On Certainty: The Philosophy of Learning Version

Towards the End - Back to Basics

Certainty in the Teacher - and Doubt in the Student  (Source)

"What is the source of the law? That you learned it. The authority of the Torah is the study of the Torah. A law that is not learned is not a law. Learning, not language, is the foundation beneath our perception, it is the form of connection between man and reality, or in a more advanced world - the basis beneath our thinking. The question is always how do we learn something? This is the way to depth. Instead of the source of authority for mathematics - how do we learn mathematics? And this is also the source of authority for Judaism, not the law and not history - and not tradition - but learning. God as the great teacher - this is the definition of God. The teacher of teachers. All the power and effectiveness of science comes only from learning. Judaism is the great religion of learning - the longest and deepest learning in the world" (from the words of the teacher).

The authority of any system stems from learning it. It has no independent authority that does not stem from learning. For example, the senses or reason have no independent authority. Neither does state law or moral law. There is no underlying logic or justice that exists underneath, but everything is learned. Even thinking is learned. Therefore, there is no point 0 from which one can start. If we ask what is the source of authority and justification for mathematics, for example, it is the study of mathematics. That's where mathematics comes from, and it has no other source of authority that does not pass through learning. It does not stem from reason - reason is also learned, whether as an infant, as a child, or even before that - as a genome, throughout evolution. There is never a starting point for learning, and therefore there are no answers beyond learning. If we ask why, we eventually arrive at "that's how I learned it", or "that's how I was taught". Even if in the end we undermine what was taught or learned, this too is because you learned or were taught this as well. Even criticism is learned. All thinking is learned. Beneath the law, any possible law, including state laws and mathematical laws and Torah laws - stands learning. We are within learning and have no access to the world without it, and so does any learning system - which is every developed system in the world - it has no access to the world outside of learning. There is no access to some Archimedean point outside of learning, or some basic ground that precedes it. The problem of no direct access to the real, or to the thing-in-itself, is not some unique characterization of man, trapped behind the screen of learning, because:

a) First of all, it is not a screen that exists between us and the world, in fact it is our own foundation, meaning we do not have thinking within ourselves that was not learned, meaning it is more of a floor than a screen, and it is more correct to say (since we cannot stand on learning as a floor and get out of it) that it is water, which we swim in (but this too is misleading because it gives us a picture that we have an inner essence - the inside of the fish - that is not part of the water), and therefore it is most correct to say that it is our skeleton, our essence, our own inner self - we are learning.

b) This is not at all a characterization that stems from the human condition, or something that distinguishes man and makes him a unique phenomenon in the world, but a characterization of any learning system. All learning systems (including for example the economy, the Torah, or culture) are trapped within their learning essence. Man is just a particular case, not particularly special, of a learning system. The philosophy of learning is also true for artificial intelligence or aliens - for any learning system. And also for completely open learning systems - like art. There is no sense of encapsulation here where we are inside a cell peeking at the world.

Therefore, unlike philosophies that are only initial conditions, and deal only with problems outside the world, and therefore have no real meaning in the world, learning is not just the framework, or the foundations, or the superstructure. Learning is the internal mechanism and the internal will and the internal motive. Exactly like the internal energy that Schopenhauer called the will, only it is not characterized as evil - or as will to power like Nietzsche - but as learning: will to learn, and action in the form of learning. Learning (unlike external cognition for example, or an external framework like language) characterizes what is inside the world, the way things actually work and are driven from within in everyday life, at the most practical and real level - it is in the world like the laws of nature, or like the laws of the Torah according to religion. The reading and writing of this text are learning. So is thinking about it. One cannot get out of learning, or escape from it. If so, what is its meaning? The clarification that the idea of learning provides us is how the process behaves: it is not just action, calculation, or thinking - but learning. It is not communication, logic, sensation or perception in its essence, but learning in its essence. Therefore, it has development, graduality, building, interest, directions, and more - and therefore it also answers the four principles of learning.

This understanding that "everything is learning" is not empty or trivial, but conveys information that not only saves us from perceptual errors, but also helps us focus and advance learning. Learning can progress inefficiently, or not progress at all, if we have an incorrect picture of what is happening. For example, if we think we have reached the final and ultimate conclusion, or that it is possible to reach it, like reaching the last station on a train track. But progress in learning is not progress on a track, it can branch out in many directions, and has no end, and it progresses on a wide front, and sometimes even goes back and changes backwards. In learning there is also building, but it does not create a structure - and is not a building of floors, as in certain philosophical pictures - but more similar to organic development. But if we have a correct, learning-based perception of ourselves and of systems, then we can learn better. For example: to seek innovations (in various ways, such as encouraging creativity), to invest in everything directly related to learning (the idea of investment itself stems from learning) such as self-study and learning materials and teaching and learning systems, and to try mechanisms that work in different learning systems (competition, multiplication, diversity, mutations, exemplary examples from the past, remembering the history of learning in the system, and more).

