3 ms·

I've never heard of meta-learning, but about a year ago I stumbled onto a branch of philosophy called epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge. My studies there

I've never heard of meta-learning, but about a year ago I stumbled onto a branch of philosophy called epistemology or the Theory of Knowledge. My studies there have been absolutely exhilarating and disturbing. Next time you see someone at the coffee machine, ask them them what is meant by knowledge, reason, belief, truth, evidence, opinion, conviction, and hypocrisy. The incoherent jumble you'll get back is indicative of the broken and sloppy process of the attempt to process data into knowledge (learning).

khafra 18y ago
Unless you just happen to work with, say, Eliezer Yudkowsky; or zombie Phillip K. Dick.
- jobeirne 18y ago
  Philip K. Dick would make an excellent zombie.
aaronblohowiak 18y ago
It is easy to describe those terms through their role in interpersonal interaction and culture, but to either 1) make any claim about the working of the mind or 2) try to bridge the gap between symbol and signified is asking for heartache and endless rhetorical squabbling.
- aspirant 18y ago
  Studying a theory of knowledge for the past year hasn't left me with a bunch of definitions, but with models for the acquisition of knowledge that have proven very useful. I'm sure someone probably told Newton that all that math stuff looked like more trouble than it was worth.
  - aaronblohowiak 18y ago
    Oh, surely. I myself have a great deal of interest in knowledge and skill acquisition (in particular, the differences between first and successive language acquisition, but i digress.) Studying processes and patterns in learning can be a fascinating and deeply enriching experience. My comment was intended to warn against delving into endless debate over terms. I see how my (1) was worded incorrectly, instead it should have said something like "to argue about the emergence of consciousness from the material world and its role on the nature of subjective experience and truth", which i do believe is not a fruitful discussion. If anyone has a particularly convincing or useful discourse about the previous I am open to change, but as it stands all I've read on the matter has been speculation and/or justification for some moral or social agenda.
aspirant 18y ago
I later found some material that comprehends both our thoughts. ""Systemic learning theory suggests that it is valuable to distinguish levels of learning. It is clear that most learning that goes on within and outside learning institutions makes no difference at all to individuals’ or society’s overall paradigm. This is because it is first order learning or basic learning. Bateson distinguished three orders of learning and change, corresponding with increases in learning capacity. Learning I - basic learning learning, thinking, knowing Learning II - meta-learning learning about learning, thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing Learning III: epistemic learning learning about learning about learning, thinking about thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing about knowing Seeing as how no one may ever read this post, I'm not going to expound any more, but again, I have found studying epistemology to be exhilarating.

khafra 18y ago

Unless you just happen to work with, say, Eliezer Yudkowsky; or zombie Phillip K. Dick.

jobeirne 18y ago
Philip K. Dick would make an excellent zombie.

aaronblohowiak 18y ago

It is easy to describe those terms through their role in interpersonal interaction and culture, but to either 1) make any claim about the working of the mind or 2) try to bridge the gap between symbol and signified is asking for heartache and endless rhetorical squabbling.

aspirant 18y ago
Studying a theory of knowledge for the past year hasn't left me with a bunch of definitions, but with models for the acquisition of knowledge that have proven very useful. I'm sure someone probably told Newton that all that math stuff looked like more trouble than it was worth.
- aaronblohowiak 18y ago
  Oh, surely. I myself have a great deal of interest in knowledge and skill acquisition (in particular, the differences between first and successive language acquisition, but i digress.) Studying processes and patterns in learning can be a fascinating and deeply enriching experience. My comment was intended to warn against delving into endless debate over terms. I see how my (1) was worded incorrectly, instead it should have said something like "to argue about the emergence of consciousness from the material world and its role on the nature of subjective experience and truth", which i do believe is not a fruitful discussion. If anyone has a particularly convincing or useful discourse about the previous I am open to change, but as it stands all I've read on the matter has been speculation and/or justification for some moral or social agenda.

aspirant 18y ago

I later found some material that comprehends both our thoughts. ""Systemic learning theory suggests that it is valuable to distinguish levels of learning. It is clear that most learning that goes on within and outside learning institutions makes no difference at all to individuals’ or society’s overall paradigm. This is because it is first order learning or basic learning. Bateson distinguished three orders of learning and change, corresponding with increases in learning capacity. Learning I - basic learning learning, thinking, knowing Learning II - meta-learning learning about learning, thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing Learning III: epistemic learning learning about learning about learning, thinking about thinking about thinking, knowing about knowing about knowing Seeing as how no one may ever read this post, I'm not going to expound any more, but again, I have found studying epistemology to be exhilarating.