connecting the dots

[Israe5l]

In mathematics education, you first learn some math elements like length and area. (We already have the ideas of them. Ontology). Then we go back and learn how to prove facts about them (epistemology). Elements like One and Two are not even brain structures. Its the sturcture of Being. Ontology is the structure of Being. "I exist in the world", implies a lot of things.

[pyrrho314]

the problem here is the distinction between learning and proving... knowing and proving. The real, historic process of coming to that ontology is preceded by epistemology-in-practice... brains are epistemological machines... not proving machines. KNOWLEDGE cannot be proved, only demonstrated.

[Israe5l]

You have a point. But the problem is between knowing and proving. Ontology, you know. I don't see much difference between proving and desmonstrating (epistemology). They are both reflexive, therefore a secondary operation.

"Brain" is only good as a metaphor.

[pyrrho314]

where does the ontology come from?

[Israe5l]

epistemology is about "how". How knowledge came about. ontology is about "what". what does the subject come to know.

"what" seems to come before "how".

true, whenever one describes how "what" comes into being, "how" comes before "what".

but, you are tangled in language. in ontology you give that up. come back naive, and ask "what".

[silversoul7]

What I took from Professoranton's video on ontology was that you have to assume a certain ontology before you proceed to epistemology in order to avoid the regress problem.

[pyrrho314]

how do you judge your ontology then? if not epistemologically? How can there be knowledge of the ontology with no concept of "knowledge of".

The solution is that the world of idea is not drawn from logic, it is draw from experience, that is how the regress is stopped... at experience and the percpetions of which they are made.

[Cashify]

See "everything is a teacher" by pathlesspath. Existence, needing nothing to be, requires neither a knower nor knowledge. But all dynamic knowings, all forms abstract or other than abstract, appear only because existence always is. Anything may appear in flux, while existance always is. You are that.

[Cashify]

Your voice sounds much like Tony Robbins the motivational speaker Whem you talk about doubt in this vid. Maybe it is the passion.

[Cashify]

Then again it could be smokers' voice, like Marge's sisters have on the Simpsons.

[2bsirius]

OK...You use the word "indoctrination" in referring to education, and I agree that some professors do want to indoctrinate students, but many of them want to give them ways to investigate for themselves, & not a predigested world view.

Isn't the phrase "ontology precedes epistemology" just another way of saying that being precedes knowing? AND being has to come before knowing...Defining the "I" of being can't be understood before being itself...Being is a necessary initial condition...

[pyrrho314]

the problem: there isn't BEING, there is not "what it IS" there is only becoming, all things, terms, concepts, are in flux.

It is therefore misquided to worry about being preceding knowing... and besides ontology is about WHAT IS, not simply THAT it is.

[Cashify]

There ___ only becoming?

Should we stop using the word?

[pyrrho314]

no, the word "is" has many connotations, and fits perfectly with many abstraction.

[Cashify]

so abstractions "are" separate from forms that "are not" abstractions? Yet "being/becoming temporal" abstractions are dynamic becomings, the line of distinction being a moving target, targeted by a definer in motion, in an everchanging reference frame.

If there were a one separate from the others, one could hypothetically attribute the "being becoming temporal" quality of dynamic becomings to the definer in motion as much as to the "becoming being" in question.

Back to observer bias...

[Cashify]

One teacher likes apples, one does not.

One BDSM painslut likes caning, another prefers clamps and branding.

Some cringe at the thought of any of that.

It becomes EVIDENT that there is no inherent pleasure in "becoming beings."

Pleasure and pain, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder and not in the beholden.

Even observable trends like "most observers enjoy a good fight, or a good piece of fruit," depends upon filtering out those possibilities which might negate our view.

[Cashify]

Good point about not all teachers seeking to indoctrinate. I also want to point out on behalf of the catholics that 99% of priests have never diddled little boys.

[2bsirius]

I thought you were traveling the world..