Why is mathematics precise? Because its learning is precise. Computing was the attempt to mechanize this precision, after mathematical learning achieved sufficient precision (Frege) - hence its success. The property was transferred from learning to the machine, but came from the learning that preceded it. The authority of language laws, for example, stems from the fact that we taught the child the language. So too with state laws - we learned to obey, and not because the law is written somewhere or because we were convinced of its justification. The source of every law is in learning - including mathematical law. And the fact that learning in it is precise, and everyone will reach the same result, does not make the mathematical law one whose source of justification does not stem from learning. For example, from other axioms different laws would follow. Throughout the history of mathematics there have been many cases where precise mathematical learning failed to produce results without contradiction, and then it was refined (sometimes, as in the case of infinitesimal calculus, it took generations), and this is because it is accepted in it not to accept any contradiction or ambiguity or incompleteness (in fact, today it is clear that there is incompleteness, although there is an aspiration for completeness, and for reasoned decision, for example, even in the continuum problem).

Learning is indeed the source of the law - but it is not the zero point from which the law comes out - because it is precisely this idea: that there is no zero point. There is nothing outside of learning. All learning relies on previous learning. Even the beginning of life, seemingly before evolution, relies on learning processes in which only relatively stable molecules remained, and before that relatively stable elements, and relatively stable planets and stars and galaxies - at the beginning of the universe there was no life, and the universe underwent development at the end of which life was created. But development is not identical to learning, and physics has yet to understand how the development of the universe is related to learning. It may even be that life is not an anomaly. But even if the beginning of life is the beginning of learning, we do not have such a specific moment, in which life began and learning began, but it was an adaptive process, perhaps with physical components (spontaneous order and self-organization), which has a deep connection to the laws in nature itself.

Is the source of the laws of nature in a physical learning process? Even if we assume not, from our perspective science is a learning process, and the existence of these laws for us only passes through learning them. We do not have a list of the laws of nature. Their source in our perception is learning. And it is a long and endless process of learning, in which the laws of nature replace many formulations, from intuitive understanding that may be wired in the child's brain, to increasingly abstract mathematical formulations, so that there is no true and final formulation of the laws of nature, which we are approaching and will eventually reach, but it is a learning process. The laws of physics are not written anywhere, just like the laws of grammar, or the laws of thinking, or mathematics. In all these cases, a tremendous learning effort is invested in finding the laws from practice - and writing them - an effort that has progress but no end, just like in learning.

Why? Because that's how I learned. This is not an argument, but it is also not just a description, which lacks any justificatory value. Learning is this middle ground, which has direction, that is, a kind of push in a certain direction, but without the ability to identify the pusher, but also without alienation from the pusher. Because it is not an external pusher, but an impulse that is identified with, an internal push that is us, so "that's how I learned" is not identical to "that's how the laws of nature activated my brain". There is a learning argument here, internal to the system, which identifies valid learning, and not an argument external to it (like a physical argument in relation to the action of the brain within the thinking arguments of that brain: no criminal can say that he murdered because of the laws of physics). "That's how I learned" is supposed to justify learning with tools internal to learning, and not external to it: an argument that is accepted in the learning system, which is part of it. For example, like a proof in mathematics, or a judge's reasoning in a verdict, or a scientific (or economic, aesthetic, religious, etc.) argument. But if we continue endlessly with the why questions, we eventually arrive at "that's how I learned". That's how I learned in kindergarten. That's how I learned in class. That's how my mother taught me. That's how we were taught at university. That's how evolution learned. That's how I learned from experience. We also learned the ability to criticize, change or reject laws. We learned everything. Even to be creative - we learned.

