Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

.Naval: Marxism, besides denying human incentives, also has a problem where it just assumes that everything is finite and we're all just dividing up the same small set of things. Well, the cavemen didn't have color TVs, computers, cars, antibiotics, or medicine. They were not sitting around dividing up... the same few things. The knowledge grows, and we create more. It also tends to assume that we can freeze frame at some point in society and say, 'Well, we have enough different kinds of sneakers, enough different kinds of housing, we just need to allocate it better.' And that is not how anything works. David Deutsch has a great definition of wealth, which he says is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. So, when you think about it that way, you realize that knowledge is not just stored capital in the classic Marxist sense (capital vs. labor), but it's also knowledge on what to do with that capital. The cavemen or Palaeolithic ancestors had access to all the same resources we did. They were living on the same Earth, and by the modern environmentalist arguments, they had a better Earth—they had more to do things with. But yet, they couldn't do anything. They were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Why? Because of knowledge. Life is not a zero-sum game, it's a positive-sum game. But we are hardwired to think it's a zero-sum game because, for millions or billions of years, there was no such thing as wealth. There was no such thing as persistent knowledge creation in the environment. What you had was a small amount of resources being divided up, and most of the games were status games—'Which monkey outranks which other monkey?' And that decides which monkey gets to eat first. We played that game for a billion years. Now, we come onto a recent game where, actually, we can all eat, and the big problem is obesity. It's no longer starvation. The big problem is boredom. It's not actually work. There's enough work. So, in this environment, switching your evolved mindset from a zero-sum game to a positive-sum game where we can all win, if we create knowledge together and use the resources that we have to create more resources and more wealth, that's the game we all need to be playing now.show more

Arjun Khemani

34,001 subscribers

163,478 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 Kommentare

Profilbild von Arjun Khemani

Arjun Khemanivor 1 Jahr

My full conversation with @naval:

Profilbild von Trump2024Film

Trump2024Filmvor 2 Jahren

There's only one way to fight back against the Marxists, Socialists, Globalists, and Communists ruining our country...

Profilbild von Maren Kahnert 🦊⚔❤

Maren Kahnert 🦊⚔❤vor 1 Jahr

@naval They should teach this👆 at school, but they teach our kids the opposite: "Tax the rich because it's a zero-sum game."

Profilbild von Middle Age Dad

Middle Age Dadvor 1 Jahr

@naval David Deutsch says wealth is the set of physical transformations that we can affect. Best wealth definition ever!

Profilbild von Matt

Mattvor 1 Jahr

@naval This is fundamental thinking right there.

Profilbild von BDSM Token

BDSM Tokenvor 1 Jahr

@naval Ride the wave with $BDSM, it's a game-changer! 🚀💰💡

Profilbild von Podcast Notes 🗒️

Podcast Notes 🗒️vor 1 Jahr

@naval Full notes!

Profilbild von Erick Turricelli

Erick Turricellivor 1 Jahr

@naval great interview @arjunkhemani , keep going

Profilbild von Aaki...

Aaki...vor 1 Jahr

@naval Need to read more to understand this

Profilbild von Michael A. Markosian, M.D.

Michael A. Markosian, M.D.vor 1 Jahr

@naval “Wealth is the set of physical transformations that we can effect.”

Profilbild von Vladimir Milosevic

Vladimir Milosevicvor 1 Jahr

@naval Wealth is more like energy then like stuff. It is a power to get stuff going.

Ähnliche Videos

ELON: THE ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME “I think generally, people should always be wary that they may have, either consciously, or perhaps mostly subconsciously, internalized the notion of a zero-sum game, or a fixed pie. And if you internalize that, everything is zero-sum, meaning in order for me to get ahead, someone else has to not get ahead or for me to have stuff, someone else must not have stuff, if you have that axiomatic flow, then what it needs to be done is to fix that axiomatic flow, because it is false. It's not a zero-sum game. We can absolutely grow, and have grown, and the evidence is overwhelming, that we have grown the output of goods and services. We have many things today that we did not have in the past. We are far more prosperous. All of humanity is far more prosperous today than it was at times in the past.” European Jewish Association, 2024, Elon Musk

ELON: THE ECONOMY IS NOT A ZERO-SUM GAME “I think generally, people should always be wary that they may have, either consciously, or perhaps mostly subconsciously, internalized the notion of a zero-sum game, or a fixed pie. And if you internalize that, everything is zero-sum, meaning in order for me to get ahead, someone else has to not get ahead or for me to have stuff, someone else must not have stuff, if you have that axiomatic flow, then what it needs to be done is to fix that axiomatic flow, because it is false. It's not a zero-sum game. We can absolutely grow, and have grown, and the evidence is overwhelming, that we have grown the output of goods and services. We have many things today that we did not have in the past. We are far more prosperous. All of humanity is far more prosperous today than it was at times in the past.” European Jewish Association, 2024, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

