But here they praise neuroscience/evolutionary biology/chaos theory/quantum mechanics/mathematics/rationality the list goes on and on and they pray by doing ‘logial tasks’ in line with what they are.
I suppose this is the critical point of disagreement between us. Whether “praising science” is the right direction to go. (Because I don’t doubt that your group is doing a good job at making some people praise science.)
More precisely, whether “praising science” leads to more science, or more pseudoscience. Because as long as you believe some specific pseudoscience is science, it is equally easy to praise it… and the pseudoscience has more degrees of freedom than real science, so unless specific precautions are taken, it can outcompete the real science. (In some sense, those “specific precautions” is what makes science science. And worship is definitely not one of them.)
Now reading the book… I am still at the beginning, but it already makes better impression than the video.
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson and more praise science, in the same way, it was just found out recently, actually today. It’s called Spinozism or Spinoza’s God. You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54
Where this leads? This is exactly the same with the exception of the latest neuroscience research which builds and complete this, and this “clicking” thing to logic. What’s been done here is what Tyson asks here literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc&feature=youtu.be&t=373
Personally, “the smartest man in the world” Chris Langan might even be on to this as well.
If Bachir has said he has had this for so many years and accomplished so much, looking at these others with “Spoza’s God” a strong correlation is occurring as a part of our intrinsic need to find patterns in things. However true or false they are. Sagan pushed really hard on critical thinking, and Bachir does as well actually. By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense. But we don’t know 100% sure.
What comes next? Well with this new understanding, the documentary will be reuploaded and this is taken into consideration because it is groundbreaking when it comes to the intersubjective reality. Bachir is also going to be speaking at U.N, where he was invited yesterday. where he will talk about this as well although I don’t know if it was because of this.
It’s going to be called Neurospinozism since understandings in neuroscience completes what was missed on earlier.
P.S I am not a part of this I am just a watcher of his stream.
Those tests are pretty sensible to training effects, so giving them twice to the same person would result in a higher score the second time almost no matter what.
Good point, but the experiment could have a control group which doesn’t do anything but takes the tests twice.
And someone probably already did the control-group part of this experiment, i.e. measured how much does the IQ increase after test retake. So we just need to know if the measured IQ of the people who “clicked” increases more that that.
Also, as far as I remember, the effect is something like plus 5 or 10 IQ points. (May differ for different tests, though. Some tests have multiple variants, so even if you benefit from the training, at least you cannot benefit from remembering the correct answers in the previous test.) The people who “clicked” report that their intelligence increased tenfold or hundredfold—they obviously use a different scale, but if that corresponds to +5 or more IQ point, it should be measurable.
Intelligence is not only analytical skills, rhetoric, pattern recognition, more abstract things. Working memory tests might measure g but not overall intelligence, Krakauer defines intelligence and stupidity in specific ways:
Intelligence is, as I say to people, one of the topics about which we have been most stupid. All our definitions of intelligence are based on measurements that can only be applied to humans—by and large, humans that speak English or what have you. An IQ test is not interesting if you’re trying to calculate the intelligence of an octopus—which I would like to know, because I believe in evolution. I think we need to understand where these things come from, and having a definition that applies just to one particular species doesn’t help us. We’ve talked about entropy and computation, and they’re going to be the keys to understanding intelligence.
Let’s go back to randomness. The example I like to give is Rubik’s cube, because it’s a beautiful little mental model, a metaphor. If I gave you a cube and asked you to solve it, and you just randomly manipulated it, since it has on the order of 10 quintillion solutions, which is a very large number, if you were immortal, you would eventually solve it. But it would take a lifetime of several universes to do so. That is random performance. Stupid performance is if you took just one face of the cube and manipulated that one face and rotated it forever. As everyone knows, if you did that, you would never solve the cube. It would be an infinite process that would never be resolved. That, in my definition, would be stupid. It is significantly worse than chance.
Now let’s take someone who has learned how to manipulate a cube and is familiar with various rules that allow you, from any initial configuration, to solve the cube in 20 minutes or less. That is intelligent behavior, significantly better than chance. This sounds a little counterintuitive, perhaps, until you realize that’s how we use the word in our daily lives. If I sat down with an extraordinary mathematician and I said, “I can’t solve that equation,” and he said, “Well, no, it’s easy. Here, this is what you do,” I’d look at it and I’d say, “Oh, yes, it is easy. You made that look easy.” That’s what we mean when we say someone is smart. They make things look easy.
If, on the other hand, I sat down with someone who was incapable, and he just kept dividing by two, for whatever reason, I would say, “What on earth are you doing? What a stupid thing to do. You’ll never solve the problem that way.”
So that is what we mean by intelligence. It’s the thing we do that ensures that the problem is efficiently solved and in a way that makes it appear effortless. And stupidity is a set of rules that we use to ensure that the problem will be solved in longer than chance or never and is nevertheless pursued with alacrity and enthusiasm.
