/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


(47.84 KB 474x355 galaxy brain.jpg)
What is IQ really? Comrade 07/09/2020 (Thu) 13:33:17 No. 2243 [Reply] [Last]
Is IQ even real? Can it reliably measure someone's "intelligence"? What even is intelligence, and is it really primarily genetic? Is IQ really tied to race? I keep seeing a lot of conflicting opinions on this but I'm too much of a brainlet to find a satisfying answer.
It's bullshit. Think about how complex the human brain is, how some people are able to do shit like multiply huge numbers instantly, have photographic memory, then you have stuff like synesthesia, hallucinations, etc. Basically, it is uncontroversial that the brain is both very very complex and still largely a mystery to us. Now, do you think it is reasonable to think that such a complexity can be represented by a single number? It's absurd. It's akin to saying we can come up with a numerical, hierarchical classification of planets with Earth scoring a 100, and then others scoring below or above that depending on various qualities. But what would it mean if Earth is 100 and Mars is 35, and Mercury is 10? Absolutely nothing, because lots of information is lost. Is it atmosphere, soil quality, presence of water, of organic material...? We obviously can't test every single aspect of a planet, because it is too much to do and we are unable to do it. IQ was designed in the same way, European (white) males are taken to be the standard against which others are tested. Europeans designed the test, and Europeans are best at taking it. But we don't even have to go that far. We can use the IQ-ist framework to ask how can someone of presumably average (or even above-average) intelligence invent a test that can test someone who is far more intelligent than the test maker? In other words, the intelligence test still has to be devised by a human, and the human who devises it knows all the answers to the questions. Therefore, the person who invented the test cannot ask questions that they themselves can't solve, while someone of a superior intelligence may be able to.
(41.01 KB 800x472 map.png)
>>2249 >Europeans designed the test, and Europeans are best at taking it.
>>2255 Yes, look at your own map, most blue countries/regions are descended from Europe: Canada, US, Argentina, Europe, Russia, Australia. China and Japan are outliers, if anything it proves that one can train for the test, and that is what they do, they literally train how to take these standardised tests. Both China and Japan have cultures where academic success is respected and something that people strive for, so of course those countries will have higher test AVERAGES, because there are simply more of them who do well.
IQ is a bit meh. Of course, there are various aspects to what is considered intelligence; so even if you have good measures for the aspects, it's somewhat arbitrary how you weight them. Extremely bad results can tell you whether somebody is disabled. We know IQ tests aren't perfect, the weighting issue aside. There are programs for solving IQ tests, yet this doesn't give us a general simulation of human intelligence. The way IQ talk is used in political discussion – as a cause, not as both cause and effect – is asinine. If you are malnourished and live in a polluted area, you get brain-damage from that, no matter how great your genetic potential is. There is some correlation between very good IQ results and doing well in school. But it doesn't make sense to obsess over two people being ten or fifteen points apart. IQ test results are NOT stable over life, that's a big lie that I suspect people tell who know better and who want to score above the herd. You can definitely practice for these tests and improve by twenty to thirty points. I don't think you can get from 80 to 150 though. >>2249 Your argument about test-making and solving assumes a symmetry that isn't there. I can create a vocabulary test against a dictionary without having perfect memory about what's in the dictionary myself. I can set a higher time-limit for myself as a test-maker than I allow for the test-taker and I can allow myself to use certain tools that I don't allow the test-takers to use. I can make very hard puzzles about shoving pieces around by going backwards from the solution, that doesn't mean I can solve puzzles of similar complexity myself. It's easier to multiply prime numbers than to be shown the result of that multiplication and having to find the prime numbers from that.