1,682,320 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

.Naval: You define wealth in a beautiful way. You talk about wealth as a set of physical transformations that we can affect. So as a society it becomes very clear that knowledge leads directly to wealth creation for everybody. A given individual can obviously affect physical transformations proportional to the resources available to them—but much more proportional to the knowledge available to them. Knowledge is a huge force multiplier. You then define resources as the thing that you combine with knowledge to create wealth. New knowledge allows you to use new things as resources and discard old things that maybe we’re running out of. There are lots of examples of how we’ve done that in the past. For example, in energy we’ve gone from wood to coal to oil to nuclear. But then people say, “Now we’re out of ideas. Now we’re caught up. Now we’re done. There aren’t going to be new ideas, and now we have to freeze the frame and conserve what we have.” The counter to that is, “No, we’ll create new knowledge and have new resources. Don’t worry about the old ones.” Well they say, “If you’re going to have new resources, if you can’t think of them now, it’s not real.” This now gets into the realm of people demanding that if you’re going to claim that new knowledge will be created, you have to name that knowledge now. Otherwise it’s not real. But that seems like a Catch-22. David Deutsch: It does, and it’s a bad argument. I don’t want to claim that the knowledge will be created. We’re fallible; we may not create it. We may destroy ourselves. We may miss the solution that’s right under our nose, so that when the snailiens come from another galaxy and look at us, they’ll say, “How can it possibly be that they failed to do so-and-so when it was right in front of them?” That could happen. I can’t prove or argue that it won’t happen. What I always argue, though, is that we have what it takes. We have everything that it takes to achieve that. If we don’t, it’ll be because of bad choices we have made, not because of constraints imposed on us by the planet or the solar system. Naval: It will be by anti-rational memes that restrict the creation of knowledge and the growth of knowledge. David Deutsch: Maybe. Or maybe it’ll be by well-intentioned errors, which nobody could see why they were errors. Again, it doesn’t take malevolence to make mistakes. Mistakes are the normal condition of humans. All we can do is try to find them. Maybe not destroying the means of correcting errors is the heart of morality; because if there is no way of correcting errors, then sooner or later one of those will get us. Naval: Don’t destroy the means of error correction is the base of morality. I love that. I think about places like North Korea where you can’t have elections and a revolution is very difficult because the gang in charge is armed to the teeth and they’ve destroyed the means of political error correction for a long time. That is a case where humanity is trapped in a local minimum, and it’s very hard to climb out of that hole. If too much of the world falls into that mindset, then we as a species may just stagnate because we’ve lost our biggest advantage. We’ve lost our biggest discovery, which was the ability to make new discoveries.

Deutsch Explains

143,913 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Elon Musk: A lot of the negativity is coming from the idea that the economy is a zero-sum game. “What's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw. That the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. The output of goods and services, the productivity per person is dramatically greater than it has been in the past. When you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have an iPhone, we didn't use to have computers. We didn't use to have cars or be able to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the life saving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” From: Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

Elon Musk: A lot of the negativity is coming from the idea that the economy is a zero-sum game. “What's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw. That the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. The output of goods and services, the productivity per person is dramatically greater than it has been in the past. When you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have an iPhone, we didn't use to have computers. We didn't use to have cars or be able to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the life saving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” From: Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

ELON CLIPS

38,888 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

Arteta asked if the current team are better than the invincibles: “No, because Invincibles won a lot and they won consistently and they created a history and legacy and we have to do that. “Obviously there is a lot of stats, but in the last two or three years, as well, we had stats and more points and more goals and the history of that, but at the end we have to translate that into major trophies and what we want to do, and probably now what we are doing. “It would have been enough, but now it's not enough, and we have to make it the margins even bigger, and that's what we have to aim for.”

Arteta asked if the current team are better than the invincibles: “No, because Invincibles won a lot and they won consistently and they created a history and legacy and we have to do that. “Obviously there is a lot of stats, but in the last two or three years, as well, we had stats and more points and more goals and the history of that, but at the end we have to translate that into major trophies and what we want to do, and probably now what we are doing. “It would have been enough, but now it's not enough, and we have to make it the margins even bigger, and that's what we have to aim for.”

Connor Humm

83,193 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

.David Deutsch: Bertrand Russell and Whitehead spent 300 pages or whatever it was proving that 1 plus 1 is 2. And then it was realized that you can't define things by axioms anyway, because there's no such thing as proving that an axiom system is consistent. Godel proved that. Alex O'Connor: Yes, the Godel's irresoluteness theorem. David Deutsch: Yes. So this search for justified truth, even in pure mathematics where you might think that, you know, true, there's unambiguous truth about numbers 2 and 1 and equals and plus and so on, but it's not true. That whole system is just a conjecture. Alex O'Connor: Okay. So to be clear, when you say we can't have truth, you're not implying that, you know, there is no truth and truth and falsia. You mean literally that we can't have it. It's there. It's just that we can never have it because we'll only have something like half truth. So, for example, if I said to somebody, like, every homo sapiens, every human being under the age of six is an ape. That's true. David Deutsch: Yes. Alex O'Connor: But it's like there's something missing from that picture. It's kind of misleading. It's going to lead us into all sorts of trouble if I'm not more clear. And so, okay, what I mean to say is that every human being is an ape, but then that itself will rely on understandings of what taxonomy is and categories. And if you really want to get the fullness of truth in every possible respect that could even possibly be relevant to that statement, you'd probably basically require like infinite knowledge, right? Because you would need to understand how language works. You'd need to understand taxonomy. You'd need to understand like the philosophy of taxonomy. You'd need to understand whether objects can exist. You'd need to study myriology and parts, and you'd need to know all of this. And the only reason that we don't on a practical level need that is because on a practical we only ever go so deep. David Deutsch: We only ever go as deep as is needed to solve the problem that we're currently solving. Alex O'Connor: I see. I see. And so knowledge becomes relatively practical because if you can't have knowledge in the sense that the philosophers define it, then when people are talking about things that they know, they're getting at something slightly different, which is like a practical certainty or a practical confidence. David Deutsch; Well, practical is the wrong word because it need not have any practical application as in vacuuming your carpet. It might be an issue of pure mathematics. It might be an issue of pure mathematics that only you are interested in, and yet it's still knowledge. What we are seeking is knowledge, but it's not truth. We can find knowledge in the sense that we can correct existing knowledge by removing errors. And that's what the growth of knowledge always is. It's always removing errors. When I realize what you meant by first left and second right, it's by removing the misconception that I had before. It's not that what you told me is false or that the idea that I had is entirely false through and through. It contained truth. Both of them contained truth. Both of them contained error. To get to my destination, it's enough if I remove errors to the extent that they are relevant to the problem that I want to solve. Alex O'Connor: Is there anything that you know is true? Like in the Cartesian sense of, I think, therefore I am. Maybe that's all I can know with certainty, but is there anything that comes to mind? David Deutsch: No. I can think of things that are more certain than that, which are still not certain. There is no such thing as certain truth. Descartes was already assuming that such a thing as I exists, and yet these experiments with memory, first of all, memory in any case consists of confabulation. When we remember something, what we're really doing is conjecturing what happened using the structures in our brain as clues to test our conjectures against. This process is fallible. In particular, the statement, I think, is extremely fallible because there are now experiments you can do to show that people have false memories of having thought something that they couldn't possibly have thought because they didn't know the thing they were thinking about, that they thought they were thinking about at the time.

