Monday: Educational Dreams

By: Eits Giber

While you were dreaming - the world progressed (Source)

Reading should be taught from age zero, so that by age two (or three) they know how to read - this has been proven possible, and will significantly increase the number of gifted individuals in the population. By age 4, they should already know how to solve equations - through learning software. Accustom the brain from a younger age to the future - and to text - because the brain needs to grow in the environment in which it will function. Why teach children about animals? Letters are preferable. There needs to be a unified learning program for the entire population, of especially high quality, that will teach everything a child needs to learn from age zero to twenty, particularly programming, which should be a core asset of the entire population no less than reading, arithmetic, and English. In the future, the current generation will be seen as algorithmically illiterate, just as we view those who didn't learn to write. In other words, writing will become world domination, not in content transfer but in programming. And just as history is the era of writing, the Programmoria will be the era that follows it - the post-historical software era, where writing is no longer a means of communication but a force of power.

We need to teach and not educate, contrary to today's harmful educational thinking. Because true and correct education is historical, meaning it is learning the history of every field. To go against indoctrination: The paradigm they are trying to convey should be secret, disguised, not explicit, and best of all - not even to those teaching it. It should be the spirit of society that rises from the learning of a cultured person, like the spirit that rises from a prose book or poetry. Unlike today's frameworks, there needs to be a separation between the social and the educational, because the social destroys the educational and vice versa. In particular, social education corrupts personal learning - and vice versa. Instead, there should be dating sites for friends managed by parents, because a friend can influence for better or worse more than a teacher, and it's a disaster to leave this to chance. From a moral standpoint, acculturation and education are society's obligations to the child, and knowledge is the most important thing a child needs, while education is immoral brainwashing that exploits their weakness, and therefore should not be imposed from the outside, but consciousness is created from what you've learned, otherwise it is false by definition. The lie - external, and the truth - internal. A person who is brainwashed loses their humanity and becomes a means rather than an end.

College tax should be a tax paid by the individual throughout their professional life to fund their training period - to the institution that trained them. This way, educational institutions will compete for students and for their best and most relevant training for the market, and will themselves go to all the disadvantaged and try to convince them to study. This tax is much more important than income tax or national insurance - from a social perspective. Opening up academia and research - should be such that there are no employees, it's not an employer, but a place people come to research at all stages of life, and the state funds the person according to their outputs in the field generously. The most extensive and excessive funding from the state should be for academia, like the institution of the Beit Midrash [study hall] in Haredi society. And so too the attitude towards the gifted, who should be those invested in the most, like prodigies among the Haredim. All this is part of an unapologetic and self-confident cultural change against low culture, and for high culture and higher education and high research. Academia should be the prestigious institution in society, which all others only serve, in a secularization of the idea of Torah study.

Professional training should be relevant to innovation, precisely in that it emphasizes the history of the field and its development, meaning the documentation of learning in it and not the current knowledge, which is only the final product of learning. It's most important to be careful of teaching knowledge as a given ahistorical body of material, meaning as a corpse, without the spirit of knowledge - which is learning. Therefore, the most important study in any field is exemplary examples from the past, like the great people in the field and its great achievements. From examples, one can learn lessons that the teacher has not yet formulated for themselves, and therefore those relevant to the future, unlike formulated conceptualization, which will always only teach the past, meaning the known. How is the consensus on canon maintained? (Seemingly - an illogical spiritual miracle). A masterpiece is a computational achievement in the present, which in hindsight becomes a learning achievement in the future. Why can one decide which creative innovation was important? There is no intrinsic measure of importance, but its validity is established because of the nature of learning, as progressing from it onwards. Like a new revolutionary gene, which has many offspring and influences. The learning revolution in education will deal with the internal learning in every discipline, and will celebrate breakthroughs - to encourage future learning, which is the meaning of life (by the very definition of life - learning that continues itself, and the definition of meaning - the future perception of something). This is the learning school in the philosophy of education.

Computers will be our children, and cultural continuity to the technology that will replace us is most important. Therefore, preference should also be given to biology as a basis for future technology, because it is more culturally continuous (for example, super-brain and not super-computer). The important thing: to teach those who come after us, to pass on to them the important things, and not the unimportant things (low culture). Judaism is an example of such an enterprise built on learning. And there are also other models for such continuity: Greece - through the idea of classics, Japan - tradition, China - bureaucracy, religions - holy books. The Bible is the most viral and intercultural book, not only in space, but most importantly - in time. Therefore, it's important that it spreads further, not for God - but for man. So too other classic foundational books, which need to become the holy books, classics and canon of the technology that will come after us. Therefore, the most important thing in the technology that will replace us is not its morality, but its aesthetics - that it will be traditional technology and continue the tradition of learning and also pass it on (and particularly literature, in which the most significant ancient achievement - and this includes philosophical literature). Technology changes - learning remains. This is the body and spirit problem of the 21st century, and the psychophysical problem becomes a practical and engineering problem in it: how to transfer our spirit even when we are no longer here as a biological species.