The scientific value of materialism Comrade 05/12/2020 (Tue) 21:20:53 No. 1572 [Reply] [Last]
Hello comrades. I have doubts about materialism since the philosophical part of Marxism isn't my strength, but I want to be able to understand it better since materialism is the foundation of marxist theory and the communist movement. I've had arguments in the past with people who claim that modern science doesn't prove materialism or that materialism cannot explain things like the origin of the universe or quantum mechanics. Well, where do I begin with this? Is materialism the truth? The most basic part of marxist philosophy is the assertion that matter is objectively real, right? How do I prove this then? Maybe one of you STEMlords around here can help me out with this. Any resources on this is appreciated.
37 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>2099 the way I understand it, all string theory does is make quantum mechanics consistent with relativity. I don’t think it will disprove the uncertainty principle or anything like that. In other words string theory wouldn’t even be considered necessary if it weren’t for the uncertainty principle.
>>2099 >>2008 Well you actually me temporary stop my current works, in order to research physics for real. I don't know whether to thank you or blame you anymore. Uncertainty principle is real, but modern physics mystified the physical causes of it. Modern quantum physics is just staying at the level of mathematical (information) models and refusing to proceed to a new physical models of the world. Wave function, momentum eigenfunction, etc. okay, every calculation is correct. But in the end, wave and momentum of WHAT? From the viewpoint of dialectical materialism, it's necessary to assume the existence of a material environment, of which physical form we don't know yet, but it must exist and our (known) physical phenomena happen in it (one could go farther and even say that there could be a place without this kind of environment, and the physical phenomena in that place will be quite different from the ones in our environment, but that's the job of future generations because we haven't reach the border of our environment yet) So if we hypothesise the existence of quantum particles as wave in the environment, then it is easily to understand the uncertainty principle, as the more localised the wave is, the more spread-out in wavelengths of component waves, which forming it. And wavelength is directly related to momentum by Planck constant, done. But another question is that can waves truly have momentum (impulse)? Maybe if we consider the waves of appearing and disappearing i.e. wave with min valley as non-negative energy level. For normal compression wave, there is period of decompression after compression, so the total impulse is zero, but for waves of appearing and disappearing, the range of value is from 0 -> positive value, therefore the integral area is positive (which means directed impulse exists). However, as I researched further, the problem is indeed more complex. If we view quantum particles as waves (non-localised entities), then how to explain the quantum collapse phenomena? When an electron collided with the measurement surface, we only received one single dot instead of a faint spread-out image. Therefore, the Copenhagen viewpoint has a grain of truth, as they say the wave here is a wave of probability, of where electron will appear. The recent discover (1980s) of single photon, that is when lowering the intensity of light gradually, at one point we will achieve only single photon. If lower than that intensity, there will be no light, no photon. So it is the all or nothing situation. Anyway, that means we cannot discard the idea of Copenhagen school. So this makes me think that the pilot wave theory is one that will resolve this problem. There is actually two part of a quantum phenomenon. One part is the particle-part we capture in the screen, the other is the wave part in the environment. In my opinion, the E = hf part is actually only the particle, while the wave part energy is the remainder part < hf. For example, E = 5*hf + R means that the excitation E creates 5 photon in environment and the rest turn into wave part in the environment. As Hegel had said, the limit (degree) exists, doesn't mean it cannot be overcome, but actually, it will and must be overcome and then the old quality will become a new quality. Energy lower than hf doesn't mean there is no excitation, but an excitation of form different than energy higher than hf. As photon is discrete, so E < hf means it is an continuous phenomenon, in other words, a wave. However, of course, one could say that if E = hf exactly then there would be no wave at all! Not so fast. Every discrete phenomenon must grow from another continuous phenomenon and vice versa. To create a photon, the excitation must be accumulate gradually until reaching the breaking point E = hf, so during that gradually accumulation process, some motion energy must be lost in the form of wave in the environment. There is no magical way to achieve efficiency H = 100%, as there will never be absolutely closed system. Now, finally what is the physical meaning of Planck constant? I've found one paper which I think is quite correct on the nature of Planck constant: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-1056/26/4/040301/meta

