3 ms·

Thanks for the expanded thoughts. I see two problems: 1) You seem to include any kind of processing in "finding patterns". I wanted to both get your definition

Thanks for the expanded thoughts. I see two problems: 1) You seem to include any kind of processing in "finding patterns". I wanted to both get your definition for "finding patterns" as well as the proof that this is how humans learn. 2) In the example of reading a book in class you fail to include the past history of experiences/learnings that takes place outside of class and which helps you to put the words in context. This might very well be a major differentiating factor compared to the first example. To give a silly example: If I kick a wall and get a pain response through my toes which teaches me to not do that again, did I learn this by observing a pattern? Is that really a useful model for how the learning took place? Surely there was a pattern, perhaps even several ones, no denying that, but I highly question the accuracy and thus general usefulness of this model for learning. Depending on definition, finding patterns could mean just about anything, thus meaning nothing.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
I guess I'd pose the question to you, then: for that first example of the blind person who has experienced basically nothing other than language, what more could they learn from beyond finding patterns in the sounds of language? If they hear "Leaves are green", but they've never seen colors and have never been around anything like a tree or leaves, what other methods could they possibly use to learn that leaves are green beyond just recognizing that the sounds of the word "green" come after the sounds of the words "leaves are"? As for the second example, while I agree that external context improves understanding, do you really think it's required for understanding? For instance, I took AP chemistry in high school, and much of that was learning about quantum mechanics, electronic configurations, etc. I have zero external experience for any of that -- hell, at the time, I hadn't even ever seen any microscopy of an electron cloud. So there's no context for those concepts outside of knowing how the words fit together and deriving meaning from that. Yet I'd still claim I learned the material (and my grades in that course would agree).

IceMetalPunk 4y ago

I guess I'd pose the question to you, then: for that first example of the blind person who has experienced basically nothing other than language, what more could they learn from beyond finding patterns in the sounds of language? If they hear "Leaves are green", but they've never seen colors and have never been around anything like a tree or leaves, what other methods could they possibly use to learn that leaves are green beyond just recognizing that the sounds of the word "green" come after the sounds of the words "leaves are"? As for the second example, while I agree that external context improves understanding, do you really think it's required for understanding? For instance, I took AP chemistry in high school, and much of that was learning about quantum mechanics, electronic configurations, etc. I have zero external experience for any of that -- hell, at the time, I hadn't even ever seen any microscopy of an electron cloud. So there's no context for those concepts outside of knowing how the words fit together and deriving meaning from that. Yet I'd still claim I learned the material (and my grades in that course would agree).