Практика Shadowing: The Future Of Reasoning - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Каждый режим открывает полноэкранную комнату практики.

313 предложений

Если предложения слишком короткие или длинные, нажмите Edit, чтобы их изменить.

Hey Vsauce, Michael here.

Where is your mind?

Is it in your head?

I mean that's where your brain is and your brain helps you remember and plan and make judgments and solve problems.

But you also remember and plan with phones and notes

and calendars and you make judgments and solve problems with all sorts of things.

You know, when you think about it,

the brain is really just a wet lump of fat and protein no firmer than a blob of tofu.

But the mind is huge.

It's an ever -expanding organ of tissue and wood and stone and steel and people because of communication.

Communication allows us to even make other people extensions of our minds.

We can access their memories and perceptions and knowledge by simply asking. Or not.

I don't need to learn how to fix a car and practice medicine and vulcanize rubber or remember everything.

Other people are doing that for me just as I do things for them.

We are a species of individuals that is also one big interdependent lumbering growth,

a frantic blur of flesh and concrete,

a techno -sapien powered by imaginations and passions made real by a hallowed faculty we call reason.

Reason, it is said, guides us to truer knowledge and better decisions.

It's allowed us to increase life expectancy,

suffer less, work together better and it's bound to take us further and higher until the end of time. Or is it?

The organ we use to reason takes millions of years to evolve, but the fruits of reason grow rapidly and are ever accelerating.

Over the next four decades, we are expected to build the equivalent of another New York City every month.

And more concrete was installed in the last two decades, outside the United States, than the US installed during the entire 20th century.

This growth means that quality of life around the world is rising.

It means that electricity, manufactured goods, food, comfort and transportation are all becoming more common and accessible.

But there are hints that reason

and logic are struggling against the complexity of it all against our growing dependence on the things we've built

and their unintended consequences.

Nearly every part of life as we know it today involves

or relies on a process that releases molecules with lopsided electrical charges.

This property causes them to absorb and re -emit thermal radiation, pinging it around so that it escapes into space more slowly.

Having more warmer parcels of air means stronger weather events.

They can't be pinned to any particular extreme storm, but they make extreme storms in general more extreme and frequent.

What's at stake isn't just bad weather, it's disaster.

It's more lives lost, more property lost, it's more droughts, more hunger, more famine, more people needing refuge,

and an even greater reliance on the very things that caused the problem in the first place.

In total, we release about 51 billion tons of such gases every year and we need to release zero.

But how do you rethink everything?

Who gets to direct the costs and trade -offs?

How do you achieve collaboration between nearly every local and national government when what works in one place won't work everywhere,

when decisions affect jobs in one place and food in another,

when not just things need to be rethought but also habits and traditions and values.

How do you achieve consensus when a problem isn't obvious to the senses, is far away in space and time,

requires solutions that affect people in different ways, and as a product of science always carries some uncertainty.

The philosopher Timothy Morton calls something so massively distributed in time and space and so viscous,

so sticky that it adheres to all that touch it, a hyper object.

Every civilization that grows at the speed of reason must at some point face hyper objects. In fact

The fact that we still haven't found evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth has been brought up as evidence

that some sort of great filter might exist that few civilizations manage to get past.

That a hyper object like our impact on the planet might be such a great filter is not a new idea.

What it might take to solve it is the topic of Bill Gates' How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.

And I decided to do this video in partnership with him

and his team because the way we deal with hyper -objects reveals a lot about the mind.

It's easy and common to think that we would all be better off if everyone was just more rational, right?

But what if reasoning wasn't built for what we've become?

Let's begin by looking at behavioral inertia.

Behavioral inertia is the tendency to keep doing what you're already doing.

Status quo bias.

It can be a frustrating bias if you desire change, but its origin isn't a flaw.

If an organism has managed to survive long enough to reproduce and provide and care for its offspring,

then the state of its world was sufficient for its genes to spread.

That's all it takes to persist.

The types of organisms we see around us will naturally be those that managed to persist and didn't,

after reaching that point, rock the boat too much.

So, behavioral inertia can help slow down the accumulation of unintended consequences and the loss of ideas that work,

but it can also slow down innovation and adaptation.