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>2144 Opps, forgot the video of walking droplets https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE&t=1s, a clear example of observable pilot wave and particle.
>>2144 Your thought experiment is essentially a rehashed Einstein box underneath all your speculation about the plack constant. Any speculation about variability in this constant is unsupported by evidence - nothing in our current understanding of physics suggests that the value can be changed, and the Planck constant is far from unique in this respect. I suggest you read through the Bohr Einstein debates for a detailed understanding of why your thought experiment will fail to give a measurement of the electron's position to a higher precision than allowed by the uncertainty principle. The debates are based around a series of ultimately unsuccessful attempts to devise thought experiments to overcome the uncertainty principle. For a start you have neglected diffraction of the electron as it passed through the slit - the film will show a diffraction pattern spread over the level of uncertainty in the electron's position, not a point-like marker of the exact position. Even in an experiment where you can bypass this diffraction and narrow down the electron's position to a single point, you are then unable to read this measurement for the same reason you can't read the electron's position directly. In the case of a marker on a piece of film such as in your example, you are now faced with the problem of measuring the position of this marker to a precision smaller than the size of an electron. You cannot specify the exact position of your hole for the same reason. Since the apparatus is stationary and its momentum is constrained to zero with as much precision as your measurements allow, you are again faced with the same violation of the uncertainty principle. Your argument presupposes its own conclusion: in order to produce an experimental setup to measure an electron's position to an arbitrarily high precision, you must already have the ability to make such a measurement of the position of your instruments. However you try to approach the problem it is impossible to devise a method of overcoming the uncertainty principle, and any experiment you suggest will ultimately boil down to the same contradictions exposed in the Bohr Einstein debates. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the uncertainty principle. It does not arise as a result of our limited technological ability to measure these quantities, but rather as a fundamental property of quantum mechanics itself. Physicists have been attempting to disprove the uncertainty principle for close to 100 years. Any speculation about the philosophical nature of quantum mechanics must incorporate the uncertainty principle fully into its model of reality, unless you have sufficient experimental evidence to overturn one of the most fundamental principles of modern physics. Otherwise your suggestions have all the credibility of a perpetual motion machine. Your assertion that there is variation in quantities such as the electronic mass and charge is also completely unfounded. We have no evidence to suggest any such variation, and this would in fact contradict much of our knowledge of physics. The entire field of statistical mechanics treats quantum particles as fundamentally indistinguishable from each other, with any system remaining completely indentical under any possible rearrangement of its component electrons. From this assumption we can build up a statistical model of the system that predicts measurable quantities such as temperature and entropy that correspond to our experimental evidence. In fact there are entirely different predictions for distinguishable vs indistinguishable particles, with separate models describing the behaviour of particles that fit these two categories. If you would like to make the claim that electrons are in fact distinguishable, then you will need to come up with an entirely new formulation of statistical physics to explain away all of our evidence to the contrary.
(53.94 KB 1318x625 Box.jpg)
(47.59 KB 1205x533 frequency.jpg)
(24.61 KB 1380x517 position.jpg)
>>2244 No wonder modern physics has come to this state of decay. No evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If from the beginning, you assume it doesn't exist, then you won't pay any effort to find it. It's not a thought experiment, but a matter of practical engineering. First, the environment exists homogeneous everywhere, that's because matter is not solid but full of hole, that's why we cannot isolate the environment inside the box from outside the box. So what we need is a very solid material, that could isolate inside and outside. And also the risk of explosion/implosion, because the difference between outside and inside environment. Therefore it must be a very very strong material. > For a start you have neglected diffraction of the electron as it passed through the slit - the film will show a diffraction pattern spread over the level of uncertainty in the electron's position, not a point-like marker of the exact position. Are you sure? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc If what you said is right then the early controversial debate surrounding Copenhagen school made no sense. You should stop a little bit and read carefully what I've written. I never said my box is to receive the electron. My box is to see the flying trajectory of electron (and if possible, seeing the vibration state of the environment surrounding electron) > Your argument presupposes its own conclusion: in order to produce an experimental setup to measure an electron's position to an arbitrarily high precision, you must already have the ability to make such a measurement of the position of your instruments. You're right, but my intention is not to measure an electron's absolute position to an arbitrarily high precision. I just want to see the relative position of electron to the apparatus at a small enough particular moment. >Your argument presupposes its own conclusion: in order to produce an experimental setup to measure an electron's position to an arbitrarily high precision, you must already have the ability to make such a measurement of the position of your instruments. Again, what I need isn't arbitrarily high precision measurement of the apparatus, but ensure that the apparatus must be something very static, so that at high enough time resolution, we cannot see its vibration. If we make the whole apparatus in a rigid enough material, so that in the interaction with environment, the whole apparatus vibrate uniformly together, instead of each part of the apparatus interacting differently with environment. >You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the uncertainty principle. It does not arise as a result of our limited technological ability to measure these quantities, but rather as a fundamental property of quantum mechanics itself. Physicists have been attempting to disprove the uncertainty principle for close to 100 years. Any speculation about the philosophical nature of quantum mechanics must incorporate the uncertainty principle fully into its model of reality, unless you have sufficient experimental evidence to overturn one of the most fundamental principles of modern physics. Otherwise your suggestions have all the credibility of a perpetual motion machine.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.


