and doing a house cleaning on the knowledge stored there. Delete the false knowledge and install true knowledge in each of the ten directors. Edit modify and test changes to procedural knowledge in all your understandings. Thinking is an Understanding that can be edited and changed as needed.
@@daveulmer could understa. Asked for resources coz this seemed such an interesting idea, would have liked to subscribe to such kind of thought creating sources, thats it
29:00 Also, isn't the "best rookie" just the best of the rookies? The next year, he's compared to *everyone*. The increased diverse sample will reflect the truth of his relative prowess.
My summary: something something industrial revolution how it changed our lives(i think) examples of the new tools after the industrial revolution 6 tools will be talked about examples for each tool psychologists have discovered the best way to teach people something is to emphasize their good performance(tell why it's good) and de-emphasize the bad performance(not as useful to tell why it's bad) everything has alternatives, and there is a best alternative. law of large numbers: sample values resemble population values as a direct function of their size and an inverse function of the expected error associated with each observation observation = true score + error the correlation between interview performance and performance in college or business is 0.1 a study about something something abilities and traits, "perceived and actual correlations across two occasions and across 20", ppls ability to correlate accurately given a 1 streak or multiple streak regression to the mean: extreme observations of events are likely to be followed by less extreme observations of the same type of event - to the extent that there is variation for the observations of the type in question predictions of events of one kind based on the observations of another kind have to take into account the correlation between the two kinds of events self selection: the subject chooses not only the subject's level on a given variable but the level on a host of other variables that are correlated with that variable (idk kinda what this all means)multiple regression analysis: examines the association of each of a number of independent variables with a dependent variable - net of the association between every other variable and the dependent variable in other words, the correlation of x and y "controlling for" all variables that are correlated with both x and y in theory it works, but often all the variables can't be identified of the ones identified, they often can't be measured, or it is difficult to be measured meaningless to say you control for variables with missing values(idk what this means) a b testing: "use a blue border, use a red border, see which gets more clicks, something like that" opportunity cost: the net benefit of the best course of action not taken everything has alternatives, and there is a best alternative. the best alternative is the opportunity cost of doing the thing a tip is to reduce opportunity cost is to frame actions as potential costs: is this the optimal thing to be doing now? sunk cost: resources spent to attain a goal that can't be retrieved a tip to reduce sunk cost is to pretend if the resource had not been expended, would you still do the thing there are examples for each tool fyi
Intelligence has nothing to do with the school. Schools does not make people more intelliegent, it just make them to know more things. Intelligence is not equal to knowledge, actully they are completely different things.
I disagree. Although I agree that intelligence isn't equal to knowledge, I believe you can improve you're intelligence through nuture. Your classes in school should force you to reason and use logic, and by consistently doing so, your intelligence should over time.
Intelligence is within and the the level of expression depends on the level of energetic vibration. The conventional school systems only help to train the memory and the ability to remember information.
Wise One Unintelligent people can't acquire the vocabulary of intelligent people because they can't accommodate the associated concepts of such a vocabulary. If someone has a complex, probing and imaginative thought process - if they are 'more conscious' than someone else, then they will need and acquire a broader vocabulary to both internally and externally represent and express their thought processes. This is why intelligent (more conscious) people generally have a larger vocabulary. Do you not agree? .
Ah. I see your point. The pre-existence of intelligence, and curiosity, is what drives people to seek words, and use words for explanation. Yes I agree with that. I was viewing it from the perspective that intelligent people are those whose capacity is enough to understand words, and the concepts they relate to.
One day a school teacher wrote on the board the following: 9×1=7 9×2=18 9×3=27 9×4=36 9×5=45 9×6=54 9×7=63 9×8=72 9×9=81 9×10=90 When she was done, she looked to the students and they were all laughing at her, because of the first equation which was wrong, and then the teacher said the following, "I wrote that first one wrong on purpose, because I wanted you to learn something important. This was for you to know how the world out there will treat you. You can see that I wrote RIGHT 9 times, but none of you congratulated me for it; you all laughed and criticized me because of one wrong thing I did. So this is the lesson...: 'The world will never appreciate the good you do a million times, but will criticize the one wrong thing you do... But don't get discouraged, ALWAYS RISE ABOVE ALL THE LAUGHTER AND CRITICISM. STAY STRONG.' "
How are revenge and forgiveness alike? They are both words? I would say they depend on another person, but you can forgive yourself. They are both predicated upon punishment, one is to punish whilst the other is to refrain from punishment.