If the environmental impacts of our society were more immediate and unignorable,

it wouldn't be so tempting to apply this inertial break.

But emissions are invisible and their consequences aren't immediate or local.

They impact future people and people far away, those who are different from us, poorer than us, people we will never meet.

This may be one of the first challenges advancing civilizations face, wielding not just the power of technology and distributed cognition,

but also the responsibilities.

Extending the mind is really cool, but whether or not a species can extend their empathy might be a great filter.

Surely, reasoning will allow us to do that, right?

Well, what is reasoning?

Well, reasoning is a way of making inferences.

An inference is a piece of new information extracted from the information you already have.

We make inferences all the time.

Every living thing does.

For example, we don't have measuring tape tentacles that shoot from our eyes.

And what actually enters our brain is just a 2D image but nonetheless, our brains can infer depth by attending to cues like stereopsis,

occultation, perspective, parallax, size.

Now, when this happens, we accept it as reality.

We aren't aware of the visual processing that made it possible, and we don't have to be.

If, however, we do consciously consider why a certain conclusion was reached, well then, boom, that's reasoning.

Reasoning is the process of making inferences not automatically and instinctively, but by looking at facts and seeing what conclusions they support.

When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth to within a percentage or two of the value accepted today,

he didn't do it by measuring the Earth and he didn't just perceive it as self -evident.

No, he inferred it from what he knew about shadows and how long it took camels to move.

Stories like that make it easy to believe that reasoning evolved because it supercharged our cognitive abilities.

I mean, it clearly moves us towards truer conclusions, better decisions and knowledge no other species could infer.

Attempts to describe the rules of good orderly reason became logic and mathematics,

concepts so general and abstract that while we were still animals.

Armed with them, we were no longer beasts.

But that's the rub, isn't it?

If reasoning is so great, why are we the only species with such a sophisticated grasp of it?

And if its purpose is truth and good judgment, why don't we all agree on everything?

It's tempting to think that disagreements happened because, well, I am being rational, but those who disagree with me are being irrational.

Ugh!

100

If only people would just use logic and reason.

101

What's happened to the world?

102

Well… That's a fair complaint if you're arguing over logic puzzles.

103

But the world is not a logic puzzle.

104

This, however, is one.

105

Paul is looking at Mary.

106

Mary is looking at Peter.

107

Paul is married.

108

Peter is unmarried.

109

Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

110

Yes?

111

No?

112

Or not enough information to decide?

113

Think about it.

114

The answer is yes.

115

You may have thought there's no way to know because we don't know if Mary is married.

116

But look, she either is or she isn't.

117

And if she is, well then she, a married person, is looking at Peter, an unmarried person.

118

If she isn't, then Paul, a married person, is looking at her, an unmarried person.

119

So, no matter what Mary's deal is, the answer will be yes.

120

When people get this puzzle wrong and the correct answer is explained to them, they almost always immediately see why it's right and change their mind.

121

Life is not always like that.

122

Let's take a look at a logical syllogism.

123

All elephants are awesome.

124

Michael is an elephant.

125

Therefore, Michael is awesome.

126

The conclusion is logically valid.

127

It follows from the assumptions.

128

But are the assumptions true?

129

No. I am not an elephant.

130

Also, this premise is subjective.

131

I mean, what does it mean to be awesome?

132

Can we measure it with an osmometer?

133

So you can see why, when analyzing something like our impact on the planet, logic can only be a partial tool.

134

If some people have more to lose than others, who gets to decide which assumptions are fair?

135

Still though, it would seem that reasoning should be able to help here.

136

If each of us would just attend only to the facts, surely we'd all recognize the same reasonable approach.

137

Problem is, that's not how reasoning works.

138

Since the scientific study of human reasoning began about a hundred years ago, it has been found again and again that not only are we bad at reasoning,

139

lazy and biased, but we actually seem almost programmed to be bad, like the flaws are intentional.

140

In an episode of Mind Field, I once used a magician to pull off a little experiment.

141

He asked people to look at two faces and choose which of the two they would prefer to work with,

142

placing their preferences in one pile and those they rejected into another.

143

Then, the pile of people they picked were shown again, and each person was asked to provide a reason for why they chose that person.

