/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


Prussian Language Luge Ushqimi 04/24/2020 (Fri) 13:17:18 No. 1317 [Reply] [Last]
So I wrote a pdf, on the reconstructed language of old Prussian. This language is actually going through a revival, from what I could gather. Since last year I found a YouTube channel where a family from Lithuania speak this language in a daily basis, and even their daughters speak it. So I got the dictionary of the language, read some posts on their facebook page, and listened to their speech. This pdf is mostly an overview of the language, I am not a linguistic or anything like that, I am just a random guy who likes languages. So I wanted to post it somewhere, and I decided to post it here first, I think that there are some people here that would be interested in this. The YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqhLH_SLh3apNZjSruEXZMg The dictionary https://wirdeins.twanksta.org/ A site with good resources https://bila.twanksta.org/

(34.61 KB 778x519 458176297304^^23.jpg)
What is consciousness? Comrade 04/06/2020 (Mon) 00:36:25 No. 400 [Reply] [Last]
.
72 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>1176 I can see your points, to address them is not an easy task, but I will try. In my opinion, in the history of Marxist movement, Stalin by intuition is the one who arrived closest to the true dialectics, because he never let the abstract control him, but stayed with the concrete reality. However it necessary to remember Stalin can only see what historical conditions allow him to see. The first problem is the concept of contradiction, what is it and when to realise the situation is in contradiction or not. We use the word "contradiction", because it is a relic of Hegel, for that he posited an absolute being with contradiction and from that generate a whole world (he was really a mad genius!), but as materialists and practitioners, we must identify contradiction in reality, when it's in contradiction, when it's not. It's not an easy problem, so I think I need to carefully research it before saying anything. Most of the time, contradiction is hidden or even not forming yet. In thought, and in social science, now it's easy to identify contradiction, but how about nature? Diamat, from the existence of contradiction in thought, proceed to assume the existence of contradiction in nature. Why? Because Diamat holds the position that nothing is totally special, if there are contradictions in thought and thought is also a part of nature as other matters, then contradictions also must exist in others too. To find contradiction in nature, it is the job of practical engineering and science (I also list engineering, because most of the time, engineering is ahead of science), Diamat cannot do this job. However, without Diamat, the practitioners cannot identify the contradiction, because his philosophy forbids the existence of contradiction (metaphysics of non-contradiction). In modern history, Marx was the first one to success, as a social scientist, to identify the fundamental contradiction of our current society. To identify contradiction in nature, it's necessary to have enough data of its history, of which we are woefully lacking. The second problem is about laws. What's law and its role in the world? Law is a governing principle for which matter must obey. But it is really true? Are Diamat laws something invincible, something cannot be violate? No, not true, but Diamat forbids that itself! So allow me formulate a really heretic thought, which I think even Engels, Plekhanov, Stalin and many other Marxist scientists somehow intuitively arrived at, but didn't dare to/or clearly expressed: There is no such thing as concrete eternal law in nature. Every law must come into being from some basis, and disappear when its basis disappears. It's not Law that controls Matter in Motion, but Matter in Motion develops and expressed itself in form of Law. If there is a law, then there must be somewhere in universe this law doesn't hold, and sometime in the history this law didn't come into being yet. NO EXCEPTION. EVEN DIAMAT in concrete form. It's the development of nature, the development of material conditions that gives born to laws. Laws can influence, but cannot turn themselves against their material conditions. So the true eternal laws must contain in itself all aspects of nature, both positive and negative. If "Nature Connected and Determined", then there is also an implication "Nature Independently Divided". If "Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and Change", there is also an implication "Nature is a Static and Unchanging". If "Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change", then also "Natural Quantitative Change Does Not Lead to Qualitative Change". If "Contradictions Inherent in Nature", then also "Nature Does Not Contradict Itself". And so on... But such eternal laws have no power over anything, don't predict anything, they are nothing but empty laws, for what Hegel correctly recognised, Absolute Being is Absolute Nothing. However, those laws are still useful, as they remind us of the true reality, that questions of cognition cannot be solved by speculation alone, but necessary by real, practical action. Let take for an example, Newton's 1st Law: "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force" contain a hidden side to it, because there always exists environment, there always exist external forces, therefore "An object cannot remain at rest or in uniform motion, unless there is no environment." To recognise which side will apply, is the problem of actual research, which Newton's 1st Law cannot do for us, but only illuminate the way. I know at least one scientist is aware of this hidden side, and he had his own reformulation of Newton's 1st Law. Or for example, the law of universal gravitation. If by someday, we discover the underlying material mechanism and conditions of this law, then we can finally drop the prefix "universal" and can find a way to escape the phenomenon of gravity. But this again, is a problem of engineering and practical science and not pure thought. On the other points, which you talk about the importance of scientific method, and the criticism of Strong Emergence in the science of dynamic system, belong to the realm of concrete knowledge, so this I dare not to comment if I don't research them carefully, so I need sometime to prepare. In that time, could also clarify why you are against Strong Emergence and also the philosophy of Scientific Method?
