Is it wrong to think of progress as intentional? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/taking-leave-of-reason?RUclips&
The shift from Newton to Einstein was perfectly rational. Given the increasing accuracy of our ability to measure the world, it was inevitable. Einstein merely did a thought experiment that no one had tried before.
Deliberately unpredictable behavior is not irrational. The hare's aim is to escape the predator. Irrational would be for the hare to just stop moving and look at the approaching hungry predator unaggressively. Don't trust the babble of a book-writing advertiser who talks about hacking the unconscious. We could take a look at people's core motivations in order to understand what they are trying to sell to you; what they are selling.
He literally said, after talking about the hare's unpredictable behaviour at 5:50, "so there are certain cases where actually behaving at random is actually rational ". Your response is like you weren't even listening.
Animals are acting by the evidence of experience, which their brain has calculated the correct behaviours from. So it IS always being rational. All of the chooices hes suggested were rational in their particular moments. You know that being silly is fun, is good, so doing something silly in the right moments IS rational. When enteri g a saturated market, where every option to buy is the same, it IS rational to try something different. Even completely useless things sell in the right situations, cos they fill a need ( whether real or created ). Having empathy is just having more data of the world, to make better decisions with. So using empathy, etc, is just taking more data about the situation into account. So IS rational.
The commenters, in the video, as they flail over the intersection of rationality and making high quality predictions, seem to be ignorant of noted philosopher Yogi Berra's insight -- “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”".
But it wasn't Yogi Berra who said it. Or if he did he wasn't the first. Physicists of a certain age will often credit Niels Bohr as the author of that quip. But not in Denmark. In Denmark, the credit most often goes to comedian, author, cartoonist etc. Robert Storm Petersen, known as Storm P (1882 - 1949. Neither of those claims seem to be substantiated either. But it does seem safe to say that it was doing the rounds in Copenhagen when Yogi Berra was still in diapers, or perhaps before he was even born. And so it transpires that quite often the past is as hard as the future to pre- or retrodict.
Trouble is never the mind of autistic view is ever taken into account. We see patterns with intersecting lines that we count. Normal's see the overall view, we see the underlying pattern.
Animals don't have rationality so don't have the option of disengaging it. Humans can gain the insight that unpredictable behaviour may be advantageous (eg playing rock, paper, scissors), but then it is perfectly rational to choose that mode IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS. Do drivers keep religious items in their taxis in order to feel watched, or to feel watched OVER, ie to be protected from accidents in spite of bad brakes / bad driving?
I thought this was a parody at first. All attempts to challenge the validity of logic and reason presuppose its primacy since nothing coherent can be stated without it.
Rationality is only related to Science in that it's methodology is rational, also hypothesis, but untested it's meaningless, likewise many of the results & conclusions of Science aren't rational, there empirical. New ideas are perfectly logical as long as they're testable. Another good example of a map that works but is totally false is the British underground train map. Wouldn't it be more "Rational" to have Philosophers & Scientists on this subject, oh well at least they didn't have musicians & actors.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Is it wrong to think of progress as intentional? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/taking-leave-of-reason?RUclips&
The shift from Newton to Einstein was perfectly rational. Given the increasing accuracy of our ability to measure the world, it was inevitable. Einstein merely did a thought experiment that no one had tried before.
Deliberately unpredictable behavior is not irrational. The hare's aim is to escape the predator. Irrational would be for the hare to just stop moving and look at the approaching hungry predator unaggressively.
Don't trust the babble of a book-writing advertiser who talks about hacking the unconscious. We could take a look at people's core motivations in order to understand what they are trying to sell to you; what they are selling.
He literally said, after talking about the hare's unpredictable behaviour at 5:50, "so there are certain cases where actually behaving at random is actually rational ". Your response is like you weren't even listening.
I would have expected an actual scientist among a panel of people criticising rationality... this felt more like an AA session for irrational people
Animals are acting by the evidence of experience, which their brain has calculated the correct behaviours from.
So it IS always being rational.
All of the chooices hes suggested were rational in their particular moments.
You know that being silly is fun, is good, so doing something silly in the right moments IS rational.
When enteri g a saturated market, where every option to buy is the same, it IS rational to try something different.
Even completely useless things sell in the right situations, cos they fill a need ( whether real or created ).
Having empathy is just having more data of the world, to make better decisions with.
So using empathy, etc, is just taking more data about the situation into account.
So IS rational.
The commenters, in the video, as they flail over the intersection of rationality and making high quality predictions, seem to be ignorant of noted philosopher Yogi Berra's insight -- “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”".
But it wasn't Yogi Berra who said it. Or if he did he wasn't the first. Physicists of a certain age will often credit Niels Bohr as the author of that quip. But not in Denmark. In Denmark, the credit most often goes to comedian, author, cartoonist etc. Robert Storm Petersen, known as Storm P (1882 - 1949. Neither of those claims seem to be substantiated either. But it does seem safe to say that it was doing the rounds in Copenhagen when Yogi Berra was still in diapers, or perhaps before he was even born. And so it transpires that quite often the past is as hard as the future to pre- or retrodict.
Trouble is never the mind of autistic view is ever taken into account. We see patterns with intersecting lines that we count. Normal's see the overall view, we see the underlying pattern.
Animals don't have rationality so don't have the option of disengaging it. Humans can gain the insight that unpredictable behaviour may be advantageous (eg playing rock, paper, scissors), but then it is perfectly rational to choose that mode IN APPROPRIATE SITUATIONS. Do drivers keep religious items in their taxis in order to feel watched, or to feel watched OVER, ie to be protected from accidents in spite of bad brakes / bad driving?
@@NSOcarthI don't understand what you're saying. Do religious people not think that religious items are good protection to have?
📍6:57
I thought this was a parody at first. All attempts to challenge the validity of logic and reason presuppose its primacy since nothing coherent can be stated without it.
Rationality is only related to Science in that it's methodology is rational, also hypothesis, but untested it's meaningless, likewise many of the results & conclusions of Science aren't rational, there empirical.
New ideas are perfectly logical as long as they're testable.
Another good example of a map that works but is totally false is the British underground train map.
Wouldn't it be more "Rational" to have Philosophers & Scientists on this subject, oh well at least they didn't have musicians & actors.
Folder of time
1:19 The past is a poor future
2:27 cyberspace revenge tragedy?
Poundland Swinton is boring, let Rory talk
What a silly, dumb question. Is this really the best you guys can come up with? Really?
Someone didn't watch the video