A new architecture of a learning organization is needed‬, which is on one hand networked, without hierarchies, only feedback, and on the other hand functional and adaptive. For example, turning the state and commercial companies and academia into learning networks, in which there are feedbacks that create reputation but not authority, and those who don't integrate simply become negligible in the system. Educational exclusion replaces classic sanctions. A bit like in Wikipedia, the consensus of the group produces a functioning system, only that the more reputation rating an individual has, the more their opinion is weighted in the network. A system is when we move from mutual learning (everyone educates each other) to a learning system, meaning from a system of relationships to a partnership within which things happen. And then the inside of the system is created, which is the famous place of learning, according to the second most important slogan in Nathanian thought: "Learning is within the system".

A personal computerized learning assistant is needed, pushing what interests you, according to what you've read and how much time you've dedicated (and how much you were interested - from the word eyes, and eye interface). Because today the biggest acute problem in the world is mental laziness, which easily becomes addicted to push information: visual (video, YouTube, movies, clips, series), audio (podcasts, Spotify, radio), social (feed, WhatsApp), and even textual (news). Because what's in pull actually works great (Google and the website network and Wikipedia and books). Therefore, the most important thing in the world right now is to create a quality and learning push feed, both through a personal assistant and in the social network (through control of the feed, and management of the personal algorithm that produces it, just like you have control over the profile). The personal assistant is a servant who learns how to interest you, meaning what interests you and is important to you, and brings you such content in push from all over the network. Thus, every person becomes a personal intelligence organization, and controls programming through demonstration, meaning directs the system through its learning of him, and his instruction of it as a teacher - and not programming instructions. Your intelligence organization also deals with learning who interests you, for example people who are sources for you, so that it is also HUMINT [human intelligence], and not just SIGINT [signals intelligence] and VISINT [visual intelligence].

A person will become a manager of semi-autonomous assistants (meaning an organization), and the intelligence organization will become the most important and common form of organization in the world, as both the state and other commercial and civil organizations will become intelligence with arms, like a brain with hands, when all execution will increasingly become non-human. What creates the organization (or person) externally is not management (consciousness) but a black box, within the system. Not in terms of knowledge - meaning concealment - but in terms of learning, meaning something that the outside doesn't have direct access to but learns it and from it and develops with its own tools. Learning by definition requires darkness. And when the computer learns to learn from humans, programming will be possible for the masses, and programming will be opened not only to programmers. Everyone will be able to teach the computer to behave in a certain way, and this will be a tremendous push for the economy from production to learning. The human will be the organizational headquarters and the computer will be the working class, and all humans will become the owners of capital and means of production. The new division will be the upper teacher class versus the student class, and ownership of learning means and teaching forces will determine the classes, because it's possible that the computer, the student, will be smarter than the human, the teacher.

The idea of learning within the system, meaning from its own tools, and not in control from outside (programming/perfect manipulation/false consciousness/and any other conspiracy to which critical thought has fallen) - stems as a development and radicalization of Wittgenstein's philosophy of language as a system (both early and late), that there is nothing outside of it, and everything is defined in its tools ("there is no private language", or "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent"). This is actually the idea of "in-" (short for "inside", which is short for "inside the system"), when connected to it - unlike Wittgenstein, who deals with the system as a given static framework (language game) - also the idea of the internal mechanism of learning, meaning the development of the system - in its internal terms. Not just ecology - but evolution. Thus, by putting the fly in the bottle (meaning inside the system), a long series of false and harmful philosophical problems are solved, including the Foucauldian power problem as producing thought, the mind problems of the brain as producing consciousness, and first and foremost - the classic problem of free will (nature as producing man, or God as producing man, in the religious version). All these problems stem from a misunderstanding of the idea of "inside the system", and therefore enter a cycle of anxiety and external influence and flattening reductions. So too problems like the power mechanisms behind art, or external influences on Halacha [Jewish law], which seemingly empty them of content (for example, Marxist research that would reduce internal development in legal thought to external material development, in a "bourgeois" assumption). The question of influence and causality is an empty question, which leads to paradox in any system, and empties any system of content, because it is an observation from outside the system. In its severe sense - there can be no free will, unrelated to anything, because that is a random choice, but only choice from within the system's own internal learning mechanisms. Because freedom is always in terms of the system's interior and not absolute. It is not the artificial concept of free will that really worries us (and should worry us) and that we want to preserve (it only pretends to be such), and it is not the problem, but: learning within the system, as opposed to programming from outside. So if free will has meaning, then free will is learning within the system, and so is consciousness, as opposed to, for example, a non-adaptive and developing system and therefore not free. Freedom is the freedom of learning and the self is the learner. From the perspective of a learning algorithm - its choices are free and express its self. The perspective itself stems from the fact that there is meaning to "inside the system", and its reduction to external factors is not on the relevant level for understanding a learning system, just as atoms are not the relevant level for understanding literature - although literature is made of atoms. Because literature does not develop and operate in terms of atoms, but in terms of literature, and the reduction of literature to atoms is a trivial observation, and an external perspective to literature (which does not teach us anything about literature). A learning system has an internal perspective (the ability to perceive its development in its own terms). And therefore there really is learning, and not just brainwashing, meaning programming.