>>1200 Thank you for the response. I will give a more in depth response once I have completed my study of Stalin's text. As a point of clarification, I do not believe in Strong Emergence, but I do believe in the scientific method as outlined by Karl Popper in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (pdf attached). I think it is worth critiquing Popper since his work is a product of the bourgeois system of academia in which he operated within, but I do believe that most of the assertions in this book hold true at least up until the last two chapters. His book "The Open Society and It's Enemies" not so much, although that is worth reading. I will leave you with a quote from the general introduction of Anti-Duhring that I think is worth considering as it relates to your points about Dialectical Materialism and to laws of motion. >The perception of the fundamental contradiction in German idealism led necessarily back to materialism, but, nota bene, not to the simply metaphysical, exclusively mechanical materialism of the eighteenth century. In contrast to the naively revolutionary, simple rejection of all previous history, modern materialism sees in the latter the process of evolution of humanity, it being its task to discover the laws of motion thereof. With the French of the eighteenth century, and with Hegel, the conception obtained of nature as a whole, moving in narrow circles, and forever immutable, with its eternal celestial bodies, as Newton, and unalterable organic species, as Linnaeus, taught. Modern materialism embraces the more recent discoveries of natural science, according to which nature also has its history in time, the celestial bodies, like the organic species that, under favourable conditions, people them, being born and perishing. And even if nature, as a whole, must still be said to move in recurrent cycles, these cycles assume infinitely larger dimensions. In both cases modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer needs any philosophy standing above the other sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous. That which still survives, independently, of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its laws — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of nature and history.
(59.05 KB 904x1360 s3e4rftgz.jpeg)
>>402 >video Danielle Dannets view is not is not out on a limb, and he does not deny consciousness experience, he just says that the way we think about it based on a perceptual illusion. >>404 >I think this question is what ultimately makes materialism nonviable. There is no good way to answer it from a materialist framework that I have found. No you are utterly wrong, you consciousness has physical effects on the world, for example you have a conscious experience of feeling thirsty and as a result you go get something to drink. This means that your consciousness experience is in part a cause for the glass of water being moved towards your mouth, and water flowing into it. The water that is being moved around is physical. All physical results must have physical causes. Hence consciousness must be physical, or else you claiming that physical phenomena have non-physical causes , which means that you are denying literally all of science, and are basically postulating that the world is moved by supernatural forces. In case of you trying to retreat to a position where consciousness is this extra bit that is magical but not interacting with the material world to avoid breaking physical causes for physical phenomena, you are basically denying any connection to the brain activity because that is all physical phenomena, and have reduce consciousness to a passenger audience from the movie Being John Malkovich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZknAZxSjU.
>>1244 >consciousness has an effect on matter >somehow this means that we have a materialist explanation for consciousness You're either not arguing in good faith or you didn't read my post carefully enough.
(407.89 KB 1038x519 policenaut.gif)
>>1244 >>1244 >No you are utterly wrong, you consciousness has physical effects on the world, for example you have a conscious experience of feeling thirsty and as a result you go get something to drink. You act like there are no steps in between. Why do you think I place such emphasis on will? >This means that your consciousness experience is in part a cause for the glass of water being moved towards your mouth, and water flowing into it. Wrong! Correlation does no imply causation. You are perfectly capable of feeling thirsty and not drinking water, so it is absurd to say that feeling thirsty is what caused you to drink the water. You may have been motivated to drink the water by the sensation of feeling thirsty, but it was ultimately an act of volition. Also note that sensation and consciousness are not the same thing. One is the subject of the other. >All physical results must have physical causes. Maybe, but this claim is unfalsifiable which is my whole point. There are physical results for which we do not know whether or not they have a physical cause, and to say that they MUST have a physical cause is simply taking materialism as an article of faith. No matter how many attempts to find the physical cause of consciousness fail, you can always say we just haven't found it yet. Emergence ever retreating. My claim on the other hand (that consciousness DOES NOT have a physical cause) IS falsifiable, because as soon as we find a physical cause for it then my claim will be falsified. >In case of you trying to retreat to a position where consciousness is this extra bit that is magical but not interacting with the material world to avoid breaking physical causes for physical phenomena, you are basically denying any connection to the brain activity because that is all physical phenomena, and have reduce consciousness to a passenger audience from the movie Being John Malkovich No, that position is called dualism. I think that matter itself can ultimately be explained in terms of something more akin to consciousness, but NOT the other way around.

