Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
FERENC KOVACS wrote
John,
Thank you for the interesting point. To me all
learning seems to be
incidental, that is not voluntary or intended and we
cannot unintend or undi
what we have seen orm learnt that way.
RC> Santayana says life comes at you like a freight train and the
best thing you can do is learn from it. Or something like that.
Thus forgetting is not intentional
either.Learning an association betwwn a tag (verbal
idenifier) and a chunk
of reality, however may be intentional, but
incompletely performed. So to me
it is learning form and content. Form is the tag, and
the content whatever I
manage to connect it with. We tend to have an
incremental progressmin
learning tags, like I often cite my expereince with
students who were to
learn names of plants in Botany and names of bones in
Anatomy. They had to
learn tags in twop languages (Latinm and native) and
had to be able to
associate them with the picture r the object. But they
usually failed to
learn both tags at a time.This means to me that there
is some anchoring
process involved and we often remember forms, but do
not remember content
(just words, no menaing, may be brand names, etc. that
I have not got a clue
what they associate with.
RC> One well known memory trick is to memorize forms with variable
parts, and to consciously associate the stimulus you want to remember with variable
slots in that form.
On the other hand we have knwoledge completed with
content possible to decribe in details in words or
identify "meaning"
So we are aware of what we have seen before, and are
familiar with and
complete new things which we identify by giving it a
(verbal) form such as
unidentified flying object, uin which case we produce
or create a concept,
which is an object, which has a form (its name) and
content as properties
(as in the name)
RC> Kolmogorov would say we compress
the complete memory form into a tag for more efficient linguistic
communications.
When we cannot recognize something at a distance as
form (an object) we may
still be able to recognize its content (its
properties, like it is small, it
is green it is stationary, etc.). This is how I
visualize first tiem
encounters and learning more abotu them comes with
further mental operations
called folding...
RC> At this point, I have scanned your
web pages, but I have no intuitive understanding of why you use the term
"folding" for this mysterious operation. My napkin is folded, the
brain has folds, volumes have manifolds, and Origami is masterfully skilled
paper folding, but what do you mean by "folding"?
Cheers
Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Bottoms"
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] just been brought to my
attention
> Frank,
> Oh, I'm sure there is a study somewhere that
proves this,
> but the following is my informal understanding.
>
> There appear to be two (2) main mechanisms for
learning.
> The first is when the item to be remembered is
available
> from an associated link. For example, I say
"apple" and
> you say, "oh, yes, we had apples at the
picnic."
>
> The second type is when the links are not from a
stated
> item but from a previous item, such as when we
learn the
> letters of the alphabet.
>
> The implementations for these two types of recall
would be
> different if the intention was to simulate human
recall.
>
> One of the interesting questions of this area
concerns how
> much is in conscious memory and how much is
unconscious. This
> again, has to do with models of human recall, not
physiological
> models. My belief is that we commit things to
unconscious
> memory if we would like to store them with no
vetting of the
> data. We memorize that "B" follows
"A" without questioning
> the teacher for the source of that sequence.
>
> -John Bottoms
> FirstStar
> Concord,
MA
> T: 978-505-9878
>
> FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>
>> Thank John,
>> I know about motivating that way, that is not
my question. I try again.
>> Would the internal representation, process ,
etc. of the brain be
>> diffeernt.
>> In other words the chunks to be remembered
word by word are limited for
>> the
>> short term memory, but in the long run
everything seems top be bnuolt in
>> somehow and be possible to retreive. Now
retrieval of a long long text
>> and
>> anything short associated with any chunk of
verbal cue - would they be
>> difeferntly embodied or implemented?
>> Cheers Frank
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Bottoms"
<john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]"
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 5:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] just been
brought to my attention
>>
>>
>>
>>>The "http://pda.physorg.com/"
posting seems to be a bit
>>>of propaganda, not much new there.
>>>
>>>And for your question: "b)"
seems to be obvious. Any time
>>>a demand is made, along with a requirement
for an explanation,
>>>an additional demand, I would expect that
the results would
>>>be better.
>>>
>>>There was that study that came out
recently about stressing
>>>the level of competition before taking of
a test. It appears
>>>that stressing competition (& in a
small group) before a test
>>>coerces students to do bette, reducing the
noise of the scores.
>>>
>>>-John Bottoms
>>> FirstStar
>>> Concord,
MA
>>> T: 978-505-9878
>>>
>>>FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>I think you should have guessed it
too. However
>>>>It may be time to start cross postings
:-))
>>>>http://pda.physorg.com/_news166972974.html
>>>>My question:
>>>>Is there a difference in the
neurocognitive result of leanring
>>>>a) to rende a long line of uttereances
later word by word, like apome,
>>>>a role, a saga, etc. and
>>>>b) to learn any verbal input
with a demand on response that shows
>>>>understanding and not just echoing
thes ame patterns (is that "rote
>>>>learning"?)
>>>>regards
>>>>Ferenc
>>>>