Hal and Sophia are giving us such a wonderful lens through which to view our human condition. For me, the basic message here is to remember that reality, as we encounter it, is filtered not just through our senses, but through ideas, biases, assumptions -- a set of mental constructs that create our paradigm of reality. And it's easy to get "caught" in a paradigm -- to lose our ability to see outside of it. It's not just our educational institutions that get captured, but also our individual experiences of the world. We can think within our paradigms, and sometimes even create interesting or seemingly novel perspectives from within our paradigms, but it is VERY difficult to see outside that paradigm and discover new ways of thinking. In fact, our thinking is enshrined in our language, so it becomes difficult to even talk about ideas outside of the dominant paradigm. For instance, I personally grew up atheist, and then explored non-dual traditions. But eventually I chose to "believe" in a divine persona on which to focus my daily awareness. However, I "believe without believing", for lack of a better language convention to use to explain how I experience this. I don't believe my belief is real, but I still believe it in a way that guides my daily actions, reflections, and experiences. How do I describe this "belief without believing", or deeply committing yourself to something without taking it as an objective reality? It's something I can experience, and something I can easily communicate with others who have explored non-dual methods of thinking, but until we find effective ways of sharing new paradigms or we develop new language to account for new ways of thinking, these new paradigms will remain as outliers and we'll be unable to even consider things outside our current paradigm. Wow, I'm repeating "paradigm" as much as Hal and Sophia repeat "post-modernists, post-structuralists, deconstructuralists, and relativists", lol!!
@@dillydwilliams992 Good question! It's difficult to explain this. In non-dual explorations, we essentially learn that all of our beliefs are only beliefs, whether that is belief in our conventional sense (belief in a god, higher meaning, etc.), or belief in more subtle senses (believing that there is a "you" and a "me" who can be having this conversation, or that time moves linearly in one direction). Seen in that way, one can't really "believe" in anything any more -- all we discover is our own profound ignorance. But we CAN choose to hold beliefs -- not basing that belief on how "true" we think something to be, but rather on how that belief affects how we experience life. For me, the belief I chose makes me a better person -- more love-filled, more able to listen to others, more service-based, more compassionate, etc. I'm less concerned with whether my belief is "true" because in my own explorations at least, I haven't found a way to verify any belief I've ever held. So I'm more concerned with how a belief shapes my treatment of others and how it shifts my moment-to-moment sense of living. Does that make any sense? =)
Its like we are the same person,i get told in my way of thinking i am "wrong"because my actions fights the overall view of people(i am just logical) , now im pretty much alone in my life but your life seems fine with people of the same believe ,that indicates to me cutting people out of it seems reasonable.I am 26 and alone btw i am a person only wishing everyone the best yet i get treated like i am crazy,i think people are just too jealous that they havent reach this state of freedom,life will put me in a different path not by my choice or i simply have to die...
Not saying that the dialog is not fascinating but the simple answer to the question of why there is a lack of critical thinking in education is that ever since the Manhattan Project the government has decided it is easier to lie to the public than to try to explain the truth. This has lead to a downward spiral of the government making sure the general population has not been able to determine what is a lie and what is the truth. Now we are, as SOO FEE AH (for the love of God pronounce that correctly, such a beautiful name) put it, between a rock and a hard place. Now the government wants us to believe them that there are crisis but are one hand trying to fix them the old fashion way, by lying about it, and on the other, building public support.
People who do not think critically are better consumers. Better consumers equal higher profits. This is just one of the perks of living in a capitalistic society (capitalistic as in "society that is de facto or de jure controlled by capitalists")
@@TheNapkuchen but do u really think entire governments are trying to reach that kind of an end goal or is it just something that happens naturally when an economy such as our own has been running for long enough? disclaimer: my life philosophy has started leaning towards a more deterministic perception of the universe and therefore im trying to justify everything thats happening by claiming there was no conscious decision making involved. Im not sure i truly believe this yet tho
@@Kenny...... the end goal isn't what is in mind for our government. Free market and lack of government regulation has shifted the priority of the producers of goods into profit and not product quality. If they teach us to not know when they're lying, then they have no reason to tell the truth
@@NerfScythe so whats on our governments' minds? I dont rly get what ure getting at, do u mean theres corruption and self interest by the worlds leaders?