(3.17 MB 7016x9921 nadezhda.png)
Comrade 04/16/2020 (Thu) 03:38:55 No. 1095 [Reply] [Last]
Does someone have to be skilled/proficient in a subject in order for their teachings to be taken seriously? Can you be mediocre, or even bad at something, but great at teaching it? Should you listen to someone of a low skill level in that subject? Does this answer vary among subject matters? Like do you have to be a good artist to be able to teach art? Do you have to be proficient in writing to be able to teach that? This is a continuation of the drawing thread I derailed on /hobby/: >>>/hobby/8436
5 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>1104 Based. Tank you anon.
>>1095 Knowing the formal rules, though processes, steps to take, fundamental principles conciously is not the same as being able to apply those things on autopilot. The former makes a good teacher, being able to explain exactly why and how, through concious effort, the latter makes a skilled person. You can have the former without the latter or vice versa. Often people who are very skilled have internalised the rules to such an extend they cannot seperate the rules from the whole and are thus unable to teach. Also often the people with the theoretical knowledge spend most of their time formalising those rules than applying them in day to day work, and as such aren't as skilled. So no you don't have to be a good mathematician to teach maths, you don't need to be a good programmer to teach coding. Being a good programmer is applying all those rules instinctively, quickly, without effort, you have to feel instinctually that a piece of logic is "not nice". But teaching requires the ability to apply all these steps conciously, out loud, step by step, formally, not quickly. Same for a mathematician, same for an artist, same for any job. Skill is not neccecarily knowledge and knowledge is not neccecarily skill.
>>1107 Does everything have to be explicitly said for the student to learn? You can learn a lot about good programming by carefully reading good programs, you can learn a great deal about dancing by carefully watching experts dance. In workplaces a good deal of training is often done simply by observing more experienced colleagues working.
>>1110 You can learn by trying to decipher what makes other works good but that is not what you pay a teacher for. It takes many times longer to get a feel for good code, and even then it's total bs to think you can learn good code from experience alone. Good code is build on strict principles, database designs have hyper formalised definitions to ensure it meets all qualities of good design. Solid dry and other quasi buzzwords have to be explicitly taught in order to be applied, even if the programmer later forgets which of the 20 buzzwords made him consider that choice. You could try to learn to draw or learn to code just by watching other people draw or other people code, but in reality that is not what happens. In businesses were programming happens, new colleagues are corrected with explicit mentions about why a certain choice is better than others. When drawing, or any other skill, trying to decipher the reason behind a choice will just lead you to 20 wrong ends. The total accumulated decisions obscure the reasoning and in trying to immitate it you end up with people who exhibit cargo cult mentality. Just look at people who for no reason try to apply certain coding patterns everywhere because "he saw someone else do it" or all the artists drawing horrible shaded drawings because "they saw other artists put in highlights". You can't learn well from just observing the end result. You have to know the reasons for all choices, so you know why it's there, so you know when to break the rules. That is what a teacher is for.
>>1171 Relational databases have well-understood mathematical properties but even those can't tell what a good database design is, only pinpoint some obviously bad ones. For example, you can calculate how much redundancy you store, but some extra redundancy may actually be desirable to speed up critical queries. It's not as black and white as you make it to be. There are some similar metrics for code but I don't think anyone actually makes use of them, since blind conformance to metrics is a sure way to ruin your code. Programs are written to be read, not to satisfy "cyclomatic complexity" targets. Design patterns are a good counterexample, because often they are taught to be a silver bullet for good programming when in fact they are not. They are just common solutions to common problems. Students will mindlessly try to apply them to every problem they come across even when there is a much better solution, because they were taught that this is what they should be doing. I never heard of this actually happening because "they saw someone else doing it", like you claim, but I can recall many cases where they did it because they were taught to. Maybe in drawing it is different, but I am sceptical. The problem with teachers is that they become the sole arbiters of what is considered good/desirable/acceptable and thus rob the student of their confidence in their own judgements. In industry if every code review you give ends up in a small lecture of coding practices, there's a good chance your poor colleague will forever remain a junior programmer because you don't even give them the chance to explain their reasoning. Anyway, they are going to learn a lot more from reviewing your code than from your code reviews. > You can't learn well from just observing the end result. Experience says otherwise.