You have committed a pretty awful category error here, Cashify....You've moved the discussion of whether ALL teachers want to indoctrinate their students to equating that with what dodgy priests do to abuse little boys. It's obviously cynically funny, but I still think that a lot of teachers really are trying to get students to think for themselves. As a university professor, I tried very hard to encourage independent thought & sometimes I succeeded.

[pyrrho314]

how do you grade an independent thought?

[2bsirius]

You present a problem...Often not one that can be easily labeled as "right or wrong"...BUT one that encourages deep thought about how to evaluate evidence. Then you encourage students to think critically about the problem. I have a video about some of this:

watch?v=nuC3Vd7YBDk

After a student has thought about the problem, he or she writes a defense of his conclusion and discusses it with the class...It sometimes a good idea to find out what the consensus was before/after to gage change.

[pyrrho314]

sweet! nice answer! way to step up to the plate!

You get an apple!

[2bsirius]

I think that was exactly what Eve said to Adam...So not sure what to think exactly ;)

[pyrrho314]

the good teachers redeemed the rest of my education.

[Cashify]

Even the good ones get C++ for being too object oriented.

[Cashify]

By how closely it resembles the definition of independent thinking given to MOI by my indoctrinators, naturally.

[rhyfelur]

Is it possible to know what is without first knowing what can be?

[pyrrho314]

it is impossilbe to know what can be without first knowing.

[Hisoka44be]

Maybe there is no general Truth, more then the truth you believe in to be correct and certain.

But then again, if it were true that there is no Truth, then it would be untrue that everything is untrue also ...

In this way sophism contradicts itself and annihilates itself as a philosophy.

But it is atleast one way to have a certain truth, a truth you percieve to have throughout subjective experiences only.

Favourited this vid Pyrrho

[pyrrho314]

cheers

[PenguinJin]

are you saying that most of us tend to value ontology more-so as that awareness was present before that of epistemology, or that most of the weight in that area is due to indoctrination?

[pyrrho314]

it's too complicated to answer in this comment... imo, but yes to the first sentence, but also partial yes to the second.

[PenguinJin]

if you think of an ontology as a meme, seeing as how it develops prior to a corresponding epistemology it appears to fight for survival when its structure is examined by its host. maybe explains the emergence of fundamentalist religion while much of the world is moving toward a worldcentric/questioning vantage point.

[docrufus]

My lovelyman pyrrho - peer, friend, non-countryman, human being­, tax paying person, am who I am - if you had the snow we gets here - man you'd die - or survive, Hawaiin style -- of this I don't doubt - cheers bro.

[pyrrho314]

cheers

[Barklord]

i'd quit smoking if i were you. rethink it.

[w0r1dpeace]

Nicotine promotes myelination.

[Barklord]

Well, then, I'm sure doctors will be recommending it to children any day now...except for the fact that nicotine addiction is classified as mental illness. Do we really need to list the health problems associated with smoking cigarettes?

[23discordians]

Oh give it a rest. Is being an irritating tit also classified as a mental illness?

[w0r1dpeace]

Save the brain.

[pyrrho314]

yes, I started smoking only recently, big mistake. If I quit, I'll have learned from it... if I don't... I'll die from it.

[Barklord]

23discordians: What is the point of trying to educate anyone if you don't bother to apply what you know? I watch people like philhellenes chastise fundamentalists for stupidity while he puffs on a cig. Then he has the nerve to pretend to be upset by togetherforpeace's episode of throwing rocks at a dog when he was 12 yrs old. Does philhellenes realise how many animals are used in laboratories to find cures for things that are caused by his bad habit? Go ahead, pretend doesn't effect anyone else.

[23discordians]

Do you eat meat?

[Barklord]

Yes. Is eating meat supposed to be equivalent to deliberately inducing cancer or testing vaccines or implanting permanent electrodes into animal brains while they're still alive? Maybe there ARE some appropriate uses for vivisection but I don't think finding cures for self-induced disease is one of them. The reason I brought up philhellenes is because he said he would be willing to torture a million puppies to save one human's suffering. This is too far off the topic of this vid, sorry.

[23discordians]

Well we all have to make these kinds of choices don't we?