.David Deutsch: Bertrand Russell and Whitehead spent 300 pages or whatever it was proving that 1 plus 1 is 2. And then it was realized that you can't define things by axioms anyway, because there's no such thing as proving that an axiom system is consistent. Godel proved that. Alex O'Connor: Yes, the Godel's irresoluteness theorem. David Deutsch: Yes. So this search for justified truth, even in pure mathematics where you might think that, you know, true, there's unambiguous truth about numbers 2 and 1 and equals and plus and so on, but it's not true. That whole system is just a conjecture. Alex O'Connor: Okay. So to be clear, when you say we can't have truth, you're not implying that, you know, there is no truth and truth and falsia. You mean literally that we can't have it. It's there. It's just that we can never have it because we'll only have something like half truth. So, for example, if I said to somebody, like, every homo sapiens, every human being under the age of six is an ape. That's true. David Deutsch: Yes. Alex O'Connor: But it's like there's something missing from that picture. It's kind of misleading. It's going to lead us into all sorts of trouble if I'm not more clear. And so, okay, what I mean to say is that every human being is an ape, but then that itself will rely on understandings of what taxonomy is and categories. And if you really want to get the fullness of truth in every possible respect that could even possibly be relevant to that statement, you'd probably basically require like infinite knowledge, right? Because you would need to understand how language works. You'd need to understand taxonomy. You'd need to understand like the philosophy of taxonomy. You'd need to understand whether objects can exist. You'd need to study myriology and parts, and you'd need to know all of this. And the only reason that we don't on a practical level need that is because on a practical we only ever go so deep. David Deutsch: We only ever go as deep as is needed to solve the problem that we're currently solving. Alex O'Connor: I see. I see. And so knowledge becomes relatively practical because if you can't have knowledge in the sense that the philosophers define it, then when people are talking about things that they know, they're getting at something slightly different, which is like a practical certainty or a practical confidence. David Deutsch; Well, practical is the wrong word because it need not have any practical application as in vacuuming your carpet. It might be an issue of pure mathematics. It might be an issue of pure mathematics that only you are interested in, and yet it's still knowledge. What we are seeking is knowledge, but it's not truth. We can find knowledge in the sense that we can correct existing knowledge by removing errors. And that's what the growth of knowledge always is. It's always removing errors. When I realize what you meant by first left and second right, it's by removing the misconception that I had before. It's not that what you told me is false or that the idea that I had is entirely false through and through. It contained truth. Both of them contained truth. Both of them contained error. To get to my destination, it's enough if I remove errors to the extent that they are relevant to the problem that I want to solve. Alex O'Connor: Is there anything that you know is true? Like in the Cartesian sense of, I think, therefore I am. Maybe that's all I can know with certainty, but is there anything that comes to mind? David Deutsch: No. I can think of things that are more certain than that, which are still not certain. There is no such thing as certain truth. Descartes was already assuming that such a thing as I exists, and yet these experiments with memory, first of all, memory in any case consists of confabulation. When we remember something, what we're really doing is conjecturing what happened using the structures in our brain as clues to test our conjectures against. This process is fallible. In particular, the statement, I think, is extremely fallible because there are now experiments you can do to show that people have false memories of having thought something that they couldn't possibly have thought because they didn't know the thing they were thinking about, that they thought they were thinking about at the time.

Deutsch Explains

11,949 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper on How We Gain Knowledge: ––Karl Popper: "People think, usually, that we acquire knowledge by opening our eyes and our ears and let the sensations stream into us, and they believe then that we record this like a camera. In my opinion, if we wish to get knowledge, we have to have a problem. It has to be knowledge of something. We have to find out something. We don't have to wait for information to stream into us, but we have to be inquisitive if we want to get knowledge. If we were passive, we would gain a confused mass of sensations or something like that, which we would hardly be able to understand and to convert into what one may call knowledge. Quite apart from that, perception is not really, in my opinion, the main source of our knowledge. The role of perception is to inform us about a momentary situation in our environment. But we couldn't really interpret our perceptions without knowing much more about our environment, namely, we know whether we are in a house or whether we are in a glacier. So we have two kinds of knowledge: this wider knowledge of a frame in which we orientate ourselves, and the momentary perception which gives us information about the situation at that particular moment. And it is only this situation in which we can use our perception. So we have theoretical knowledge and, if you like, the momentary practical challenge to our theoretical knowledge. And here comes perception in."