(159.91 KB 1200x800 su march march.jpg)
(216.16 KB 692x545 nva the lads.jpg)
(159.96 KB 960x744 fsa marchy col.jpg)
cool uniforms Historian 03/01/2020 (Sun) 00:49:10 No. 282 [Reply] [Last]
ITT post ur favourite historical uniforms
7 posts and 17 images omitted.
(127.20 KB 640x443 fwa bike.jpg)
(260.72 KB 1500x1022 fwa reloading.jpg)
(65.12 KB 1417x1048 fwa drill.jpg)
(249.44 KB 1024x576 5077219143_4e8ef19ea3_b.jpg)
(165.14 KB 800x531 img_32721.jpg)
(53.53 KB 640x422 image.jpeg)
One that I hate. The Legión Española, the Christ... and the famous goat. A fascist remnant in the army of Spain, certainly ridiculous.
>>289 that emblem is very Juche.
(193.17 KB 1200x713 REU-KOREA-NORTH__013.jpg)
(59.72 KB 640x477 D8QQf2uXYAES_du.jpg)
>>453 I loled overall, but in particular at how they had to accentuate the Bulge. I wonder if the put some socks there too if they don't have the goods necessary for the parade...

(107.53 KB 570x712 manto_0.jpg)
The Indian Navy Strike 1946 Comrade 04/14/2020 (Tue) 10:58:28 No. 903 [Reply] [Last]
I was reading a book by Laal Khan on the history of proletarian and communist struggle in pre-Partition India and I was baffled at the fact that I had no idea about this event. This has to be the greatest rebellion/revolution in India before Partition. >On the eve of February 19 1946, much wider layers of the Naval personnel had joined in this revolt. The union jacks on most of the ships of the Royal Indian Navy in the Bombay harbour were torn down and the rebel sailors hoisted red flags along with the flags of the political parties that were involved in the struggle for independence. Within 48 hours the British imperialists were faced with the largest revolt ever of their Naval units. The message of this rebellion started to spread by word of mouth and then over the radio (the radio station had been taken over by the rebels) to military garrisons and barracks across India. Some of the leaders of the sailors broadcast the message of the uprising and revolutionary songs and poetry were also broadcast round the clock. The revolt spread to 74 ships, 20 fleets and 22 units of the Navy along the coast. It involved Bombay, Calcutta, Karachi, Madras, Cochin and Vishapatam. On February 20 only 10 ships and 2 naval stations were not in complete revolt. >One of the effects of this uprising was that the British Prime Minister Clement Atlee was forced to announce that the British would leave India before June 1948. https://www.marxist.com/1946-rebellion-indian-navy150903.htm
>>903 Based
>>1134 >On 19 March, a strike wave penetrated the police force throughout the major centres of the country. At Allahabad, the police went on a hunger strike. The Delhi police joined them on 22 March. On 3 April, 10 000 police personnel in Bihar joined the strike movement. Soon the workers also joined this mass wave of strikes. On 2 May 1946, the workers of the North Western Railway went on strike. On 11 July, more than 100 000 postal workers started an all-India strike. Industrial workers across the subcontinent joined the movement with massive strike action. The whole of India was engulfed in these mass uprisings, revolts and strikes. The British were losing control over the armed forces. The first to come to the rescue of the imperialist Raj were the political leaders of all religions.