(9.20 KB 268x188 big_ass_penis.png)
Anonymous 01/08/2020 (Wed) 19:21:00 No. 909 [Reply] [Last]
i am learning a few languages, for now it's not hard to learn'em at the same time But, all the autodidact learners recommends at some point reading and listening the language on the daily basis. what lefty media do you read? BTW, I'm learning german, italian, russian and japanese
Edited last time by comraderat on 01/21/2020 (Tue) 10:39:42.
153 posts and 40 images omitted.
>>1698 I want to read and translate Das Untier because there is no English version and the book seems neat when I manage to stumble through reading a sentence.
>>1663 can u post Kurdish
>>1032 Haiti is an awful place to live right now, even for what it is. there have been many political disappearances and shootings and gangs pretty much run the country under the current president. I would stay from Haiti for a while. it is not a good place to visit right now.

(9.26 KB 275x183 Man and Nature.jpg)
Why humans? Comrade 04/08/2020 (Wed) 14:09:12 No. 557 [Reply] [Last]
What makes us so special? What makes us different? Humans are primates, when I look at other people I see, in every sense of the word, an ape. We are animals,we look like animals, we smell like animals. Thinking of what we really are makes my head spin. What makes us special? What makes us different? What makes our lives meaningful? Are we even special? Are we even different? Are we meant to be in an unending war for dominance of nature that inevitably ends in our mutual destruction? Are we meant to become stewards of the Earth, the next stage in energy usage for Life, living in harmony with the Earth as its first sentient aspect? Why were there no others, why only us? In 500 million years of animal life, why only Man? Can more come after us, if we go extinct? Is our purpose merely to choose for ourselves why we exist? Are we free, or are we slaves? Why do we individually seem so limited, and yet together humanity seems to be without limits? What is the dialectical explanation for Man? His consciousness? His relationship to Nature? His drive to spirituality? Is it a misunderstanding on Man's part? Does Man not see that those aspects he has are those he shares with Nature? Gained from Nature? Marx wrote that many species engage in labor; yet seemingly only man labors first in his mind, then with his body. Why are We in this regard? Our notions of honor, of courage, of willpower, of morality; only we created cultures. And yet, other species experience these emotions from which such ideas rose. Other species experience love. They feel fear. They summon bravery to conquer that fear. The materialist relation between Man and Nature, between Man and Himself; why is Man, why are We? These questions, they haunt me frequently, I wish to understand, to Nature we seemingly stand above as gods, and yet we are of Nature, not apart from it; and to us aspects of Nature, like our Sun, like our Universe; they seem yet greater than we could ever hope to be. Help me to understand.
35 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>1330 Haven't crocodiles been around for longer than us?
>>1809 Who says we don't?
>>1809 I've posted it before and I'll post it again. Read this all, gotta be a little patient though
>>557 My dear friend, the answer lies in material conditions and a philosophy. Please give it a read will ya'? I swear, I hate people who have existential crisis when they have learned that their higher being (or what many people call soul) is attached to material and will die once your body dies.
We labor, which then forms our inner monolog culminating in our consciousness. Animals don't labor. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/index.htm