Increase the speed to 1.25 to cut down the registration of the "ahh...ahhhh...uhhh ahhh.. ahhhh..." . Its a little better but still really dull to listen to.
I was saying "exactly" almost the whole time. Before I was even 10 I recognized that many people couldn't do this stuff he describes here. EDIT: I think it's because most people don't want to expend the energy necessary to think for themselves or run experiments for themselves. I think it's because people expect to receive answers from someone they think knows better. I feel like people don't realize that doing this allows others to control their thoughts.
YES! This is in part why people can be "misled" into doing something that is against their interests. They farm their thinking out to someone else, be it their priest, teacher, government, family relations etc. The act of thinking, to them, has opportunity costs.
Meditation is good for you but first you need something to meditate about. In hypnosis it's known that to make yourself do something that you normally don't do is easier than trying to quit smoking because your still thinking about smoking.
Perhaps. Good reasoning is based upon a pretty accurate assessment of probabilities, as well as working memory, and speed of brain processing. That is why Einstein reasoned that spacetime must be the same if the speed of light is to remain the same.
Adam Bechtol Actually no. If "thinking and reasoning properly" inherently means using statistical and probability concepts then it's best the title stay this way and the concepts be taught as they are. Then this talk would be directed to people that study statistics and probability, when it's intended for people interested in proper thinking
It's difficult to believe that people have got more intelligent whilst listening to this lecture unless you correlate intelligence with being being bored out of your mind.
It doesn't make sense to me that he was saying IQ in children went up due to increased education in adults. What mechanism is he proposing? Parents with greater education produce children with higher IQs?
Informative talk, but explanations of concepts often unclear. Instead of "true score plus error", more intuitive to say "averages vs. random variation."
It's a challenging lecture for some because the speaker is specifically talking about concepts that smart people have/should have. This will likely then not be understood by people that don't have a grasp of those concepts.
Interesting talk, wide variety of topics mentioned. I was waiting for him to say a sentence or two about survivor bias as well. Anyway a nice job educating the public.
in my opinion we shouldn't be thinking at all, thinking deteroiorates brain cells over time and eventually we'll get dementia but we only think when we are faced with a problem brought about my a loss or lack of love!!
IQ measures a fair portion of what is important for success in the 21st century. Rational Intelligence is also very important. This is based upon very good reasoning and the ability to control instinctive answers.
Poor skills as a lecturer make this one a tough to wade thru. The gentleman is getting older, so the uhhhhs, uhmmm, and lips smacking might be overlooked, but not the lack of communication skills. He talks over the head of a general audience, for example, giving a puzzle about birth rates - and then saying "everyone gets this wrong". But then NOT telling what the right or wrong answer is, but immediately jumping to a statistical theory..... as if OF COURSE we all know the correct answer. "OK, I won't talk correlation theory", and then immediately does. A very credentialed scientist, this kind of lecture just isn't in his skill set, at least not on this occasion.
For the Demokrazed: When does the model (of an atom, a star, a galaxy) become the atom, the star, or the galaxy itself? When do the consensus view of the laws underlying the model become the model or the thing itself? When does the projection or regression of a model become the real thing? At best, each is a system of explaining, and at most predicting the behavior that we can explain with our current system? Contrary to what most people believe, the Ptolemaic system of astronomy can still be used. All you need to do is to add more epicenters when a discrepancy appears. What changes is the efficacy, the scope, the latent potential as it were, of the system. Just as an old system can work given the scope of our daily needs, apparently cutting edge systems can be perceived as primitive compared to reasonable thought experiments. If we wanted to travel to near solar systems, as human beings, it would take tens of thousands of years & we would have to convert our solar system to fuel, leaving us without the ship to hold the fuel. These legs are meant for walking anyone. Or, marriage goes like a horse and carriage. Or, horseless wagon. We can see so much with essentially a particle/ wave. For all practical purposes, it's a first brick. Hydrogen, so universal. Is it not reasonable to see it as subject to the simplest laws. And, perhaps, these simplest laws, vis a vis light/wave & "the universe", are what we can understand and register at this time. As it is we are approaching limits beyond which either there's no beyond which to be concerned about, or we can't even form the mathematics to create the model to test or attempt to register it's viability as a model. Scientific inquiry should be seen as a journey to uncover our scientific errors and limits & seek to expand our ability to register, to predict, to explain with most accuracy and economy.
