4 ms·
The article is about whether or not human learning is powered by a simple, understandable process. Your response is: “No, human learning is like the climate, it
by sumy23 4y ago
The article is about whether or not human learning is powered by a simple, understandable process. Your response is: “No, human learning is like the climate, it’s complex.” I’m just pointing out what a nonsensical statement that is. The article offers evidence about how synapses work. What is your analogy, exactly? Usually an analogy has some points of comparison that help illustrate a topic. E.g. chess is like war. There are two sides in both war and chess, both war and chess require anticipating your opponents moves etc. Therefore, you can make the argument that you can understand something about war through understanding chess. I’m really failing to see how the climate helps us understand the brain. Other than your claim that both are beyond comprehension.
- mjburgess 4y agoA complex system is a well-defined technical term, see the wikipedia article in which both brains and the climate are listed in the first sentence. They're both complex because they meet the definition of a complex system
- sumy23 4y agoOk, but clearly this article is arguing that in fact, human learning is not a complex system, at least in terms of synapse function. What the Wikipedia article says is irrelevant to this new information. Again, there is no connection between the brain and the climate. What if we prove the brain is not a complex system? Does that mean the climate is not a complex system either?