Karl Popper Quotes

114,786 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

ELON: THE ECONOMIC PIE HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY “What's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw, that the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. When you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new, and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have iPhones, computers, cars, or the ability to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the lifesaving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” Source: Interview with Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro, January 2024

ELON: THE ECONOMIC PIE HAS GROWN TREMENDOUSLY “What's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw, that the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. When you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new, and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have iPhones, computers, cars, or the ability to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the lifesaving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” Source: Interview with Ben Shapiro Ben Shapiro, January 2024

Mario Nawfal

23,014 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

PM Frederiksen: we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately. Can you imagine? I mean, it's like minus 25 degrees and then you attack the energy system. I mean, it's so crazy that only Russians would do such a thing. But this is how Russia is and it will not change. And I think our problem in Ukraine is still that there are still red lines when it comes to the weapons they can use to win this war. And you cannot win a war with the one hand tied on your back. We need to give them weapons so they can strike into Russia. We have had this discussion for several years. We are still discussing it. I mean, for the last three years on this conference, I have said, why are we not providing them the air defense that they need? And everybody is doing like this. They still lack air defense. You cannot protect a country without air defense. We know exactly what we need to deliver, including, of course, membership of NATO, because if they were a NATO member now, we would be in a completely different situation now. So, we know what to do. But first of all, we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately.

PM Frederiksen: we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately. Can you imagine? I mean, it's like minus 25 degrees and then you attack the energy system. I mean, it's so crazy that only Russians would do such a thing. But this is how Russia is and it will not change. And I think our problem in Ukraine is still that there are still red lines when it comes to the weapons they can use to win this war. And you cannot win a war with the one hand tied on your back. We need to give them weapons so they can strike into Russia. We have had this discussion for several years. We are still discussing it. I mean, for the last three years on this conference, I have said, why are we not providing them the air defense that they need? And everybody is doing like this. They still lack air defense. You cannot protect a country without air defense. We know exactly what we need to deliver, including, of course, membership of NATO, because if they were a NATO member now, we would be in a completely different situation now. So, we know what to do. But first of all, we have to recognize, we have to understand, we have to learn that Russia will not change and they are not interested in peace, unfortunately.

Anton Gerashchenko

105,935 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

.Naval: Epistemology, which is a fancy word for the theory of how knowledge grows or how knowledge growth occurs. And we've all been told since we're young that there's a scientific method and that scientists sort of do this stuff in white lab coats and we're supposed to accept it because of this thing called the scientific method. And then they give us true beliefs that we can then say, well the science is settled and we take that we move on. And we all only have a very, very vague understanding of how this works. And people say, well maybe you go out in the real world, you look at what's happening, you make all these observations, and then based on that you form a theory, you test the theory against more observations, and the more observations you get the closer you get to the truth. And once you have enough observation it's true and then you call it a scientific theory or a law and it's settled and you move on. And this is the popular conception of how science works. And as Popper pointed out and as you take even further, this is completely wrong. And so I'd love for you to get into that, which is what is knowledge? How does it grow? What is the real scientific method? And how do we figure things out? David Deutsch: I love the way you just stated the prevailing view there and laced every aspect of it with the contempt that it deserves. So you just went through touching every base. It's amazing that this series of misconceptions is still common sense. I mean, that it was common sense at a time when we didn't really have science or when science was just starting up, when the main issue in science was freeing itself from dogmatism, freeing itself from religion, freeing itself from authority, and so on. There it was understandable that people would look for an alternative source of authority and they would think, oh, it's sense impressions. We can see the world and you know, these religious people, they can't even see God and so on. And so we are confined to what we can see. That's where we get our ideas from. And as you say, that is completely false. Sense impressions, like all observation, even the most careful scientific observation is all theory laden. And theories are inherently fallible. I mean, we actually want to replace our best theories. Everybody who does a PhD is technically anyway, working to overturn something in the existing body of knowledge. You're not turned away at the door if you say, I don't believe this stuff, I'm going to produce something better. Whereas for most of human history, that was exactly what you were forbidden to do. The idea was that we already had all the important knowledge. If you want to discover something new, what you had to make sure of was that it didn't contradict the existing knowledge. Now, you have to make sure that it does contradict existing knowledge. So more or less. Naval: Yeah, it's this tradition of criticism that you've talked about in the West, that the Enlightenment really ushered in the Enlightenment era. David Deutsch: It has been institutionalized. So in many ways, our institutions are wiser than we are. So the institutions of science, for instance, have this built in, even if scientists actually don't always act that way. In fact, they often don't act that way, and act in a dogmatic way and try to preserve the status quo and are resistant to new ideas and so on. But the institutions, the way the procedures of science work, makes the right thing happen in the end anyway, regardless of what the people are trying to do. Naval: So you're saying the knowledge of the true scientific method is embedded in the institutions of science in the PhD process? David Deutsch: Well, the best scientific method that we know of, and one shouldn't really think of it as a method, you know, there's this wonderful lecture by Popper when he first was made a professor at the London School of Economics. He was made a professor of scientific method, and his first six lectures, I wish the rest of them were, the first six lectures are on the internet somewhere. And he starts the first one by saying, I am the first professor of scientific method in the British Empire. The British Empire still existed at the time, more or less. And so the first thing I want to say to you is that there is no such thing as the scientific method. And then he goes on from there. So this subject does not exist. So if any of you have come here to learn the handle that you have to turn in order to make scientific knowledge come out the other end, you're going to be disappointed.