Aristotle is the smartest man who ever lived? Really? We're talking about the guy who thought eels spontaneously generated from mud and who believed some people were born to be slaves. Even by Ancient Greek standards those are some pretty dumb ideas.
He did not have the resources available to him at the time to know better. He is known as the smartest person because of the expansion in human knowledge that he was a large part of. Not because of the knowledge he or everyone else started out with.
'Smart' does not mean knowing things. Any dumb person can 'know' things by learning them. 'Smart' means 'intelligent' which means being able to think creatively and searchingly. If absolutely 'everything' that Aristotle thought to be true was actually false, that would not have any baring on his 'intelligence'. It's remarkable to me how few people seem to understand this.
"Christianity has at its basis many Aristotelian ideas which is the main cause for the level of advancement of the western world" I would argue that the dogmatic adherence of Christianty to Aristotle's ideas held us back. It wasn't until people began to ignore Aristotle that any progress was made. Let's face it, it is hard to find a single important idea he had that was actually correct.
chris4072511 He figured out that our planet was constantly changing, and he even knew that a human life time wasnt enough to understand the massive changes it went through. I say, my knowledge on aristotle is very limited, but on reading through him to give you a response, im amazed over his knowledge at the time. Aristotle's ideas was great and a continuation of human knowledge at the time, It sad that religion had to steal pieces off and kill it with religious dogmatism. Being wrong doesn't kill knowledge, dogmatic behavior kills it. Religion kills knowledge.
What do you mean by smart. Are you talking of our ability to cultivate memory. The innate intelligence of the human body has not changed only very negligibly. The innate intelligence is sensory, and the dialectic artificial structure you have created an identity out of, is no match for that. We have accumulated knowledge but this is a mere labeling process. It is an extension of our survival mechanism that we are using to create this tremendous structure of thought. It is only so we can exploit the Earth's natural resources. But that is not intelligence, ultimately it will destroy everything. what we call progress is progressively moving in the direction of destroying everything. Mere linguistics is no match for millions of years of evolution. We are born with a tremendous intelligence, there is nothing we can do through volition to improve that. That is what brought you here in the first place that is what keeps your body functioning. It's because we think we are more intelligent than that, we are making such a mess of things. we have exploited the Earth's natural resources, we have destroyed life and Property, created new forms of cancer and disease. And with all our intelligence why have half of the people on this planets not even got their basic needs met, when this earth can feed 3 times the population with no scientific or technological advancement. Not so smart to me, and I'm an illiterate.
What a load of garbage. Don't get me wrong, information might be gold, but you are talking to people, right? But it seems like you are making a lecture for robots. You don't explain things, you do not prepare it for human awareness, or a story that could make this all information all the more understandable and digestive, enjoyable? How you can lecture about psychology, when you ignore peoples psychology?
I regret using headphones, the intro just melted my brain
My ears are bleeding
The shoe on the left is casting a spell.
Never mind understanding probability & sharp statistical skills; despite gains in IQ points, many folks still tend to lack abstract thinking skills & are concrete thinkers unable to leverage categories &/or metaphors, lack a theory of mind, & have trouble with logic both committing fallacies &/or erroneously being convinced by fallacious arguments!
And in the year 2020, it would appear that vast swaths of the general populace may be headed back towards pre-industrial mindsets and modes...
“If you don’t understand these things then you can’t function effectively in your daily life”
Me: Oh.
Did we get wiser? Yes we did. Dr. Flynn shows us that over the decades we got so wise that the least of men could be relied on to wisely vote for a government. Then the least of women were accepted. Forty years back 18yo youths were. Now people are seriously proposing 16yo. They are truly as informed and wise as their grandparents were at 21.
