/edu/ - Education

Post audio sources

A lifetime of undiagnosed learning disorders, educational neglect and unproductive escapism has reduced my grey matter into a vestigial organ. I essentially missed out on the entirety of highschool but was able to work with what I had and managed to get a GED plus a tiny smattering of community college. But I started to hit the brainlet wall again and I realized how spotty and full of holes my whole foundation is. I was too ashamed at the time to ask for help and I no longer have access to professional educators so I might as well ask an anonymous imageboard.

Do y'all have any good resources or books for someone looking to restart their education from basics? Assume that I don't know anything aside from basic literacy and numbers. Maybe not even that.

Learn to use the catalog:
>>1677
>>1734

/Leftypol/ didn't bite, let's see if /edu/ acctually might read something.

>Read capital and complimentary theory.
>No! Really, READ capital and complimentary theory.
>No, not like that!
>Ok basically read this quote down below by fucking Karl Marx.
>And at least read the text on point 1 down below.
>Why?
> To understand why your current party isn't even being shut down or disturbed by the Porky Police.
>You are in your current state, totally harmless.
>Let's not keep it that way.

"It is all the more clear what we have to accomplish at present: I am referring to ruthless criticism of all that exists, ruthless both in the sense of not being afraid of the results it arrives at and in the sense of being just as little afraid of conflict with the powers that be. Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner." - Karl Marx

1:
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Thread for discussing the spanish civil war. I start the thread with a short paper on Soviet Union's involvement 1936-1939.

Does anyone have some good things to read about the NEP period and the collectivisation period and the transition between the two?

everything feels outdated what the fuck do I read to understand neoliberalism and all this shit, what can you even do at this point?

I hear Deng and Bukharin be described as right-wing,
Stalin as center,
Bordiga as left –
but then where the fuck would people like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Cockshott fit in to this? Lenin had a big shift in positions (before vs after the revolution), Trotsky was clearly very similar to Lenin in positions after, but he often gets called "left" by Stalinists. Mao clearly was more sympathetic to Stalin than either Trotsky or post-Stalin right-wing revisionists, yet he is occasionally slandered as "ultra-left" (which is ridiculous), and then Cockshott went through "ML" (centrist, I suppose) parties, get kicked out for "ultra-leftism" and subsequently writes his seminal work TANS, including a critique of the scrapping of soviet cybernetics in the USSR, bourgeois elements of democratic centralism, and proposes to move towards communism immediately via the DotP through the revolutionary utilization of cybernetics instead of any market mechanisms (market mechanisms seemingly being supported by both right-wing and centrist Communists).
To me, intuitively, it sounds like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, in hindsight, had more in common than they were willing to admit (all "centrists", but how would one divide them into center-left-, center and center-right?), while Cockshott clearly drifted left (toward Bordiga).

I may be missing something, That's why I want to open it up for collective discussion with you all here on /edu/.

This question has been puzzling me lately. In my view because the most "raw" understanding we have of the world is our experience, which isn't mathematical (color, feelings, etc) which means that the world cannot be purely mathematical. I think then what we have is a "materialistic" world which can be described as mathematics. The maths isn't what is really happening, but it helps us in manipulation. Kind of like moving an desktop icon to the bin on your screen is just a metaphor for execution of code inside the computer. It would be a mistake to assume how the computer really works is icons on some screen, even if it helps us in manipulation.

Furthermore what makes me believe this more, is that sometimes scientific discoveries can have multiple interpretations. Quantum mechanics has like 4,and all of them are valid logically. Which one you chose depends more on your preference then anything. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have scientist debating the exact same theory. You may say one is more clean or beautiful or intuitive, but previous scientific discoveries did not care about that. Some weren't symmetrical as people wanted or intuitive, some were. So it's just speculation.

Where this bothers me though is simulations. Assume we model a person inside a computer by describing every particle in him through code. Would he "think"? Obviously I expect him to behave a certain way like a human do, but so would a simulated model of a tree, even if it wasn't really a tree. It does not mean the simulated person thinks. He just fools us, but has no understanding of the world himself.

What even gets me more confused is the fact that thoughts, as in consciousness and direct experience play a role in our behaviour. We all know the famous experiment of brain activity appearing milliseconds before a person is conscious of moving his finger, but this wasn't the only thing found. Consciousness can also cancel that movement as it desires. actually in practice the complexity, free will or how you want to call what makes humans unique is a reason why it is impossible with current understanding to predict human behaviour. Game theory only works if you assume people as psychopaths and shallow husk only interested in playing the game the game theorist made up. This makes the idea of unconscious mathematical digital human being the same as a regular human bit wonky, yet because I can't point to from where consciousness emerges, my position is wonPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

How do dialectics explain evolution?