144

But with a little sleight of hand, the magician managed to sneak in some of the faces they had just rejected.

145

Amazingly, the majority of people didn't even notice the trick.

146

Not only that, they were able to effortlessly explain the reasons behind their choice a choice they never actually made.

147

Remembering faces you've only seen briefly isn't the easiest thing to do, but other studies have shown that even if the task involves answering questions about one's political beliefs,

148

things we would seemingly have a firmer grasp on, nearly half of participants will fail to notice

149

that the answers they gave have been reversed when they're later asked to explain them.

150

Point is, we seem practically built to give reasons for whatever we think we must

151

and not the reasons we actually used to reach a conclusion.

152

What if we don't even use reasons to reach conclusions?

153

Well, let's talk about intuitions.

154

Our brains have evolved over millions of years to react to

155

the world around us in brilliant ways with little to no input from us.

156

For example, when you notice that someone is upset, you don't consciously think, hmm,

157

okay, so, uh, well, their eyebrows are kind of in that position and their speech seems curt, their posture is, these are all reasons to conclude that they are upset.

158

No. Instead, the belief that they may be upset was just apparent.

159

You intuited it.

160

You know it without exactly knowing how you came to know it.

161

The mood -recognizing parts of your brain operate in a way that is opaque to your awareness.

162

But if someone asks you, why do you think they're upset?

163

You can nonetheless produce all sorts of reasons.

164

Some may have actually been the ones your brain attended to, but they're all just guesses.

165

Instead of using reasoning, You to come to conclusions, we use conclusions to come to reasons.

166

Now to be fair, we can go the other way.

167

We love puzzles and when we don't have a strong intuition either way, we can sit down and mull over various reasons to think one thing or another.

168

Our love of puzzles suggests that reasoning has a survival value.

169

Organisms that found it pleasurable would be more likely to use it.

170

But when we reason alone, even when we have no motivation to reach any particular conclusion,

171

we still exhibit deep biases that seem less like mistakes and more like features.

172

For example, it's been shown that between two otherwise similar products, people will prefer to buy the one with more functions, even if they don't want those functions,

173

never plan to use them and think they're all pointless and overly complicated.

174

Why?

175

Well, it might be that we find such decisions easier to justify to others.

176

We won't wind up being potentially embarrassed when someone asks why we didn't get the product with more functions.

177

Well after decades of findings like this, Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber began to hypothesize

178

that reasoning didn't evolve to help us make better decisions but instead to help us be social.

179

Humans inhabit a cognitive niche on this planet.

180

We aren't strong or sharp or hidden or venomous.

181

Instead, our advantage comes from cognition, reasoning, and cooperation.

182

We can plan hunts, build traps, and engage in coordinated strategies that can be tested and modified on the fly, not by millennia of evolution.

183

Reason allows us to do those things.

184

It's hard to convince people that your intuitions are true, but if you can give reasons for them, it's a whole heck of a easier to convince people that you're right.

185

Being able to argue over what the best thing to do is, is vital when it comes to coordinating action.

186

Reasons also allow us to justify ourselves in the eyes of others, to explain who we are and express the kinds of reasons we like,

187

what others can expect from us, and what we will likely expect from them.

188

This social theory of reasoning helps explain why two people can earnestly and rationally arrive at two different views.

189

They each have their own unique brain and values and dispositions and experiences and those are what drove their thinking.

190

The reasons they give may

191

or may not be the real reasons they came to their conclusions but it's the best anyone can do.

192

The social theory also explains why people tend to give such weak reasons for their beliefs at first

193

or when their intended audience doesn't need much convincing.

194

It would be a waste of time

195

and cognitive resources to construct grand slam reasons for everything I said and did and thought when it wasn't necessary.

196

Instead I can offload some of that work to other people.

197

For example, if I say I want to have lunch at ABC Burgers, well my friend might respond, ah no thanks I had burgers yesterday.

198

And I might reply back, oh well that's no problem.

199

They also have hot dogs and great salads.

200

But if my friend said, no thanks, I'm trying to spend less money eating out this month,

201

I could reply, oh well ABC Burgers is really cheap and I've got a coupon.

202

Now what's going on here is that I'm providing reasons only as my friend presses for them.