Deutsch Explains

114,992 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

jackson saying this was very timely, as youngjae had just talked about the same thing in his interview, how GOT7 once felt unsure of their musical identity 👑 if you look at our map of releasing songs, the first year, the second year, our first album, second album, we tried everything. so, looking back, we were like, ah, we could have done better, like, if we had a branding. if we have a specific thing that we're going at, we should be consistent and... it's like, at the end of the day, it's all products, right? and you want to be, it's like walking into walmart or target. is this a shampoo or is this a body wash or is it a soap or is it a bath salt? we didn't have that. we were just trying a lot of stuff. we're like multivitamins. 👤 do you feel like that limits the group? 👑 no, i just felt like people, when, we always talk about it among members, like, we, when people think of us, specifically for music, what is the genre? or are we like a rubik's cube that we're just everything? but when you're everything, there's good and a bad side where, oh, we see different dynamics and various genres that they could digest and do, but what are they? i think this is one of the things that, I mean, it's not a negative thing that, it's not something that we regret, but it's something that we always talk about. we didn't have, like, a certain color or a tone or a feeling.

jackson saying this was very timely, as youngjae had just talked about the same thing in his interview, how GOT7 once felt unsure of their musical identity 👑 if you look at our map of releasing songs, the first year, the second year, our first album, second album, we tried everything. so, looking back, we were like, ah, we could have done better, like, if we had a branding. if we have a specific thing that we're going at, we should be consistent and... it's like, at the end of the day, it's all products, right? and you want to be, it's like walking into walmart or target. is this a shampoo or is this a body wash or is it a soap or is it a bath salt? we didn't have that. we were just trying a lot of stuff. we're like multivitamins. 👤 do you feel like that limits the group? 👑 no, i just felt like people, when, we always talk about it among members, like, we, when people think of us, specifically for music, what is the genre? or are we like a rubik's cube that we're just everything? but when you're everything, there's good and a bad side where, oh, we see different dynamics and various genres that they could digest and do, but what are they? i think this is one of the things that, I mean, it's not a negative thing that, it's not something that we regret, but it's something that we always talk about. we didn't have, like, a certain color or a tone or a feeling.

𝐣𝐨𝐲𝐜𝐞 𝄐

16,658 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Elon Musk: A lot of the negativity stems from the axiomatic flaw that the economic pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game. “At my first company I didn't have any money, I just had $100,000 in student debt. That was a company in the very early days, of the Internet, called Zip2. But for all companies subsequently, I basically doubled down. I took the money from Zip2, invested it in X.com-PayPal, and then took the PayPal money, invested that in creating Tesla and SpaceX. It didn't feel right that I should ask investors to invest if I was not prepared to invest my own money. I think the whole other people's money thing is not right. You want to have skin in the game. As a result of that, I own a lot of shares in the company. And the better the company does, the more valuable the shares are. But that's because the pie has grown. And so you have to say what's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw. That the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously, the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. The output of goods and services, the productivity per person is dramatically greater than it has been in the past. So when you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have an iPhone, we didn't use to have computers. We didn't use to have cars or be able to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the life-saving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” From: Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

Elon Musk: A lot of the negativity stems from the axiomatic flaw that the economic pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game. “At my first company I didn't have any money, I just had $100,000 in student debt. That was a company in the very early days, of the Internet, called Zip2. But for all companies subsequently, I basically doubled down. I took the money from Zip2, invested it in X.com-PayPal, and then took the PayPal money, invested that in creating Tesla and SpaceX. It didn't feel right that I should ask investors to invest if I was not prepared to invest my own money. I think the whole other people's money thing is not right. You want to have skin in the game. As a result of that, I own a lot of shares in the company. And the better the company does, the more valuable the shares are. But that's because the pie has grown. And so you have to say what's at the root of a lot of the negativity is an axiomatic flaw. That the pie is static, that it's a zero-sum game, that if someone else succeeds, it's because they took more than their fair share of this fixed pie. But it's not a fixed pie. Obviously, the economic pie has grown considerably from what it was in the past. The output of goods and services, the productivity per person is dramatically greater than it has been in the past. So when you create a new company and you create new products and services, you're growing the amount of goods and services available to people. So you've not taken anything away from anyone. You've created something new and you've given people new products and services they didn't have before. We didn't use to have an iPhone, we didn't use to have computers. We didn't use to have cars or be able to fly in airplanes. We didn't use to have many of the life-saving medicines that we have today. These are all new things. The pie has grown tremendously.” From: Interview with Ben Shapiro, January 24, 2024