Knowledge and Understanding:
In the domain of Knowledge there are different types: True, false, questions, distinctions, predictions, contradictions, procedures, nonsense, and the list goes on.
In the domain of Understanding where the knowledge type 'procedural' is the how-to instructions included in the body of knowledge that makes up the understanding.
You can view your list of understandings by listing all the words you use that end with the suffex ing. Like: Reading, writing, thinking, talking, seeing, believing, typing, tweeting, etc.
Understandings are the program code that runs all the things that you do.
Understandings consume energy (calories) when operating whereas knowledge does not require extra energy just to remain in state.
Its good to know the difference between Knowledge and Understanding.
Knowledge Directs, Understanding Affects.
The brain organizes knowledge into ten knowledge contexts for every issue in its knowledge library. These contexts are: Name, Authors, Purpose, Environment, Language, Configuration, Operation, Owners, Market, and Value. These are the Ten Directors that control the function of any issue. All procedural knowledge that drives understandings are stored in the Operation Director.
You can change your life my meditating on each one of the ten directors individually and doing a house cleaning on the knowledge stored there. Delete the false knowledge and install true knowledge in each of the ten directors. Edit modify and test changes to procedural knowledge in all your understandings.
Thinking is an Understanding that can be edited and changed as needed.
@Rəşad Məlikov I am the only resource. Its based on common sense.
Hi! What do you use as your primary mainstream sources for getting information related the concept you said above? Please mention them...
@@samtitus5661 There are no mainstream sources for this just my own personal common sense and ingenuity.
@@daveulmer could understa. Asked for resources coz this seemed such an interesting idea, would have liked to subscribe to such kind of thought creating sources, thats it
This is what a mainstream newspaper sounds like when it becomes sentient.
perfect summary
Why the name is not - The Statistics of Thinking ???
@13:46 What IS the distance to Plato?
Pluto. He misspoke coz he was thinking about Greek philosophers.
I have a feeling aristotle would be in disacord with your opinion about ancient intelligence
Lots of critics commenting. I’m certain none of them have the knowledge or intelligence of the speaker though!
29:00 Also, isn't the "best rookie" just the best of the rookies? The next year, he's compared to *everyone*. The increased diverse sample will reflect the truth of his relative prowess.
My summary:
something something industrial revolution
how it changed our lives(i think)
examples of the new tools after the industrial revolution
6 tools will be talked about
examples for each tool
psychologists have discovered the best way to teach people something is to emphasize their good performance(tell why it's good) and de-emphasize the bad performance(not as useful to tell why it's bad)
everything has alternatives, and there is a best alternative.
law of large numbers: sample values resemble population values as a direct function of their size and an inverse function of the expected error associated with each observation
observation = true score + error
the correlation between interview performance and performance in college or business is 0.1
a study about something something abilities and traits, "perceived and actual correlations across two occasions and across 20", ppls ability to correlate accurately given a 1 streak or multiple streak
regression to the mean: extreme observations of events are likely to be followed by less extreme observations of the same type of event - to the extent that there is variation for the observations of the type in question
predictions of events of one kind based on the observations of another kind have to take into account the correlation between the two kinds of events
self selection: the subject chooses not only the subject's level on a given variable but the level on a host of other variables that are correlated with that variable
(idk kinda what this all means)multiple regression analysis: examines the association of each of a number of independent variables with a dependent variable - net of the association between every other variable and the dependent variable
in other words, the correlation of x and y "controlling for" all variables that are correlated with both x and y
in theory it works, but often all the variables can't be identified
of the ones identified, they often can't be measured, or it is difficult to be measured
meaningless to say you control for variables with missing values(idk what this means)
a b testing: "use a blue border, use a red border, see which gets more clicks, something like that"
opportunity cost: the net benefit of the best course of action not taken
everything has alternatives, and there is a best alternative. the best alternative is the opportunity cost of doing the thing
a tip is to reduce opportunity cost is to frame actions as potential costs:
is this the optimal thing to be doing now?
sunk cost: resources spent to attain a goal that can't be retrieved
a tip to reduce sunk cost is to pretend if the resource had not been expended, would you still do the thing
there are examples for each tool fyi
Intelligence has nothing to do with the school. Schools does not make people more intelliegent, it just make them to know more things. Intelligence is not equal to knowledge, actully they are completely different things.