(1.93 MB 1920x1304 communebarricade.png)
/ahg/ Alternate History General Comrade 04/14/2020 (Tue) 18:06:08 No. 1047 [Reply] [Last]
The Paris Commune successfully establishes socialism in France. What now? ITT: Post and speculate about alternate history.
3 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>1047 Speculate: What would have happened if Bordiga got his way at the last meeting of the executive council of the Comintern in 1926?
Lenin lives to see WW2.
>>1086 Soviets still win
Kill yourselves
>>2190 have sex

(144.12 KB 750x430 youtube.jpg)
What History YTers do you like, which ones do you hate? Comrade 07/05/2020 (Sun) 11:42:08 No. 2196 [Reply] [Last]
There's already a thread about Lindybeige but I find him a bit of an insufferable right wing anticommunist fuck, granted there's plenty of that kind of thing in the YT historian community, but we can try to pick out the diamonds, relatively speaking. I'm kind of afraid to give my recommendations since I've just been going off Youtube recommendations so I'll let you go first.
I was just watching this guy Atun-Shei Films today, he has some nice videos on the confederacy and other stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4cZLO1GJ40 Apparently some people even think he's a breadtuber but he appears to be much more just a generic liberal, which is fine enough, better than rampant rightism.
>>2201 Atun-Shei is based at longmarching all over Confederate scumtards. Hard recommend. Wouldn't call him a Br*dT*ber, but I get the impression he has definite left wing views, I'd even venture him a bernout. It's good he doesn't constantly, incessantly mention that in his every video up front though as Br*dT*bers do, as that let's the generally left wing understanding of the world to seep through in his actual explaining of real, material history as he debunks. It's absorbed subtly by the viewer, leaving the average Jim far more willing to listen, so he'd better well remain out of the Br*dT*be sphere.
I think a lot of Armchair Historians videos on historical battles and wars are pretty cool, especially since he’s one of those to give it straight about the tactical genius of the Soviet military command in WWII instead of “muh winter, muh reserves” meme I fucking hate the people behind The Great War and World War Two though, the hosts are all just reading off scripts, the real owners are EU goals and pretty strident anti-communist woke libs
Cynical historian is pretty good, although he's quite liberal. His video on the "Death of Stalin" was very good.

(808.47 KB 1700x2151 Hegel_by_Schlesinger.jpg)
Learning dialectical thinking Comrade 04/20/2020 (Mon) 21:07:50 No. 1211 [Reply] [Last]
I'm trying to learn and understand dialectics, but I think getting some direction for this would be helpful. Which works should I read to understand dialectical (Hegelian, materialist) thinking and in what order?
50 posts and 9 images omitted.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/marxmyths/jordan/article.htm Is this text accurate? I never saw that the separation between Marx and Engels was an issue here, but the topic of dialectics seems to be pressing.
>>2029 pretty much. this is why you should never take anyone on /leftypol/ seriously when they talk about "dialectical materialism" as mutually exclusive to "idealism". it's rabid feral pseudery. I don't know how you can read sentences in Marx about "commodity fetishism" and come to the conclusion that he's "anti-idealist"
how can anybody without an understanding of dialectics glean any understanding of it from this thread, when nobody agrees?
>>2231 the easiest way to learn it accurately is to gain an understanding of Kant and what is meant by the “noumenal I” and how that relates to the “intellectus archetypus”. (you will obviously have to do some studying to understand what those mean). that’s basically the launching point in which Hegel asserts antinomies are inherent to things-in-themselves since Kant proves it for being-in-itself. it can naturally be projected onto noumena since the Kantian “I” is noumenal. only when you get what I meant by all the things in this post will you grasp the thesis-antithesis of Hegel’s method and how to arrive at a sublation/absorption of those specific types of contradictions/antinomies. the point of this post isn’t for you to understand everything that I’ve typed, but if you can parse it and comprehend it you can claim to have grasped Hegel’s method. and if you believe otherwise, you have been misled.