I am not going to say anything ridiculous like "bowel cancer is a self induced disease of meat eaters" or accuse you of personal responsibility for the suffering of millions of animals involved in the meat trade. Why am I not going to go on a pro-vegie rant at you? Because I may be a smoker but I am not a hypocrite!

Vivisection is a complex issue, but it is something we all benefit from and we all have a degree of responsibility.

[Barklord]

I disagree that we benefit greatly from it. Ask someone born with thalidomide defects if they benefitted from animal tests. Quitting smoking would drastically reduce disease around the world. Yes, many people eat too much meat (fed genetically altered food and injected with hormones) than is good for them. Medical research is almost entirely driven by pathology and the #1 cause of avoidable disease is smoking. Emphysema, cancer, bacterial pneumonia, weakened immune systems. Buying = reward

[Barklord]

Let's leave the question of morality out of it. I want to focus on the Broken Window Fallacy as applied to smoking related disease and the way it alters the the economics of society and the direction of medical science.

[23discordians]

Why just focus on smoking? Why not focus on the meat industry? Is the number one cause the only cause that matters? If everybody stopped eating meat it would drastically reduce disease. I have made a decision to be a vegetarian, but I don't bash other people over the head with it because I prefer to focus on myself, and the differences I can make. I suggest you do the same. To be frank, the fact you want to focus on smoking but ignore meat-eating stinks of hypocrisy!

[Barklord]

I don't bash other people about smoking either. I point it out. People feel better when they quit. Eating meat is biologically natural, especially in moderation. Inhaling poison isn't. In any case, people can damn well smoke if they want too. I have been a smoker. It's really ridiculous to hear someone chastise a basically decent person (such as Jack, togetherforpeace) about a childhood indiscretion when he's admitting to being willing to do the same thing "in the name of science".

[Cashify]

Great thinkers will be emulated. No man is an island. We are interconnected and our "choices" have many effects.

So quit bitchin. There's a patch for that.

[Barklord]

I'm not sure who you're replying too.

[Barklord]

pyrrho: you're one of my favorite youtubers. i know how good it feels to smoke but remember how good it will feel to be free from it.

[w0r1dpeace]

Tough cut here.

[w0r1dpeace]

The meanings of words before the words? Tough cut here.

[hjeremy2222]

Indoctrination is unavoidable in education

[pyrrho314]

why?

ok, if technically true, what if they are indoctrinated into questioning? into "skeptical enquiry" which is open ended? I think the word indoctrinization is not for all learning of methods and tools, it's for dogmatic learning... for learning your tools are not just some tools with certain characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, but The Tools, inherently correct.

To learn someone else's ideas is not indoctrinization unless also taught it's the one you must have yourself.

[jogayot]

educators need to see their own reflection in the educated. otherwise they can't be sure of any effect they had. think every force has equal and opposite reaction...

[pyrrho314]

ah, yes, they think that, but no, you do not have to see your ideas imprinted, not if you were a skeptical teacher... what you look for it ideas beyond what you've taught.

The more advanced teacher intends to be bettered by the student.

[hjeremy2222]

I would define indoctrination more broadly to include the methods and tools for learning. We are all given similar tools and methods for learning, which sends our minds in similar directions.

[pyrrho314]

one can be skeptical about those tools as well. There is no way to act without bias, but that is not the same as being indoctrinated, in which one is ignorant and maintains ignorance about one's bias.

[Cashify]

Bias is created and maintained by indoctrination, conditioning, vasanas.

Bias is Vikalpa, imaginination, and every particle or wave creating every dynamic form is this bias.

Every bias is caused by indoctrination. Every indoctrination, every CONCLUSION about what is in reality endless, this tendency to imagine limits where there is limitlessness in reality, (a particle where there was nothing but waves etc.) this is all delusion or all ignorance.

Everpresent Existence is UNCAUSED.

[Cashify]

Indoctrinated for what purpose is a much better inquiry than to pretend there is thought that is independent or that it could be measured against an independent standard idependently.