Just a really quick comment on *one* of your points (I haven't time to
discuss the rest right now....sorry)
> We don't learn to speak in the same sense that we learn to write. Minsky
> argues that learn is too vague a word for scientific use (from memory) and
> suggests a whole string of new words to describe different ways of learning.
yes, the notion of "learning" does need to be clarified. Of course
learning isn't synonymous with things that we are taught (eg writing) or
even things that we are aware of "picking-up" without formal tuition of
any sort. *Most* learning is the result of an unconscious bottom-up
process which pattern recognition is probably the pivotal process. The
learning that we are aware of is probably an entirely different
phenomenon (and peculiar to humans). I'm not denying its importance,
however it *is* only the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, by the way, thanks for thanking me for pushing Dennett at you!
My first impression from reading the rest of your note however is that
you are now slipping in the direction of being *too* impressed by the
role of biology in human society/culture. I liked Dennett's remark that
although our genes keep us on a leash, the leash is, for all intents and
purposes, infinitely long. I'll try to respond in more depth over the
next few days.
Kerry
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion.
To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe
To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe
For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
For archives
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