The state of "that's how I learned" also does not make it arbitrary - "that's how I learned" is not identical to "that's how". It does not allow us any law we want, but only a law we have learned. We cannot invent a law, because we have not learned it, nor interpret it in a distorted, arbitrary way. Because then the situation is not "that's how I learned", but "I learned incorrectly". In fact, all this allows us perhaps only freedom that is learning in relation to the law. Just as the sages of Halacha have no learning freedom that nullifies the divine law, but they do have learning freedom that develops it. No one can decide that it is permissible to light a fire on Shabbat, but it is certainly possible to decide that lighting a bulb is a derivative of fire, if it fits according to the learning from the law that has developed. Couldn't it be that everyone will suddenly interpret that fire in the Torah means cat? Exactly as it could be that in the laws of language, according to which people speak, fire will turn into cat - that is, it cannot be. And the fact is that it works. How does it work? How is it that there is still Shabbat, and not everyone interprets as they please? Because learning is something that works. There is learning in the world, and it is the basis for all systems that work, such as legal systems. The success of learning does not stem from some proof that it will work - but from the actual organization of the system.

The idea of argument in learning is very similar to the idea of argument in legal systems, and therefore we can use legal systems as an image for learning systems - which have learning arguments. Seemingly, one can invent any argument, and there is nothing to stop arbitrariness, and we will reach a situation where "anything goes", like in modern art, and who are you to determine for me. But, in practice, there are many agents in these systems, and new agents go through education and learning processes, and progress gradually, and if someone tries to say something arbitrary then the rest of the agents correct him, and maybe even remove him from the system if he continues to insist. Therefore, these systems are actually conservative, not arbitrary. They have arguments that are considered valid for learning, and they also have innovation, but not every argument passes, and there are internal criticism mechanisms. So too in learning. Even if one neuron in the brain goes crazy, or one thought is illogical, they will be suppressed. In a situation where the whole system begins to act arbitrarily - learning really collapses, and this is the state of madness, autism or dementia. There may be a situation where the scientific community will suddenly all start believing in witchcraft, but this situation is not likely, and even if it happens - it will cease to be a scientific community, and will no longer have learning ability. That is, it works - "that's how I learned". But, if you go outside of learning - there is no learning.

Learning depends precisely on this - on the organic development of the law. It is not related to social or personal reasons for example, although they may have influenced from outside on the development from within, but the perspective from which it looks at the system is from within - from within the learning itself. Therefore, a social reason will not be valid for a specific verdict, but a legal reason will be valid. The reason must be within the internal world of learning arguments, for example: equality according to the law entails equality for women or that the law can be interpreted as granting equality to women. And not: because the status of women in society has changed, regardless of the law, or even contrary to it, now there will be equality for women. The learning argument must be from within the learning system itself, in which, as a learning system, there are arguments that allow development and learning. Science, for example, needs to prove from within itself whether there is equality of abilities between men and women, and not rely on moral or legal learning. An internal scientific argument is needed. Mathematics will also not be convinced by a physical argument - even if we conduct a billion experiments with numbers that will fit a certain hypothesis, mathematics will still demand proof, because that's how mathematical learning works. The reason we cannot prove whatever we want is not that mathematics stems from logic itself, and is no different from the reason a judge cannot determine a verdict as he pleases and contrary to the law. Because there are legal review mechanisms. In mathematics too we encounter proofs with holes or conceptual problems that were understood later. It's a learning process. If the system allows arbitrary arguments - it is not a learning system. But the development of forms of argumentation is not arbitrary, but learning-based. It may be that an argument that was not valid in the past begins to gain validity in the system. But if the system becomes one where every argument is valid in it - it is no longer learning-based.

In fact, learning preserves the system as learning - it has self-preservation mechanisms. It is always on guard. There is nothing that guarantees it, like some timeless logical argument, or philosophical proof. Like an army that is always required to deter and defend the state - because the state is not here by virtue of an agreement, or right, but by virtue of the ability to defend it and the deterrence it creates. There is always a need for judicial or scientific criticism for example. There is always a need to teach new scientists or judges for example. There are always arguments, disputes, deliberations - if there are none then there is probably no learning. Learning is not mechanical, but there are junctions in it where there are several possibilities, but still not all possibilities. And who keeps the possibilities? Who guards it? It itself. The brain takes care of itself not to go crazy. Learning always requires energy. It is not a stable process without any possible failure, but it certainly reduces failures and stabilizes itself, as part of learning - because of its tendency for organic development, that is, for a kind of building, its recoil from unexplained jumps, its need for argument within its own tools, and also self-criticism mechanisms. When learning there is practice, examination, questions, tasks, training, feedback and so on. There are appeal options and there is peer review and there are experiments and there is documentation and there are procedures and there is competition and there is reputation and there is a market and so on. The internal learning drive passes through learning tools and learning aids and learning structures, which were shaped during learning, as part of the experience in it. These tools are not a priori, and there is not necessarily proof of their effectiveness, and other tools may develop later - but they are not arbitrary. Like learning itself.