ELON CLIPS

986,795 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

🛑 Burkina Faso 🇧🇫 - Captain with school boys and girls! The young Captain was having a conversation with the pupils, and here is what he saying, “I was telling you a while ago, in school they were telling us that we couldn’t do it here. They lied to us. We grow wheat here, and it works well, and we will develop it. Some people have started, this year, I was able to see people who did it, as part of the presidential initiative, and I was told that in the past, some were able to do it and they produced it well. Currently, we are sowing wheat in some farmlands as part do the presidential initiative. What you eat must be produced here. So, this is why I say that we will teach you many things, and we will review the curricula they teach you. For those who drink coffee, they told us that your coffee, chocolate, it is only in the countries with abundant rainfalls, that here is only savanna, desert, it does not rain, we cannot farm. Again, they lied to us. It’s not true! Coffee grows well here, cocoa grows well too. There are people here who have the farms here, even in Ouagadougou here, there are people who have cocoa trees in their yards. This means that, chocolate that children envy those from well to do familes can be manufactured here in Burkina and all the children can eat chocolate in Burkina. We found out it is possible. As for milk, why do we have to import it? We can do it. I just want to tell you that there are many things that they never told us the truth about. You guys are lucky, we are now teaching you, and we promise you that we will do all we can so that you can eat your fill. As we say, you will eat well in the morning before you go to school, you will go to school for free, you will eat lunch, you will have fun, and in the afternoon, when you return home, you will have fun in the neighborhood, then in the evening, you will learn and review your homework and sleep. This is the dream we have. As long as the children in Burkina are not in these conditions, our fight will not stop. Ok? (Claps). So, we know these are your aspirations and it is right and legal. Any parent is fighting for this. Even those who do not have children fight in the hope of having children and to take care of them, so that they can live in better conditions, and be better than them. This is the fight of everyone, this is the fight of every generation. We are lucky God gave us everything. Do you know that everywhere in Burkina we can farm? Everywhere! In the Sahel where they tell you it is the desert, it is only sand, we can farm. As for us, we have been lied to so much, it is the brainwashing of the colonizer. He did that so that we may not think 💭. But we finally found out that everything was a lie ( damn lie, emphasis is mine). If God left many lakes in that desert, He knows why. We can farm everything in Burkina, we can do everything, the land is fertile. And there are so many natural things in Burkina that we never planted but they were here, isn’t it ? Have you ever learned how to plant a shea tree in Burkina? You were born and found them already here right? It is there in the wild in nature. You know it is a gift from God. There are many things in the shea fruit. You have the shea butter, that is oil; do you know that there is chocolate in it? There are seven derivatives in the shea fruit. You also have the Parkia biglobosa (also known as the African locust bean) which is a natural fruit. We have many things, it is not only the minerals in the soil. Even with the soil, we were told that it’s ferralitic soil, that it is not fertile, everything is a lie. You see that today there is so much gold in Burkina. But it is just poorly managed. Our mission is to well manage these resources, and to take good care of you, so that you can be in your basic rights, to lead a good life, to go to school, and that we may protect you. And also that you may fulfill your duties, because your duties are very important, aren’t they?…

🛑 Burkina Faso 🇧🇫 - Captain with school boys and girls! The young Captain was having a conversation with the pupils, and here is what he saying, “I was telling you a while ago, in school they were telling us that we couldn’t do it here. They lied to us. We grow wheat here, and it works well, and we will develop it. Some people have started, this year, I was able to see people who did it, as part of the presidential initiative, and I was told that in the past, some were able to do it and they produced it well. Currently, we are sowing wheat in some farmlands as part do the presidential initiative. What you eat must be produced here. So, this is why I say that we will teach you many things, and we will review the curricula they teach you. For those who drink coffee, they told us that your coffee, chocolate, it is only in the countries with abundant rainfalls, that here is only savanna, desert, it does not rain, we cannot farm. Again, they lied to us. It’s not true! Coffee grows well here, cocoa grows well too. There are people here who have the farms here, even in Ouagadougou here, there are people who have cocoa trees in their yards. This means that, chocolate that children envy those from well to do familes can be manufactured here in Burkina and all the children can eat chocolate in Burkina. We found out it is possible. As for milk, why do we have to import it? We can do it. I just want to tell you that there are many things that they never told us the truth about. You guys are lucky, we are now teaching you, and we promise you that we will do all we can so that you can eat your fill. As we say, you will eat well in the morning before you go to school, you will go to school for free, you will eat lunch, you will have fun, and in the afternoon, when you return home, you will have fun in the neighborhood, then in the evening, you will learn and review your homework and sleep. This is the dream we have. As long as the children in Burkina are not in these conditions, our fight will not stop. Ok? (Claps). So, we know these are your aspirations and it is right and legal. Any parent is fighting for this. Even those who do not have children fight in the hope of having children and to take care of them, so that they can live in better conditions, and be better than them. This is the fight of everyone, this is the fight of every generation. We are lucky God gave us everything. Do you know that everywhere in Burkina we can farm? Everywhere! In the Sahel where they tell you it is the desert, it is only sand, we can farm. As for us, we have been lied to so much, it is the brainwashing of the colonizer. He did that so that we may not think 💭. But we finally found out that everything was a lie ( damn lie, emphasis is mine). If God left many lakes in that desert, He knows why. We can farm everything in Burkina, we can do everything, the land is fertile. And there are so many natural things in Burkina that we never planted but they were here, isn’t it ? Have you ever learned how to plant a shea tree in Burkina? You were born and found them already here right? It is there in the wild in nature. You know it is a gift from God. There are many things in the shea fruit. You have the shea butter, that is oil; do you know that there is chocolate in it? There are seven derivatives in the shea fruit. You also have the Parkia biglobosa (also known as the African locust bean) which is a natural fruit. We have many things, it is not only the minerals in the soil. Even with the soil, we were told that it’s ferralitic soil, that it is not fertile, everything is a lie. You see that today there is so much gold in Burkina. But it is just poorly managed. Our mission is to well manage these resources, and to take good care of you, so that you can be in your basic rights, to lead a good life, to go to school, and that we may protect you. And also that you may fulfill your duties, because your duties are very important, aren’t they?…