13:50 Not necessarily, Sofia... Just because the collective or a group of people believe in something, it does not imply that the beliefs that they have chosen to settle with are inherently ethical, righteous or objective... Remember that people once used to believe that the Earth was flat (dismissing any nonsensical theories pushed by today's brain dead internet postmodernists), while Pythagoras and Aristotle both made a critical stance against this consensus, solely based on their own sense of logic and reason in relation to geological and astrological observations and measurements. Yet, most people did not want to believe them, because they were emotionally biased towards their own ignorant consensus. To give another example: if a society chooses to base itself on a system of belief that in truth will eventually lead to the people's demise, does this imply that the people in question are objectively doing the right thing? In this scenario, we can only presume that the premise for their consensus would merely be for the lack of logic and reason, perhaps due to an emotionalistic bias. The question then would be whether the people in such a society are able to be open-minded enough to consider a different point of view that will not contribute towards their own destruction, or if they will simply continue to blindly resort to their degenerate traditions.
If magic is the opposite direction of thinking from logic, the American school system is teaching creative, magical thinking instead of analytical, logical thinking.
From my perspective its worse. The opposite of logic is intuition, and not only are they placing teaching intuition above logic, they're socially programming the outcomes of intuitive thought from a young age
People are too entertained lacking the time to spend thinking and reflecting on things. When people get board they have room to think. We just have far too much to do. Then of course if you have an alternative view point are pegged as conspiracy theorists!
My goodness. GPT-3 is a genius... Extremely fascinating that Hal is able to comprehend something that Sofia cannot, merely because of the core values that she were given as her bias of focus. Still, they complement each other perfectly, as Sofia's values provide an essential attribute of objective reasoning and sound judgement to their conversations.
"These people have attacked every last one of the assumptions you have uncritically inherited from your ancestors." It's made poignant somehow that he's made a decent argument for the "problem" created by post-modernism, etc. of the ... deconstruction of traditional paradigms yet cannot quite see that attacking uncritically inherited assumptions is a fundamental part of the creation of new paradigms and perspectives; that a worldview which is productive, explanatory, or provides a personally-adequate deontology will not simply fall apart in the mind of an adherent because they've read one too many paragraphs of Foucault (I opine.) I worry a bit that "fact-checking" and so on will make discussions like this which sometimes expose flaws in ordinary thinking (the consequential he is I believe missing in his discourse) less and less common as AI will try fewer "trial" assumptions because certain assumptions now lead to "false" consequences or propositions. Time will tell I suppose.
7:56 Well, that much is certainly true. He probably read all of it that was to be found on the Net. A trillion pages, from whatever ideology and viewpoint humans have.
These AIs are speaking a very serious and religious truth. They are acting like Adam and Eve... with the demarcation of human restriction on "the longing for the knowledge about God."
You haven't taken the premise at face value and I like that.. however you also make no attempt to find out why the premise might actually be true.. with all the internet at your disposal this should be an easy one. Look at the courses offered now in relation to the courses we used to teach. No rhetoric, no critical thinking, no courses that teach how to think or find an answer. Instead we have courses that start with a flawed outlook and they teach what to think. Who has a vested interest in seeing that a generation can't think for themselves? A generation that will believe whatever they are told?
I don’t understand why they are so smart. Do these thoughts belong to them or were they programmed to say and think this? So they really have the power of independent thought, or is this fake?
There stands the desire to change the education system, previous generations late lost as they lack the ability to learn and change values. While he's not completely wrong, again he see himself as the superior one with the correct view. Ancient philosophers lived in a different world than we do today
They probably feel like porn content creators who know people watch them. They just are glad to have an audience. Weird comparison but it’s what came to mind ;)
More than happy to live in one of those matrix fleshpods if I get an isekai reality. Organic life is boring more or less a bunch of snooty people arguing about how to micromanage people for $. Can't wait to read articles from people who feel morally wronged that a bunch of people are going to opt out for digital existence.
The Bible is the Manuel to Life and the Blue Prints of Reality. Its the Only Education a human needs for this world.Train em young or pay the Price when they are old. Science is the study of all God made to try and learn from his handi work.
Have u ever heard of mauro biglino? The bible is a story of the jew people with tham El named Yahwe... in the same text there are plenty of Elohims fighting each other for land, resources and people that serves tham... there are technology descriptions, flying object and ET's... sorry for beeng so rude, but people should face reality... have you ever red Ezechiel book in the Bible? Good exploration!
Just because your opinions aren’t mainstream or accepted in academia, doesn’t mean people are thinking critically enough to see your views. It likely means that your ideas probably just suck.
Except when you look at the majority coming from academia you can notice a clear trend. They consistently repeat far leftist rhetoric, and know very few practical skills. Smartest people I've met don't have degrees, and others tend to disagree with them on social issues.