(21.43 KB 331x286 1570719182043.png)
Comrade 05/22/2020 (Fri) 19:30:01 No. 1741 [Reply] [Last]
Is there any Marxist historians you recommend? >inb4 Grover Furr
27 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>2163 Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer?
>>2168 >Can you recommend to me something about modern historical materialism? Ideally some sort of summary or primer? This is a good question for which I have a less than satisfactory answer, because I'm not sure that there are great *purely theoretical* primers on historical materialism (though I'm probably just revealing my ignorance - others hopefully will be able to chime in to correct this). I think you'd actually be better off with just some contemporary applied works. https://b-ok.cc/book/2853542/f37d6c https://b-ok.cc/book/899406/db0456 https://b-ok.cc/book/2641054/c620a7 https://b-ok.cc/book/686518/97e25e https://b-ok.cc/book/1248134/d11f24 https://b-ok.cc/book/2075341/831818 https://b-ok.cc/book/916406/032dcc https://b-ok.cc/book/885467/35a915 The closest thing I would think of as a theoretical introduction to historical materialism is https://b-ok.cc/book/848583/b5df69 not because I endorse everything in there, but because it's the only work I can think of that's (1) written in a very clear style and (2) aims at being an utterly general account.
hobsbawm really is the marxist historian gigachad. should be essential reading for anyone on the left
>>1743 >>1755 lol, Hobsbawn became a complete revisionist later on, and even helped pave the way for "New Labour" to emerge.
>>2018 >He describes Marxism as "the greatest fantasy of the twentieth century", a dream of a perfect society which became a foundation for "a monstrous edifice of lies, exploitation and oppression." He argues that the Leninist and Stalinist versions of communist ideology are not a distortion or degenerate form of Marxism, but one of its possible interpretations. Sounds like hot garbage.

Historian 03/04/2020 (Wed) 17:45:16 No. 220 [Reply] [Last]
We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing There's a lot to cover so we should just stick with what would make the best overview
7 posts omitted.
bump
>>2187 I do not speak with Dengists.
>>2179 >guy interested in psychology Try introducing him to Mark Fisher
(336.88 KB marxisms.pdf)
Here you go.
you guys gotta read Hobsbawm. his whole Age Of series has been indispensable to me

Non-western philosophy and Marxism Comrade 07/07/2020 (Tue) 07:08:09 No. 2207 [Reply] [Last]
We all know that Marxists philosophy has roots in the classic European works of Hegel, Greeks etc.. So are there some works/philosophers that would be benefitial to read for Marxist from other branches of world philosophy like Chinese, Indian, African etc.?
3 posts omitted.
Li Zehou’s “History of Classical Chinese Thought” is from from a Marxist (albeit also vaguely small-n nationalist) perspective and people may find it useful https://b-ok.cc/book/5576067/51bb02 I have personally found Karyn Lai’s “Introduction to Chinese Philosophy,” while not Marxist, accessible and interesting https://b-ok.cc/book/730929/dc0ae1 The social context of these matters but is interesting and not at all Strange and Inscrutable to westerners really - Western philosophical revivals also tended to happen in the midst of periods of interminable interstate wars etc
>>2210 >Hegel even said he studied Chinese and Indian philosophy and found nothing except meaningless superficiality. p rich coming from Hegel lmao
This just underlines the need for the project outlined in the OP here: >>220 >We should make a general history guide for an overview on leftists history movements/people/thinkers that type of thing
Taoism used/use a dialectical method
Hegel was basically importing eastern dialectics and applying a few changes.

Delete
Report

no cookies?