Sy Marcus Herve Traore

94,967 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Draymond Green says basketball is no longer a poor kid's game: “It's a rich kid's game” “I didn't learn how to do a proper individual workout till I got to college. Growing up I'm going to hoop. Where's the nearest run. Drop me off, I'll play all day. That's what we did. We hooped all day. I think there's a huge benefit to that because you just learn to see the game” “It's different when somebody just putting you in a position to tell you to do this move. How do you use your creativity? How do you learn if somebody just say do this? How do you know what your game is if you never tap into it and just figure it out” “I think there's a time and place for a trainer and I think with where the game has gone, you need those resources in order to be successful” “I feel like basketball used to be a poor man's game. Poor kids played it. We were poor. We had nothing and it was our way out. Basketball is not a poor kid's game no more. Basketball is a rich kid game” “The days of seeing LeBron James from Akron, Ohio, from a single mom, those days are numbered. Because if you don't have the resources these days, you can't make it. But that’s also why you don't see as great basketball as you did before, because there's no imagination” “Everybody's doing the same thing, playing the same way. I think a lot of that is due sometimes to having trainers. You just become a carbon copy of somebody else the trainer created”

Draymond Green says basketball is no longer a poor kid's game: “It's a rich kid's game” “I didn't learn how to do a proper individual workout till I got to college. Growing up I'm going to hoop. Where's the nearest run. Drop me off, I'll play all day. That's what we did. We hooped all day. I think there's a huge benefit to that because you just learn to see the game” “It's different when somebody just putting you in a position to tell you to do this move. How do you use your creativity? How do you learn if somebody just say do this? How do you know what your game is if you never tap into it and just figure it out” “I think there's a time and place for a trainer and I think with where the game has gone, you need those resources in order to be successful” “I feel like basketball used to be a poor man's game. Poor kids played it. We were poor. We had nothing and it was our way out. Basketball is not a poor kid's game no more. Basketball is a rich kid game” “The days of seeing LeBron James from Akron, Ohio, from a single mom, those days are numbered. Because if you don't have the resources these days, you can't make it. But that’s also why you don't see as great basketball as you did before, because there's no imagination” “Everybody's doing the same thing, playing the same way. I think a lot of that is due sometimes to having trainers. You just become a carbon copy of somebody else the trainer created”

dank

1,242,895 Aufrufe • vor 8 Tagen

NRG Strong on the lessons they can take away from their loss to Paper Rex: "I would say the major lesson we probably had was the importance of setting up the players for success. I don't think we did as well as we could today. Maybe there's one or two things we could have done better. I think the major lesson, to be fair, is that our fundamentals are strong. We didn't play badly at all today. But because of how we are as a team, it can always come down to very tight margins. We're a team that doesn't generally blow teams out. We're a team that is so, so good at grinding out rounds and doing that sort of stuff. So I think the big lesson is: we're good, our fundamentals are good, we just have to be tight, and we just can't let anything for error slip in. There are lessons to be taken from this. This wasn't a bad loss. You get bad losses sometimes. It didn't feel like, 'Oh, we don't know what went wrong.' No, we know what went wrong. It's one or two small things, and it's things that we can adapt to, and it's things that will be better under different circumstances, and things that we can make the circumstances better for as well. So yeah, I think that would be the big lesson. We just have to be tight in these circumstances and there's no room for error on our end. That's a big, big, big thing."

NRG Strong on the lessons they can take away from their loss to Paper Rex: "I would say the major lesson we probably had was the importance of setting up the players for success. I don't think we did as well as we could today. Maybe there's one or two things we could have done better. I think the major lesson, to be fair, is that our fundamentals are strong. We didn't play badly at all today. But because of how we are as a team, it can always come down to very tight margins. We're a team that doesn't generally blow teams out. We're a team that is so, so good at grinding out rounds and doing that sort of stuff. So I think the big lesson is: we're good, our fundamentals are good, we just have to be tight, and we just can't let anything for error slip in. There are lessons to be taken from this. This wasn't a bad loss. You get bad losses sometimes. It didn't feel like, 'Oh, we don't know what went wrong.' No, we know what went wrong. It's one or two small things, and it's things that we can adapt to, and it's things that will be better under different circumstances, and things that we can make the circumstances better for as well. So yeah, I think that would be the big lesson. We just have to be tight in these circumstances and there's no room for error on our end. That's a big, big, big thing."

VALO2ASIA

105,363 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Asked Joe Mazzulla what he thinks the story of this Celtics team has been: “The story's not done. We are only a product of what we do tomorrow, what we do the next day, and that's just the story. And if we would have lost this game by 1, tomorrow’s film session has to be as detailed and as disciplined as it is going to be with the result that we had. And so that's the story. It's not done yet, and we haven't done anything. All we've done is stick to the process of winning on both ends of the floor, put our head down, don’t overreact to a good win or to a bad loss. And, get better in the next game. So, still plenty of stuff we can get better from tonight. We gave up an ATO lob to LeBron, we gave up two back-cuts, we over-helped a few three point shooters. We got to understand this is when we're at our best, and this is what we have to get better playing against a good Phoenix team who's tough, they kill the margins as well. And then we got a back-to-back. So the story is, it's just not done — and we just got to keep sticking to that process.”

Asked Joe Mazzulla what he thinks the story of this Celtics team has been: “The story's not done. We are only a product of what we do tomorrow, what we do the next day, and that's just the story. And if we would have lost this game by 1, tomorrow’s film session has to be as detailed and as disciplined as it is going to be with the result that we had. And so that's the story. It's not done yet, and we haven't done anything. All we've done is stick to the process of winning on both ends of the floor, put our head down, don’t overreact to a good win or to a bad loss. And, get better in the next game. So, still plenty of stuff we can get better from tonight. We gave up an ATO lob to LeBron, we gave up two back-cuts, we over-helped a few three point shooters. We got to understand this is when we're at our best, and this is what we have to get better playing against a good Phoenix team who's tough, they kill the margins as well. And then we got a back-to-back. So the story is, it's just not done — and we just got to keep sticking to that process.”