203

If they press harder and harder my reasons will become better

204

and better until either I win them over or we come to some different more harmonious decision.

205

So when people appear to be lazy reasoners or to have bad reasons or none at all,

206

it's usually just the case that they're using reason as it evolved to function.

207

Socially.

208

It starts off weak, improving if others push it and always tailoring its work to the intended audience.

209

The social theory of reasoning can even explain the existence of biases that otherwise make little sense.

210

For For example, it would seem that in coming to conclusions about the world,

211

it would behoove an organism to pay particular attention to information that went against what it believed.

212

I mean, that way, they would be able to adjust their beliefs, making them truer, more general, and more complete.

213

To a certain extent, that is what happens, but not always.

214

When someone does their own research, they often come to the very conclusion they wanted in the first place.

215

This is called confirmation bias, our tendency to look for,

216

prefer, and interpret information so that it confirms what we already think.

217

It frustrates our ability to accept new, inconvenient data and is a problem for the intellectualist view of reason.

218

If reason is for finding truth and making better decisions, why would it have this major weakness?

219

Well, because, the social theory says, reasoning is a group activity.

220

Let's say that I think option A is true and the best and you think option B is true and the best.

221

Well, if we both researched both options and sifted through reasons in support of both options,

222

we would both have twice the work to do than we would

223

if instead I simply came up with reasons for why I was right

224

and you attended the reasons for why you were right.

225

The confirmation bias at least halves the cognitive work that must be done.

226

Now sometimes a lone reasoner will have a bad idea or a decent idea with some bad parts.

227

The reasons they have to justify for and argue for it, will be sufficient for them and those who intuitively agree, but they may be weak.

228

However, subjected to deliberation, put forth into the machine of collective thought,

229

it can be evaluated and judged not by one mind or a group of minds thinking alike, but by something very special.

230

The crowd.

231

Humans have long known of the wisdom of the crowds, the phenomenon by

232

which a collection of many Many people can process information into a conclusion better than any one person could do alone.

233

It's why we don't trust big decisions to a single person, no matter how educated or powerful they are.

234

Instead, we ask a group of people to deliberate, to reason together.

235

In this way, the biases and errors of each is smoothed out and the decision wiser.

236

In a famous example, it's been repeatedly shown that

237

if you ask a bunch of people to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar,

238

you'll find that the average of all their answers is closer to the real number than any one individual was alone.

239

What happens is that although some people may guess a number that is like way too big,

240

that mistake is balanced out by the fact that others will inevitably guess a number that is way too small.

241

Altogether, their disagreement evens out into spectacular accuracy.

242

We have now arrived at the problem.

243

Reasoning evolved to be used socially, where many different perspectives had to all deliberate towards a common conclusion.

244

Such contexts are becoming less and less common and it is becoming easier and easier to simply be a lone reasoner,

245

justifying only a particular viewpoint without doing the harder work of deliberating and acting.

246

The internet gives voices to more perspectives than ever before in our history,

247

but it also makes it easy to disengage from accountability and to find places where everyone believes what you do.

248

Furthermore, because of technology, we confront more issues more rapidly than ever before that we are expected to have opinions about.

249

And the growing complexity and specialization of the modern world makes it difficult for each of us to have well -informed,

250

prepared reasons for the accelerating accretion of intuitions we must form.

251

In response, we look for people who can defend our intuitions for us.

252

The reasons they give don't have to be good, just good enough that we can feel like justification exists.

253

In the past, unconvincing reasons had to be painted on sandwich boards,

254

but now the democratization of communication means that even unpopular,

255

unconvincing, nonsensical ideas can be presented with the same trust -inducing typefaces and professional look as common ones.

256

People can challenge the weak reasons of others, show them to be contradictory and produce better reasons for their side, but to what end?

257

It's all preparation for a debate that never comes.

258

We each play a very small role in deciding how society is run.

259

Even if a good -faith discussion between a representative slice of America came to a resolution, if nothing can come of it,

260

why not just throw shade and sick burns

261

or revel in the pleasure of reasoning by treating everything like a big giant puzzle?

262

It's easy to think that it doesn't matter.

263

Because after all, those in charge, the brilliant scientists and powerful billionaires, will surely come to the rescue.

264

Some giant techno -salvation is surely on the horizon.

265

Perhaps it is.

266

But everything we know about reason suggests that those implementing it should be held accountable by as many different perspectives. as possible.

267

Leaders could lead deliberations and be elected for their ability to moderate social reasoning, but that's boring.

268

Why lead when you could follow?

269

Look at what some people believe and generate reasons for why they're right and they'll love it.

270

Of course, the hard work, the real work, the work that truly elevates us on this planet is not in telling people that they're right,

271

but But in trying to convince others, and in doing so, use reason as it evolved to be used.

272

The future of reason may in fact be the past of reason.

273

In practice, what does all this look like?

274

Well, some researchers have gone

275

so far as to recommend National Deliberation Days where citizens celebrate by literally joining small groups

276

and talking through their opinions and comparing reasons.

277

Tests of such strategies have shown that a return to the small, targeted discussions our reasoning abilities evolve to excel in leaves all

278

participants with a greater understanding of not just what they believe and why, but about decisions that could actually be made and actions that could be taken.

279

Others have gone even further, recommending that the future of reason at its best is the construction of a latocracy.

280

A form of government where decisions are made not by elected leaders, but by people literally chosen at random.

281

We decide the fate of a person this way.

282

Why not the fate of the people?

283

What if decisions were made not by politicians alone, but at least occasionally by groups of actual citizens representing differences in thought,

284

not just geography, who were brought together

285

and paid for their time to learn from experts and then deliberate on an assigned issue until a conclusion was reached or, at the least, a recommendation.

286

Instead of being motivated by re -election, money, attention, and power, individuals chosen at random would have only their conscience to guide them.

287

Special interests and corporations wouldn't be able to cozy up to those likely to be elected

288

because if any one of us could someday serve, they'd have to cozy up to and protect all of us.

289

Instead of the learning and deliberation being done by people you will never meet with offices and buildings you can't access,

290

gradually over time more and more of your very own neighbors would have had the honor.

291

People chosen at random would obviously lack the same celebrity status and mandate that elected leaders cultivate and achieve.

292

And iconic figures we relate to aren't bad, but our understanding of reasoning is making it more and more clear

293

that we evolved not to leave the thinking up to a few great minds, but to the authority of the great mind.

294

The lumbering organ of thought that is everyone and everything.

295

This is, in fact, how democracy first worked.

296

Lotteries were used to fill many political positions in ancient Athens, Aristotle explained that the appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic,

297

and the election of them is oligarchic.

298

An oligarchy is government by only a small number of people.

299

Look, regardless of how reason is brought back to its social roots,

300

if we can build more and better arenas for deliberation and use them to apply reason properly to hyperobjects,

301

like the impact of our emissions on the planet, we'll have taught one heck of a lesson to people a hundred, a thousand years in the future.

302

I like to think that although widening participation will be difficult, it might provide us with a kind of existential security.

303

The impact of emissions on our planet is not going to be the last hyperobject we face.

304

If we can do a good job with it, maybe far in the future, when our civilization has advanced to the point at which, I don't know, people can be quantumly recreated or something,

305

they'll look back at our time and say, hey, let's bring them all back to life.

306

We could use the cooperative abilities they had then.

307

Ultimately, the old saying that history is the great teacher isn't a bad guide.

308

We will all someday be teachers ourselves.

309

Because someday, we will all be history.

310

We will someday be the ancients.

311

And we can choose what that will mean.

312

And as always, thanks for watching.

313

Thank you.

Скачать приложение

Всё для свободной речи

ИИ-оценка произношенияОценка каждой фразы

Практика IPAОсвойте каждый звук

СловарьСоберите свой словарный запас

Игра со словамиУчитесь играя

Сканировать QR

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

Тот же канал

FOR YOU

Лексика и советы по произношению к этому уроку

В этом видео 313 предложений и 4340 слов для шедоуинга. Речь длится 29:57. Говорящий держит ровный темп — около 145 слов в минуту, удобный для шедоуинга. 83% слов входят в 3000 самых частых слов английского языка; остальные стоит разобрать перед занятием.

