Learning vs Education
Education and the process of learning are two different things. Education is a means to drill and indoctrinate a person to some goal or end (to be a more productive citizen, as an example). Learning, however, is not the same as education. Learning takes place due to an intrinsic desire to learn about something. It's a cultivated feeling originating from within.
Therefore, should we place more of an emphasis on cultivating the process of learning and the desire to know about some subject or thing instead of conflating the role of education in the process of learning?
If so, how does one go about doing this?
Therefore, should we place more of an emphasis on cultivating the process of learning and the desire to know about some subject or thing instead of conflating the role of education in the process of learning?
If so, how does one go about doing this?
Comments (18)
Elon Musk actually does exactly that.
Well, it's Elon Musk. What do you expect, nothing less than a brilliant form of humanism derived or made possible through science?
Though, he doesn't think that science is the answer, he thinks that love is. He is an astonishing individual, I think as well.
And, all the media reported was that he smoked a doobie during the interview, whoppitty f*cking do...
Mandatory to watch, IMO.
Science may not be the answer; but, is a means in doing so. Just clarifying the ambiguity.
I think he's great. I know, people made a big deal about it, were texting him right away about it too. The controversy!
I think that he avoided consequentialism entirely. He was probed about it, about us not becoming an intersteller species because it would be bad for humanity, but he says no, he just thinks that it would be cooler, basically, and probed further in that consequentialist direction is what led him to saying that he actually thought that love was the answer.
Well, if money is involved then anything flies. More symptoms of a decrepit utility system of our society.
Yeah, he claimed that he doesn't even make minimum wage anymore, and only cares about the profitability of his ventures out of justifying their continued existence because they've become too big to privately fund, and to obligations to shareholders.
Yes, he isn't interested in a brute logical AI system that would arbitrage a utility system for "one's" benefit. Besides, what use is money to a machine like AI and who is "one"? It can come up with solutions in a box or building. All it needs is electricity, so maybe that's all that it would value if self-preservation would be required for its continual existence.
He did suggest head chips, or becoming one with the AI to prevent becoming obsolete, which was consequentialist, I agree, but I'm not entirely sure that I buy into that fear of AI that he seems to, though he is definitely a way smarter person than I am, so maybe he is right. Though I do think that there is something to be said about quality over quantity, and all of the information in the world doesn't necessitate good discernment, or judgment. I don't think that that is improved substantively with information. Maybe have the internet in your head, but people are not equally good at separating the wheat from the chafe.
Don't laugh; but, I'm saving money to be able to be able to afford that Brain-Machine-Interface he's talking about with the creation of Neuralink, the company responsible for those Interfaces.
I think by 2020 it will come out for the public to utilize.
Pascal's wager! Haha
You'll at least wait a bit for the Guinea pig phase to end, and see what happens to the first wave, right?
Probably. I don't think I'll be the first customer. Too antsy about glitches and such.