I disagree. Although I agree that intelligence isn't equal to knowledge, I believe you can improve you're intelligence through nuture. Your classes in school should force you to reason and use logic, and by consistently doing so, your intelligence should over time.
@@tracistar215 You can't improve intelligence.
Intelligence is within and the the level of expression depends on the level of energetic vibration. The conventional school systems only help to train the memory and the ability to remember information.
6:22 "The more words you have the more concepts you have." No. The more concepts you have the more words you need and therefore acquire.
Yes and no. Each word itself can be a concept.
Wise One Unintelligent people can't acquire the vocabulary of intelligent people because they can't accommodate the associated concepts of such a vocabulary. If someone has a complex, probing and imaginative thought process - if they are 'more conscious' than someone else, then they will need and acquire a broader vocabulary to both internally and externally represent and express their thought processes. This is why intelligent (more conscious) people generally have a larger vocabulary. Do you not agree? .
Ah. I see your point. The pre-existence of intelligence, and curiosity, is what drives people to seek words, and use words for explanation. Yes I agree with that. I was viewing it from the perspective that intelligent people are those whose capacity is enough to understand words, and the concepts they relate to.
Great video, thank you!
Excellent Lecture. Thank you!
there are fish that can eat birds... Goliath Grouper can swallow pelicans whole :) !!!
CHEERS :)
Great whites eat boeings.
+neddy laddy sharknados can destroy cities
+dumb gal W of all W's !!!
One day a school teacher wrote on the board the following:
9×1=7
9×2=18
9×3=27
9×4=36
9×5=45
9×6=54
9×7=63
9×8=72
9×9=81
9×10=90
When she was done, she looked to the students and they were all
laughing at her, because of the first equation which was wrong, and then
the teacher said the following, "I wrote that first one wrong on
purpose, because I wanted you to learn something important. This was
for you to know how the world out there will treat you. You can see that
I wrote RIGHT 9 times, but none of you congratulated me for it; you all
laughed and criticized me because of one wrong thing I did. So this is
the lesson...: 'The world will never appreciate the good you do a million times, but will criticize the one wrong thing you do... But don't get discouraged, ALWAYS RISE ABOVE ALL THE LAUGHTER AND CRITICISM. STAY STRONG.' "
How are revenge and forgiveness alike?
They are both words? I would say they depend on another person, but you can forgive yourself. They are both predicated upon punishment, one is to punish whilst the other is to refrain from punishment.
They require a event of error to happen, that's the abstraction
Increase the speed to 1.25 to cut down the registration of the "ahh...ahhhh...uhhh ahhh.. ahhhh..." . Its a little better but still really dull to listen to.
A lot of good info here, if you don't fall asleep.
How much correlation is there between whether you fall asleep, and how good the information is?
Umm...err...uh...you know...um...
I was saying "exactly" almost the whole time. Before I was even 10 I recognized that many people couldn't do this stuff he describes here.
EDIT: I think it's because most people don't want to expend the energy necessary to think for themselves or run experiments for themselves. I think it's because people expect to receive answers from someone they think knows better.
I feel like people don't realize that doing this allows others to control their thoughts.
I think most people just don't have high openness personalities.
YES! This is in part why people can be "misled" into doing something that is against their interests. They farm their thinking out to someone else, be it their priest, teacher, government, family relations etc. The act of thinking, to them, has opportunity costs.
Meditation is good for you but first you need something to meditate about. In hypnosis it's known that to make yourself do something that you normally don't do is easier than trying to quit smoking because your still thinking about smoking.
It is or it is not, error factor what ever you make it is.
And what proof for school being source of IQ growth? Otherwise can be - better nutrition, better healthcare, more complicated world day-to-day.
seems like this talk should have the word "statistics/probability" or "statistical thinking" etc... in the title.