Noa Dalzell 🏀

53,688 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Ilya Sutskever explains why AI will do 100% the work that human can do within few years. "Slowly but surely, or maybe not so slowly, AI will keep getting better. The day will come when AI will do all of our, all the things that we can do, not just some of them, but all of them. Anything which I can learn, anything which any one of you can learn, the AI could do as well. How do we know this, by the way? How can I be so sure? How can I be so sure of that? The reason is that all of us have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer. That's why we have a brain; the brain is a biological computer. So why can't the digital computer, a digital brain, do the same things? This is the one-sentence summary for why AI will be able to do all those things: because we have a brain, and the brain is a biological computer." --- Full Video on 'University of Toronto' YT Channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

334,691 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

.Naval: You have a beautiful definition of knowledge, which most people don’t even try to tackle, about how knowledge perpetuates itself in the environment. You gave some really good examples. One was around genes. Successful, highly adapted genes contain a lot of knowledge and can cause themselves to be replicated because they’re survivors. In the same way, knowledge itself is a survivor, in that if you transmit to me the knowledge of how to build a computer, it’s an incredibly useful thing. I’m going to build more and more computers and that knowledge will be passed on. Your underlying point that you repeated here was if you want to understand the physical universe you have to understand knowledge, because it is the thing that over time takes over and changes more and more the universe—more than almost anything else. You have to understand all the explanations behind it. You can’t just say “particle collisions” because that explains everything, so it explains nothing. It’s not a useful level to operate at. Therefore, the things that create knowledge are uniquely influential in the universe. And as far as we know, there are only two systems that create knowledge. There’s evolution and there are humans. But is there a difference even between these two forms of knowledge creation, between evolution and between humans? David Deutsch: Yes. I have argued that the human way of creating knowledge is the ultimate one, that there aren’t any more powerful ones than that. This is the argument against the supernatural. Assuming that there is a form of knowledge creation that’s more powerful than ours is equivalent to invoking the supernatural, which is therefore a bad explanation—as invoking the supernatural always is. The difference between biological evolution and human creative thought is that biological evolution is inherently limited in its range. That’s because biological evolution has no foresight. It can’t see a problem and conjecture a solution. Whenever biological evolution produces a solution to something, it’s always before natural selection has even begun. This is Charles Darwin’s insight. This is the difference between Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the other theories of evolution that had been around for a century or more before that, including Charles Darwin’s grandfather and Lamarck. The thing they didn’t get is that the creation of knowledge in evolution begins before. That means that biological evolution can’t reach places that are not reachable by successive improvements, each of which allows a viable organism to exist. Creationists say that biological evolution has, in fact, reached things that are not reachable by incremental steps, each of which is a viable organism. They’re factually mistaken. The thing which they have in mind is the idea of a creator who can imagine things that don’t exist and who can create an idea that is not the culmination of a whole load of viable things. A thinking being can create something that’s a culmination of a whole load of non-viable things. Explanatory creativity makes humans unique Out of all the billions and billions of species that have ever existed, none of them has ever made a campfire, even though many of them would’ve been helped by having the genetic capacity to make campfires. The reason it didn’t happen in the biosphere is that there is no such thing as making a partially functional campfire; whereas there is, for example, with making hot water. The bombardier beetles squirt boiling water at their enemies. You can easily see that just squirting cold water at your enemies is not totally unhelpful. Then making it a bit hotter and a bit hotter. Squirting boiling water no doubt required many adaptations to make sure the beetle didn’t boil itself while it was making this boiling water. That happened because there was a sequence of steps in between, all of which were useful. But with campfires, it’s very hard to see how that could happen. Humans have explanatory creativity. Once you have that, you can get to the moon. You can cause asteroids which are heading towards the earth to turn around and go away. Perhaps no other planet in the universe has that power, and it has it only because of the presence of explanatory creativity on it.

Deutsch Explains

186,102 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

In Ag…… let’s be honest we know so very little, we just hope to capture a bit of knowledge each opportunity we get. We should learn from one another not cry about someone’s ideas because they are different then what you learned or were taught. History teaches us a lot, but it doesn’t mean you can’t move forward, it’s a constant cycle of learning. And no one learns without others! It’s a team game that we are all in together. The guy that says I can’t trust that guy as he sells that seed or that fertilizer or that foliar is going to see rough times. As learning is opening your eyes and ears to ideas, and adding them to your library full of knowledge from your own experiences. That’s how something improves. It’s not the same thing every year and it’s not changing everything all at once. It’s bringing ideas and practices together to make it all work and bridge the gap.

In Ag…… let’s be honest we know so very little, we just hope to capture a bit of knowledge each opportunity we get. We should learn from one another not cry about someone’s ideas because they are different then what you learned or were taught. History teaches us a lot, but it doesn’t mean you can’t move forward, it’s a constant cycle of learning. And no one learns without others! It’s a team game that we are all in together. The guy that says I can’t trust that guy as he sells that seed or that fertilizer or that foliar is going to see rough times. As learning is opening your eyes and ears to ideas, and adding them to your library full of knowledge from your own experiences. That’s how something improves. It’s not the same thing every year and it’s not changing everything all at once. It’s bringing ideas and practices together to make it all work and bridge the gap.

Jason Schley

13,556 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten