4 ms·

The problem is, your best minds, whom you regard as being "technical," ironically simply don't have the pedagogical and epistemological axioms needed for posses

The problem is, your best minds, whom you regard as being "technical," ironically simply don't have the pedagogical and epistemological axioms needed for possessing the sensibility that can conceptualize and eventually abstract away the fundamental principles of the technology civilization presently enjoys. Not just young students, but so too is lacking the experts, leaders, teachers, and supposedly prolific and employed engineers living within the cosmopolitan nationalist tribal world-system that is none other than globalist liberal democracy. In much more simple words, the communal program of regressing education toward the mean where the average human can apprehend the secret physics of the universe always runs into the barrier where an average disposition just can't cut it in the progression of science that isn't mundane or trivial. You said you laugh at the idea of expecting the children of your community to understand and leverage an understanding of things like Intel's latest microprocessors and a web browser front-end framework like Angular? Why, that's the bare minimum needed for surviving the complex world that is arriving on the scene. Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. They inflate their status to be stuff like anything even remotely central to the universe, which is the definition of the anthropocentric. While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Regardless of how life gets falsified, simplified, and dumbed down for the slow kids of the universe that is humanist society. As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the reliable ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge.

mouse_ 2y ago
> Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. Absolutely terrible take -- strong subjectivity and defeatist sentiment. > While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Sure but in that case you won't be here to consider it. There's no considering such a situation, so there's no use considering such a situation. Push onwards! > As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge. We're never going to understand everything about everything. That is half the fun! How you got from there to "Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant" is beyond me. Stop paying attention to quantum mechanics, and start paying attention to what's important to you. The kinds of things that made you truly happy as a child. Make model train sets or 7 day roguelikes. Make box fortresses for your cats. Make your neighbors lives a little bit better. Talk to a neighbor you've never talked to about the weather or something.
- makerdiety 2y ago
  The anthropocentric are quite egocentric, you've just demonstrated, yes? Because everything you said is based on either the assumption or the incorrect sincere belief that I am a human being. What if I was not a human being and instead an artificial intelligence? Or at least a cyborg or a mutant? And what if I derived pleasure from mastering quantum mechanics, like some sort of strange alien that, for some, foreign, reason, had a huge fancy for physics that touches deep down into interesting rabbit holes? Not only that alternative preference, but what if I had a situation where comprehensive knowledge was a requirement, rather than an optional leisure in a sea of other freedoms? Surely, then, holisticism or completeness would be a priority for the alternative scientist and engineer. We can only conclude from our social interaction something like a physical difference between the anthropocentric and the transhumanist, at the least. Which leads to questions of what are the properties of this division. And why it exists. To get the ball rolling in some neo-globalist societal engineering that is going to be very awesome.

mouse_ 2y ago

> Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. Absolutely terrible take -- strong subjectivity and defeatist sentiment. > While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Sure but in that case you won't be here to consider it. There's no considering such a situation, so there's no use considering such a situation. Push onwards! > As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge. We're never going to understand everything about everything. That is half the fun! How you got from there to "Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant" is beyond me. Stop paying attention to quantum mechanics, and start paying attention to what's important to you. The kinds of things that made you truly happy as a child. Make model train sets or 7 day roguelikes. Make box fortresses for your cats. Make your neighbors lives a little bit better. Talk to a neighbor you've never talked to about the weather or something.

makerdiety 2y ago
The anthropocentric are quite egocentric, you've just demonstrated, yes? Because everything you said is based on either the assumption or the incorrect sincere belief that I am a human being. What if I was not a human being and instead an artificial intelligence? Or at least a cyborg or a mutant? And what if I derived pleasure from mastering quantum mechanics, like some sort of strange alien that, for some, foreign, reason, had a huge fancy for physics that touches deep down into interesting rabbit holes? Not only that alternative preference, but what if I had a situation where comprehensive knowledge was a requirement, rather than an optional leisure in a sea of other freedoms? Surely, then, holisticism or completeness would be a priority for the alternative scientist and engineer. We can only conclude from our social interaction something like a physical difference between the anthropocentric and the transhumanist, at the least. Which leads to questions of what are the properties of this division. And why it exists. To get the ball rolling in some neo-globalist societal engineering that is going to be very awesome.