Perhaps. Good reasoning is based upon a pretty accurate assessment of probabilities, as well as working memory, and speed of brain processing. That is why Einstein reasoned that spacetime must be the same if the speed of light is to remain the same.
Adam Bechtol Actually no. If "thinking and reasoning properly" inherently means using statistical and probability concepts then it's best the title stay this way and the concepts be taught as they are. Then this talk would be directed to people that study statistics and probability, when it's intended for people interested in proper thinking
It's difficult to believe that people have got more intelligent whilst listening to this lecture unless you correlate intelligence with being being bored out of your mind.
I've never heard "uhh" so uhh much uhhh in a uhhhh lecture.
It doesn't make sense to me that he was saying IQ in children went up due to increased education in adults. What mechanism is he proposing? Parents with greater education produce children with higher IQs?
bird & fish alike? my answer is they both have eyes
and they are organic, and relatively lower intelligence , than most humans
They both lay eggs. They are both capable of moving in all three dimensions.
They both are government spies
/s
Informative talk, but explanations of concepts often unclear. Instead of "true score plus error", more intuitive to say "averages vs. random variation."
he is hard work. not nodding off while he rambles on but
thanks for sharing
never STOP loving xxx
Intro was way too loud.
This talk is hard to listen to. I like how Ted talk are easy to understand and much more informative.
gud lucks out there in the wilds, TEED talk so smarts, I lik books wit piktures
This was extremely informative and there was a lot of knowledge...just boring though...but it's a great lecture.
It's a challenging lecture for some because the speaker is specifically talking about concepts that smart people have/should have. This will likely then not be understood by people that don't have a grasp of those concepts.
Should have been labeled cognitive bias
True
Interesting talk, wide variety of topics mentioned. I was waiting for him to say a sentence or two about survivor bias as well. Anyway a nice job educating the public.
in my opinion we shouldn't be thinking at all, thinking deteroiorates brain cells over time and eventually we'll get dementia but we only think when we are faced with a problem brought about my a loss or lack of love!!
Educational psychology has better optimized the use of the biochemical brain.
here we go with IQ... I'm aware of the increase in IQ but this isn't necessarily smarter...just more educated and education prone.
IQ measures a fair portion of what is important for success in the 21st century. Rational Intelligence is also very important. This is based upon very good reasoning and the ability to control instinctive answers.
Poor skills as a lecturer make this one a tough to wade thru. The gentleman is getting older, so the uhhhhs, uhmmm, and lips smacking might be overlooked, but not the lack of communication skills. He talks over the head of a general audience, for example, giving a puzzle about birth rates - and then saying "everyone gets this wrong". But then NOT telling what the right or wrong answer is, but immediately jumping to a statistical theory..... as if OF COURSE we all know the correct answer. "OK, I won't talk correlation theory", and then immediately does. A very credentialed scientist, this kind of lecture just isn't in his skill set, at least not on this occasion.
The talk was rather parochial in terms of similies and analogies applied. But good overall - Thanks.
*Similes. Thanks.
For the Demokrazed:
When does the model (of an atom, a star, a galaxy) become the atom, the star, or the galaxy itself?
When do the consensus view of the laws underlying the model become the model or the thing itself?
When does the projection or regression of a model become the real thing?
At best, each is a system of explaining, and at most predicting the behavior that we can explain with our current system?
Contrary to what most people believe, the Ptolemaic system of astronomy can still be used. All you need to do is to add more epicenters when a discrepancy appears.
What changes is the efficacy, the scope, the latent potential as it were, of the system.
Just as an old system can work given the scope of our daily needs, apparently cutting edge systems can be perceived as primitive compared to reasonable thought experiments.
If we wanted to travel to near solar systems, as human beings, it would take tens of thousands of years & we would have to convert our solar system to fuel, leaving us without the ship to hold the fuel.
These legs are meant for walking anyone. Or, marriage goes like a horse and carriage. Or, horseless wagon.
We can see so much with essentially a particle/ wave. For all practical purposes, it's a first brick.
Hydrogen, so universal. Is it not reasonable to see it as subject to the simplest laws. And, perhaps, these simplest laws, vis a vis light/wave & "the universe", are what we can understand and register at this time.