You can ask when you’re a neurospinozist and have logic as your core value, what is the problem which we are given? To understand the world, God, but what else? Why do we have this amazing brain with neuroplasticity, and why do most of us use it to feed something like comfort or validation when looking at neuroscience these things are so flawed?
Personally might be social conditioning, I click into it when I am writing this because it’s just right there in front of us.
Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually nodragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
But we don’t know 100% sure.
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
An excellent video which talks about Spinoza and Spinozism, which Einstein and Sagan had faith in… doesn’t help my case? In the same manner, you assume that Spinoza and this isn’t linked, without refuting it.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally. If people report wanting to understand the world and is reiterated multiple times, doesn’t go along with the belief you already know it all. You presume that they are lying, in the same manner, Einstein or Sagan lied about their belief in the God of Spinoza. How do we know if someone has converted or not? (I presume that there is a link between God of Spinoza and intelligence, it seems more likely than before, even if it’s a correlation this exercise might imply causality)
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
I was euphoric, it was a heuristic. I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning or how to make a calculation outside of intuition. Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself I have too little data honestly. But since we know now that Einstein and Sagan had a similar belief, it seems more likely that this religion will spread but I don’t know how much. If you have the intersubjective/objective definitions from earlier (in the documentary) Spinozism is very intersubjective I presume.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning
Yes.
how to make a calculation outside of intuition
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition.
The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
I suppose this is the critical point of disagreement between us. Whether “praising science” is the right direction to go. (Because I don’t doubt that your group is doing a good job at making some people praise science.)
More precisely, whether “praising science” leads to more science, or more pseudoscience. Because as long as you believe some specific pseudoscience is science, it is equally easy to praise it… and the pseudoscience has more degrees of freedom than real science, so unless specific precautions are taken, it can outcompete the real science. (In some sense, those “specific precautions” is what makes science science. And worship is definitely not one of them.)
Now reading the book… I am still at the beginning, but it already makes better impression than the video.
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil Degrasse Tyson and more praise science, in the same way, it was just found out recently, actually today. It’s called Spinozism or Spinoza’s God. You can view a video about it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVEeXjPiw54
Michio Kaku about Einstein’s God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVg9KnAFak&feature=youtu.be&t=5m44s
Where this leads? This is exactly the same with the exception of the latest neuroscience research which builds and complete this, and this “clicking” thing to logic. What’s been done here is what Tyson asks here literally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc&feature=youtu.be&t=373
Personally, “the smartest man in the world” Chris Langan might even be on to this as well.
If Bachir has said he has had this for so many years and accomplished so much, looking at these others with “Spoza’s God” a strong correlation is occurring as a part of our intrinsic need to find patterns in things. However true or false they are. Sagan pushed really hard on critical thinking, and Bachir does as well actually. By the way, then people “click” and report increased intelligence. It just makes sense. But we don’t know 100% sure.
What comes next? Well with this new understanding, the documentary will be reuploaded and this is taken into consideration because it is groundbreaking when it comes to the intersubjective reality. Bachir is also going to be speaking at U.N, where he was invited yesterday. where he will talk about this as well although I don’t know if it was because of this.
It’s going to be called Neurospinozism since understandings in neuroscience completes what was missed on earlier.
P.S I am not a part of this I am just a watcher of his stream.
Intelligence tests are already developed and quite cheap. Testing these claims empirically would take about 2 hours and 20 dollars per person.
Those tests are pretty sensible to training effects, so giving them twice to the same person would result in a higher score the second time almost no matter what.
Good point, but the experiment could have a control group which doesn’t do anything but takes the tests twice.
And someone probably already did the control-group part of this experiment, i.e. measured how much does the IQ increase after test retake. So we just need to know if the measured IQ of the people who “clicked” increases more that that.
Also, as far as I remember, the effect is something like plus 5 or 10 IQ points. (May differ for different tests, though. Some tests have multiple variants, so even if you benefit from the training, at least you cannot benefit from remembering the correct answers in the previous test.) The people who “clicked” report that their intelligence increased tenfold or hundredfold—they obviously use a different scale, but if that corresponds to +5 or more IQ point, it should be measurable.
Intelligence is not only analytical skills, rhetoric, pattern recognition, more abstract things. Working memory tests might measure g but not overall intelligence, Krakauer defines intelligence and stupidity in specific ways:
You can ask when you’re a neurospinozist and have logic as your core value, what is the problem which we are given? To understand the world, God, but what else? Why do we have this amazing brain with neuroplasticity, and why do most of us use it to feed something like comfort or validation when looking at neuroscience these things are so flawed?
Personally might be social conditioning, I click into it when I am writing this because it’s just right there in front of us.
Seems like the worship of science stops when science starts contradicting your claims. :P
Seriously, there are some valid objections against IQ tests, but it feels like you have dismissed the topic too easily here. Almost as if you know there is actually no dragon in the garage.
But that’s not true, science hasn’t contradicted any of my claims. In fact, it is in full support at this moment, the scientific process is in ongoing.