(347.86 KB 680x730 tmp_14091.png)
/his/ humour thread Historian 03/15/2020 (Sun) 21:22:26 No. 194 [Reply] [Last]
Dark edition.
7 posts and 6 images omitted.
>>450 >1st pic It’s still staggering how I used to believe in “niggers were always uncivilised” meme
anyone know sites with good history boards?
>>765 How can anyone rationally believe that when the easier answer is that you only learn European history in school?
>>855 Bunkerchan.xyz/edu It’d be good if we had more people.
>>866 >>855 I sexond this one

Cosmopolitan mongrel deleted his blog Comrade 04/16/2020 (Thu) 17:10:23 No. 1112 [Reply] [Last]

Period management before cheap paper Historian 02/29/2020 (Sat) 17:34:06 No. 14 [Reply] [Last]
How did women do it back then?
14 posts omitted.
(89.08 KB 750x748 image0-287.jpg)
>>28 That was my step-dad from tennessee. He claimed to be a christian but he seemed to value wealth more than GOD, so he took us to evangelical churches where i almost began apologizing for turning my back on the lord. I'm not sure why,i guess i just felt like the atmosphere was suffocating me and the deity was personally trying to force me to kneel. I went to a catholic church later on where i did kneel and begin crying during something those retards were doing, i'm not sure what catholics do but i kinda got up in front of everybody with tears in my eyes for no particular reason and asked for a blessing. My biological father was the one who claimed to be a satanist when he was younger (but he personally met jesus inside a jail cell), smoked meth and threatened to kick me out of the house if i voted for bernie lol. Anyways it was my biological father who told me that you're supposed to sleep on the roof to avoid women on their period. That was when my parents were divorcing i think.
Freud thought women learned to be devious because they had to hide their periods so nobody knew they could get pregnant so they got better at covering shit up.
>>14 I would bet that the association between women and working with textiles comes partly from women weaving fibers together to form linen and the like to soak up cooter fluids. I've heard historians referring to reusable menstrual cloth much like reusable diapers, so as far back as there was cloth there was probably menstrual cloths. Before that maybe they got creative with other shit like feathers. I know in rural India where cheap sanitary napkins are being introduced, there was a typical practice of shoving fucking dirt up there, but that's also in a culture where the whole subject is very taboo. >>20 90% of the idea that hunter-gatherers were ooga booga cave men is the lack of hard evidence of their sophistication. Prior to monumental stone architecture, most of what they made and built disappeared completely over the ages. Shit, the idea that people were primarily cave-dwellers probably mostly comes from the fact that caves shield physical evidence from the elements. The kind of people who lived in caves back then were probably the kind of people who live in caves today - social rejects and those who were too lazy/stupid to build a longhouse or whatever. They were just as smart as us, but had less of the kind of knowledge we do, and more knowledge of how to survive in a less altered (but still altered) environment.
>>14 how the fuck do you think I know that? I'm a dude. Let us all wait for a woman or a human waste historian to show up itt

(79.24 KB 597x424 antique-painting.jpg)
Weird History Facts bear 03/30/2020 (Mon) 06:36:17 No. 83 [Reply] [Last]
Post any weird and obscure history facts that you know of
26 posts and 10 images omitted.
>>596 It doesn't specify that all navy soldiers who died or were wounded were on that specific destroyer.
>>83 Mao was really into dick nipples futa porn Surprisingly it was introduced to him by an undercover american spy. Also George Bush hated black people.
In the 1930s a party member called Gorbachev was executed during the great purge
The Camera was invented simultaneously by three different people at the same time in the 1830s without any of them having been aware of one another's work. Hércules Florence, in Brazil, in 1832 Daguerre & Niépce, in France, in the 1820s-30s (they were partners, and had both created proto-photographs independently, but it wasn't until their later collaboration that led to the Daguerreotype in 1834-6) Henry Fox Talbot, in Britain, in 1834
(25.71 KB 440x348 tails.jpg)
the Spanish civil war ended on the first of April, please tell me the national victory was just a joke, we actually won right?

(994.87 KB 1550x2417 manifest-995k.jpg)
Notes Comrade 04/07/2020 (Tue) 02:56:39 No. 461 [Reply] [Last]
How do you take your notes? Do you take notes? Use this thread to discuss methods, tips, and anything else related to how you take notes.
33 posts and 12 images omitted.
>>890 cute girl, i like it better already
>>889 Yeah if you're taking notes for a class I don't think the Zettelkasten method is really what you're looking for. It's more meant to be an overall knowledge management system. Cornell method is decent. It's really not so important to follow one particular method as it is write things out in a way that isn't too rushed, is easy to understand later, and is in your own words (so that you actually have to understand it).
>>889 I don't really see the point of having designated places for keywords and summaries.
>>894 Search time optimization.

Delete
Report

no cookies?