Learning will not calm those who want a final ground, on which they can put their feet as an unquestionable foundation, but it will allow a boat for those who want to sail. It will not produce an artificial starting point but will allow progress. It will not produce an external and objective yardstick - but it will allow many internal control tools and learning tools. It will also explain why there is actually no such ground or such a yardstick - why we can never prove that our learning system will work forever, and we will always have to work to make it work. No one can ever prove that he will never go crazy. No empire can assume that it will survive forever. Even mathematics can reach a state where everything interesting is known and it is not interesting, or where a significant part of what is interesting cannot be decided, or where the proofs for most theorems are ugly and technical and lack insight, or a conceptual error that has no solution, or a trouble we didn't think of - because learning is never predictable. From the very openness of learning - there may be failures in it. Learning is not possible without learning failures - so there will always be wisdom in hindsight, and a lot. It will always look easier after we have learned, and it will be difficult to understand the difficulty in learning. And this is precisely because we have no perspective external to learning.

In fact, the phenomenon of perceptual anachronism and the inability to perceptually return to previous learning states, even of yourself, and certainly in history (for example, to understand mathematics 200 or 2000 years ago, or religion) - are the evidence that learning is one-directional, and always from within itself. You cannot go back. You cannot turn from a human to a monkey. It's not like a logical proof where you can move in both directions, both backwards and forwards. The choice at each stage in learning was made from within the system's state then, and today you are already external to it, and it is very difficult for you to reconstruct how things looked before they developed in a certain direction, or before a certain idea was known. Therefore, learning creates development. It's not just movement in a certain direction, which then you can simply go back, but change. The enormous difficulty of entering the mind of our predecessors is what shows the way that has been made and the perceptual progress. Therefore, many times it is so difficult for us to properly appreciate the difficulty and the way that has been made - it seems easy to us, obvious, and clear to make certain learning moves, in hindsight. After we have read a mathematical proof and appropriate definitions we will never understand the difficulty of finding these definitions, after what is already obvious to us through a huge learning search in the tree, between definitions that did not work. But we see only the short way between their state and ours, and it seems obvious to us, and do not understand how many additional paths had to be walked in the maze on the way of trial and error until they reached the "logical" way. This is the nature of logic, that it is obvious, unlike learning. Logic is the wisdom of learning in hindsight. Of course Napoleon should not have tried to conquer Russia in winter - we would not make such a basic mistake. It's simple logic. We will never understand the learning achievement in real revolutions - for example the scientific revolution. Because we are already inside it. And we have no external perspective. Therefore, we will always be wise at night.

Therefore, the idea of learning itself seems obvious to us - although it was not understood until today, and until our time. It's a simple idea. As if we achieved nothing in it. But if we just review the history of ideas and philosophy we will understand how not obvious it is precisely. The idea of learning that is so instinctive (for us) was not instinctive (for them). The great success of philosophy is when it becomes obvious - and then points to the obvious. In this it shows the learning that has been done. If there were no more people of the past of the philosophy of language or epistemology among us, we would not understand our innovation at all. Therefore, we must thank them for their conservatism and fossilization, before we become the philosophy of the obvious. The idea of learning is so basic, that in the future they will not be able to understand it at all - because it will be so obvious.

In conclusion: The history of philosophy sought the foundations of the system outside of it - you cannot prove something from within itself - and thus was dragged into regression, to first principles. Learning is the system within which you can indeed base things from within itself, without this leading to triviality, because the foundation itself is subject to the learning method. The infinite regression in learning is not problematic, but normal and necessary, because it is regression to previous stages of learning in the system - and learning is infinite by nature. The way is still opening along - even when the teacher closes his eyelids. The elevation of a teacher's soul is when he turns from orthodoxy to method (and its killing - vice versa). When the teacher turns from content to form, then a teaching is created, and the continuation of his soul is when a person turns into learning. Thus he merits eternal life. If the future is infinite, with no limit to learning - there is no reason for the past to be finite. A proof has a beginning and an end. Mathematics itself - does not. Life has a beginning and an end - learning itself does not. The brain is born and dies - but thought itself has no starting point and ending point. The justification is the righteous man himself - the exceptional person who walked the path and set an example - and not the futile attempt to seek the beginning of the path, which has neither beginning, nor - end.