Sorry about that. What I mean you can quantify intelligence as per Krakauer’s definition as well before and after. It’s unlikely g—general intelligence is increased (working memory) but maybe, then tests can be done easily, before and after in a clinical setting. Two trials of a test shouldn’t have a big of a training effect but that can be taken into consideration as well as with all other variables.
:)
Linking to Youtube video’s doesn’t help your case.
People who watch Zeitgeist also report that they suddenly understand politics much better. People feeling more intelligent is no useful sign. With the Dunning–Kruger effect it’s not easy to understand that one doesn’t understand a subject. Getting people to think they are smarter might produce more problems then it solves.
That’s something that people say who don’t understand the basics of probabilistic reasoning. If you aren’t 100% sure, what’s the probability that you attach to your theory being true?
An excellent video which talks about Spinoza and Spinozism, which Einstein and Sagan had faith in… doesn’t help my case? In the same manner, you assume that Spinoza and this isn’t linked, without refuting it.
If you were serious about youtube videos not helping cases, that’s fine.
That implies one is ignorant at baseline which makes no sense if you value logic and critical thinking at the core, emotionally. If people report wanting to understand the world and is reiterated multiple times, doesn’t go along with the belief you already know it all. You presume that they are lying, in the same manner, Einstein or Sagan lied about their belief in the God of Spinoza. How do we know if someone has converted or not? (I presume that there is a link between God of Spinoza and intelligence, it seems more likely than before, even if it’s a correlation this exercise might imply causality)
I was euphoric, it was a heuristic. I still don’t understand any probabilistic reasoning or how to make a calculation outside of intuition. Since there isn’t any peer-review or papers surrounding the exercise itself I have too little data honestly. But since we know now that Einstein and Sagan had a similar belief, it seems more likely that this religion will spread but I don’t know how much. If you have the intersubjective/objective definitions from earlier (in the documentary) Spinozism is very intersubjective I presume.
Yes. Referring to arguments that are made in text is more convincing. Especially when the text refers to actual sources.
There’s no evidence that people who value logic are less prone to Dunning–Kruger.
On the other hand a person who derives everything from one logical tree is a hedgehog and therefore more likely to be overconfident in his opinions.
Yes.
You don’t need to do calculations outside of intuition. It’s fine if you give a probability judgement that’s based on intuition. The fact that you are using intuition doesn’t prevent you from making probability judgments.
How do you know? Did you do a literature search?
https://logicnation.org/wiki/A_simple_click Although there are no sources for a lot of the content here for the exception of Spinozism etc, but you can find some in the video sources. If you think you’ve read it before, it’s been updated now.
I can agree, I shouldn’t have written that, but you did quote it out of context as well, but I think I understand my mistake.
Yes.
How do you update your probability then, if you estimated at 20% for example, and it turned out to be correct (100%)? It could still act within the 20% probability.
Well, it’s very unlikely that there is a paper with the exactly the same methodology but I can’t be certain of it. I wouldn’t know what to search for. It’s like someone writing a piece of music, the likelihood someone else has, note-by-note is very unlikely. It sounds to me as you’re asking me if I do pursue literature search in general, or that you have found something which is similar.
In general you can calibrate yourself by making many guesses. Tetlock’s Superforcasting is a good book if you want to go deeper.
To me it appears like you hold your beliefs based on arguments made in pop-science instead of having engaged with the academic literature. At least that’s the impression I get when you try to refer to Youtube videos as backup.
That’s not true, a respectable philosophy channel talking about the history of a philosopher is not pop-science. You’re welcome to watch the videos before making straw man arguments. Videos of biographies and Neil Tyson speaking about his love for the cosmos, or Michio Kaku talking about Einstein’s beliefs has nothing to do with whatever narrow view you have of how to share information.
Both of those are pop-science. Neil deGrasse Tyson is famous for doing pop-science. He isn’t a philosopher, studies the history of science or has expertise in cognitive science. He’s the planetarium director at the American Museum of Natural History.
His video’s about his love for the cosmos might be good for getting young people motivated to take up scientific careers but they are pop-science. The are not arguments that are supposed to withstand academic rigor. Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t get papers about his love for the universe published in peer reviewed journals.
This has nothing to do with the argument made in the first post they were mentioned, the way Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the experiment and religious experiences was a funny coincidence.
Exactly, so why are you even bringing up academic literature in a discussion that has nothing to do with it whatsoever. His love for the universe could be published in a neuro study similar to religious experiences. That would be cool if it is done and if it is or is not the case.
I kind of understand what you mean now, yes the argument is based on pop-science because you can’t have love of the universe in a video published in peer-reviewed journals. It has nothing to do with this, for the exception of the exercise, the click and so forth, that should be published.
Well yes. That’s the point I was making. What you are saying is detached from academic science and you don’t make appeals to real academic science. Or for that matter to other serious writing.
I understand what you mean. Do you have any suggestions where to start?
Do you know how you can access scientific papers?
Yes, I have used pubmed, although I am not that good at searching yet. After that, I get the full papers from sci-hub.