As it is we are approaching limits beyond which either there's no beyond which to be concerned about, or we can't even form the mathematics to create the model to test or attempt to register it's viability as a model.
Scientific inquiry should be seen as a journey to uncover our scientific errors and limits & seek to expand our ability to register, to predict, to explain with most accuracy and economy.
Me when I’m talking to a girl:
A...a...a...a..rgh! Fluency!
Great Insights and information but, poor delivery.
Aristotle is presented as the "top of reasoning"???? The man was dead wrong about almost everything.
After listening for an hour I didn't understand a thing : (
2:12
they both have eyes? i guess XD
And not just any number of eyes, exactly 2 of them!
Aristotle is the smartest man who ever lived? Really? We're talking about the guy who thought eels spontaneously generated from mud and who believed some people were born to be slaves. Even by Ancient Greek standards those are some pretty dumb ideas.
He did not have the resources available to him at the time to know better.
He is known as the smartest person because of the expansion in human knowledge that he was a large part of.
Not because of the knowledge he or everyone else started out with.
Life arising from non-life is actually a pretty major idea.
'Smart' does not mean knowing things. Any dumb person can 'know' things by learning them. 'Smart' means 'intelligent' which means being able to think creatively and searchingly. If absolutely 'everything' that Aristotle thought to be true was actually false, that would not have any baring on his 'intelligence'. It's remarkable to me how few people seem to understand this.
"Christianity has at its basis many Aristotelian ideas which is the main cause for the level of advancement of the western world"
I would argue that the dogmatic adherence of Christianty to Aristotle's ideas held us back. It wasn't until people began to ignore Aristotle that any progress was made. Let's face it, it is hard to find a single important idea he had that was actually correct.
chris4072511 He figured out that our planet was constantly changing, and he even knew that a human life time wasnt enough to understand the massive changes it went through.
I say, my knowledge on aristotle is very limited, but on reading through him to give you a response, im amazed over his knowledge at the time.
Aristotle's ideas was great and a continuation of human knowledge at the time,
It sad that religion had to steal pieces off and kill it with religious dogmatism.
Being wrong doesn't kill knowledge, dogmatic behavior kills it. Religion kills knowledge.
FFS stop with the "Uhmm"
Some people are not suited to speak in public. Uhh.
I think he is well suited. I loved the tie! 😁
Uh uh umm uhh uhh uhh ...i wish he didnt use filler so much i cant concintrate
Uh
Too much time for the content.
ahh...ahhhh...uhhh ahhh.. ahhhh...
Uhh...
This guy is a terrible speaker. Makes the content way less interesting
... aah .... umm .... umm ... aah
The kindly makeup tinctorially peep because washer anecdotally trace since a descriptive hole. gifted, savory ping
Eh eh ah ah....
Great info, mediocre delivery.
What do you mean by smart. Are you talking of our ability to cultivate memory. The innate intelligence of the human body has not changed only very negligibly. The innate intelligence is sensory, and the dialectic artificial structure you have created an identity out of, is no match for that. We have accumulated knowledge but this is a mere labeling process. It is an extension of our survival mechanism that we are using to create this tremendous structure of thought. It is only so we can exploit the Earth's natural resources. But that is not intelligence, ultimately it will destroy everything. what we call progress is progressively moving in the direction of destroying everything. Mere linguistics is no match for millions of years of evolution.
We are born with a tremendous intelligence, there is nothing we can do through volition to improve that. That is what brought you here in the first place that is what keeps your body functioning.
It's because we think we are more intelligent than that, we are making such a mess of things. we have exploited the Earth's natural resources, we have destroyed life and Property, created new forms of cancer and disease. And with all our intelligence why have half of the people on this planets not even got their basic needs met, when this earth can feed 3 times the population with no scientific or technological advancement. Not so smart to me, and I'm an illiterate.
You're illiterate and yet you wrote that?
School does not make you smarter.
What a load of garbage. Don't get me wrong, information might be gold, but you are talking to people, right? But it seems like you are making a lecture for robots. You don't explain things, you do not prepare it for human awareness, or a story that could make this all information all the more understandable and digestive, enjoyable? How you can lecture about psychology, when you ignore peoples psychology?