Vladimir Nesov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Plus, I like to
think about learning as a kind of imitation, and procedural imitation
seems more direct. It's "substrate starting to imitate (adapt to)
process with which it interacted" as opposed to "a system that
observes a process, and then controls inference to reason about doing
that kind of thing".
--
Vladimir Nesov
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is a lot of evidence that children do not learn through imitation, at
least not in its truest sense. Of course we have all seen young children
imitating adults and older children, but there is a complex difference between
imprinting and childish imitation. And I think this difference may be
attributable or at least found in the conceptual complexity that would be
necessary to explain human actions in full detail. How does the child know that
certain mannerisms actually represents (the experience of) imitation? I think
that childish imitation, in all of its variations, can only be explained by
theories of complex conceptual integration.
Jim Bromer
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