Ключевая лексика этого видео

15 слов из видео, которые стоит выучить, с произношением и значением:

Слово	Произношение	Значение
conclusion существительное	/kənˈkluːʒən/	оконча́ние, заверше́ние
evolve глагол	/ɪˈvɑlv/	развива́ться, разви́ться
puzzle существительное	/ˈpʌzəl/	зага́дка, затрудне́ние
belief существительное	/bɪˈliːf/	ве́ра, дове́рие
bias существительное	/ˈbaɪ.əs/	предубежде́ние, предвзя́тость
cognitive прилагательное	/ˈkɑɡ.nɪ.tɪv/	когнити́вный, познава́тельный
someday наречие		когда́-нибу́дь
organism существительное	/ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/	органи́зм
argue глагол	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	спо́рить, обсужда́ть
solve глагол	/sɒlv/	реша́ть, реши́ть
filter существительное	/ˈfɪltɚ/	фильтр
judgment существительное	/ˈd͡ʒʌd͡ʒ.mənt/	осужде́ние, сужде́ние
convince глагол	/kənˈvɪns/	убежда́ть, убеди́ть
justify глагол	/ˈd͡ʒʌstɪfaɪ/	опра́вдывать, оправда́ть
organ существительное	/ˈɔːɡən/	о́рган

Фразовые глаголы, которые вы услышите

Слово	Значение
slow down глагол	замедля́ть, заме́длить
bring up глагол	воспи́тывать, воспита́ть
come up with глагол	придумывать, приходить в голову
pull off глагол	оттащить, стянуть
sit down глагол	сади́ться, сесть
talk through глагол	объяснять

Грамматика в этом видео

Конструкции, которые говорящий использует чаще всего, с точными словами из видео:

Конструкция	В видео
Условные предложения if + предложение, will/would + глагол — условие и его результат	If only people would just · If each of us would just
Present Perfect have/has + причастие прошедшего времени — прошлое действие, важное сейчас	we've built · haven't found · we've become
Пассивный залог be + причастие прошедшего времени — важно, что происходит, а не кто это делает	is said · are expected · was installed
Придаточные определительные who / which + предложение — уточнение о человеке или предмете	those who are · those who disagree · those who intuitively

Произношение, на которое стоит обратить внимание

Говорящий использует 63 сокращённых и редуцированных форм, например don't, isn't, they're. Произносите их коротко, так, как слышите.

Звуки «th»: nonetheless /ˌnʌnðəˈlɛs/, furthermore /ˈfɜː(ɹ).ðə(ɹ)ˌmɔː(ɹ)/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
Звуки «sh» и «zh»: conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/, emission /ɪˈmɪʃ.ən/, sufficient /səˈfɪʃənt/, confirmation /ˌkɑn.fəɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/
Длинные слова — следите за ударением: organism /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/, behavioral /bɪˈheɪvjəɹəl/, deliberate /dɪˈlɪb.(ə.)ɹət/, confirmation /ˌkɑn.fəɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/, complexity /kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/

Как заниматься с этим видео

Прослушайте всё видео один раз молча и выпишите незнакомые слова.
Повторяйте предложение за предложением на обычной скорости, пока ваш ритм не совпадёт с ритмом говорящего.
Запишите себя и сравните с оригиналом, обращая внимание на такие слова, как conclusion, evolve, puzzle.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Техника шедоуинга: читать полное пошаговое руководство →

Практика Shadowing: The Future Of Reasoning - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Выберите режим практики

Скачать приложение

Тот же канал

My Dad Ranking

Why Are Things Creepy?

I Built An Emordnilap Machine

A Cosmic Coincidence

Why Are Things Cute?

What's Inside My Spherical Die?

Is Anything Real?

The Banach–Tarski Paradox

All The Ghosts You Will Be

Рекомендуемое видео

You Will Only Like Half of This Video

Alexandr Wang on what matters in an age of abundant intelligence

Supernatural thinking: Your brain’s anti-anxiety mode | Clay Routledge

We Can Now Simulate a Human Brain, Scientists Show

The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown

Your brain wasn't built to hold this much information | Richard Cytowic

AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims

The REAL reason China built so much

Would You Upload Your Mind?

A reason why you should study hard by Richard Feynman in less 50 seconds.

Human Immortality 4K | Can Science Defeat Aging?

Are we heading to an era of stagnation or innovation?