What happens to us when we learn new stuff?

I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way.

We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors.

Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change.

Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science.

I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance.

As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man.

My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period.

When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously.

Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.



Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?

Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy for the United States?

According to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the human brain had a capacity to hold only a set amount of information. Once the brain was filled something had to be forgotten for something new to be learned. For that reason he refused to learn what he felt was useless lest he forget something useful.

According to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the human brain had a capacity to hold only a set amount of information. Once the brain was filled something had to be forgotten for something new to be learned. For that reason he refused to learn what he felt was useless lest he forget something useful.

That sounds like something my teen age sons used to tell me when they brought home their report cards.

I agree with Frogger, new information replaces some thing learned before and so on and so on. Its an endless process since were learning something new everyday, but we always if not most of the time at least remember very important information like birthdays or social security numbers, the latter due to repetition.

According to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle the human brain had a capacity to hold only a set amount of information. Once the brain was filled something had to be forgotten for something new to be learned. For that reason he refused to learn what he felt was useless lest he forget something useful.

I don't think I agree with Doyle's assessment.

As part of my work, I'm constantly learning new things (historical stuff, mostly). I probably do more research/learning on more diverse topics than 90% of the people I come across. If learning new things means other things disappear from my memory, why can I still recall little snippets of completely non-noteworthy crap that happened two, three, four decades ago?

Shouldn't those things be long gone from my mind by this time? :confused:

What happens to us when we learn new stuff?

I will tell you what happened to me when I learned new stuff. I assume that most people are affected in the same way.

We must use metaphors and analogies to speak about such matters. I choose as two of my metaphors the kaleidoscope and the pot of stew. World view and intuition I think of as similar terms. ‘Intuition is kaleidoscope’ and ‘intuition is stew’ are my two metaphors.

Learning new stuff is like putting a new seasoning or a new veggie in the pot of stew. Most of time the new seasoning or the new veggie has little or no effect upon the stew; sometimes a great change takes place--that new ingredient has a large effect. When the effect is large it might be like turning our kaleidoscope a notch and the intuition takes a dramatic change.

Let’s look at what happens when we examine our intuition as a result of our changing knowledge of the concept we call science.

I am a retired engineer and as a result I had a very high regard for and a very narrow comprehension of science. I considered science to be primarily a domain of knowledge encompassing matters that have as basic ingredients physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Any domain of knowledge that did not rest on the foundations of physics, math, and chemistry were of secondary or tertiary importance.

As I grew older my intuition was dramatically affected by my study of philosophy and later by my becoming what I call a self-actualizing, self-learning, and critical thinking man.

My comprehension of the meaning of the word ‘science’ changed dramatically. The dictionary has several definitions of the word ‘science’, one is--a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study. My comprehension of the meaning of science took dramatic changes; my kaleidoscope took constant turns over a 25 year period.

When I had a very narrow view of science and because I held that concept with such high regard my intuition was vitally affected as my comprehension of that concept changed. My attitude toward every other domain of knowledge was determined by my comprehension of this concept. As I grew in my comprehension of this concept my world opened up dramatically, my narrow and negative attitude toward all domains of knowledge changed tremendously.

Because I placed such great confidence and trust in science my world view, i.e. my intuition, became very unsettled. The ego is in charge of putting a check on anxiety and thus my ego fought hard against this change but my curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.



Do you agree that Joe and Jane have little comprehension of the meaning of science?

Do you agree that this narrow minded misconception is unhealthy for the United States?

Coberst :) you are studing delivery. Totally to cool!

curiosity overcame my ego’s repression of these new ideas and these new ideas awakened a vast new world for exploration.

My friend, now that is a kicker! "A vast new world of exploration!"

A lot of people who have time to learn new things would find that titallating. Frogger found that also interesting. It is just that he hates being an intellectual. :) And I can not blame him. Me being me.

Coberst, I have an internet connection and I probably could make time to go study things. But I don't. All I read is what people post on All Forums.net. Nothing else. If they give me a website to go look at I don't go look at it (except "extremely" rarely and even then I just skim the front page).

So Coberst my friend, what have you learned that is interesting? And could you possibably post the short version with no internet address :) for those of us with short attention spans :)

Tease us with some bit of knowledge that incourages us to seek knowledge. Or to understand you better.

I don't care what it is, because what ever you come up with is going to be interesting. It just will be.

tuck

CS is not focused upon examples of knowing ‘how to’ but is focused upon understanding the relationship between what we know and how we know it. We will not find ready examples of knowing in the study of CS but if we try we can begin to grasp how we know and how this knowing becomes understanding, and how this understanding is grounded by our biological nature.

CS is not about knowing, CS is about understanding. “Where Mathematics Comes From” is one book in a series of books and research documents relating to cognition and the power of understanding.

We all learned how to ‘do math’ in our schooling. How to do math is about knowing; CS is about how to understand the nature of how it is possible for humans to create a domain of knowledge such as math.

Infants at an early age of a few months display the capacity for subitizing, an ability we humans share with many other animals. This is the ability to instantly recognize small numbers (by number here we mean a cardinal number, a number that specifies how many objects there are in a collection,) of items, and a capacity for the simplest forms of addition and subtraction of small quantities in a collection.

Arithmetic requires in addition to this subitizing an ability to count. Counting requires the additional capacities of:
Grouping capacity is the ability to group discrete elements; ordering capacity is the ability to place objects in a sequence; paring capacity entails paring a number with an object etc.

Subitizing ability is limited to 4 or less objects. To go beyond this limit the child often learns to count fingers and with the following additional capacities can go beyond 4:
Combinatorial-grouping capacity is the ability to put groups together, and symbolizing capacity is the ability to associate symbols (words) with numbers (conceptual entities).

Thus subitizing and counting experience allows the child to move to greater quantities and with metaphorizing and conceptual-blending capacity the child is prepared to learn arithmetic and higher forms of mathematics.

“What we have found is that there are two types of conceptual metaphor used in projecting from subitizing, counting, and the simplest arithmetic of newborns to an arithmetic of natural numbers…The first are what we call grounding metaphors—metaphors that allow you to project from everyday experiences (like putting things into piles) onto abstract concepts (like addition). The second are what we call linking metaphors, which link arithmetic to other branches of mathematics—for example, metaphors that allow you to conceptualize arithmetic in spatial terms, linking say, geometry to arithmetic, as when you conceive of numbers as points on a line.”

Quotes are from “Where Mathematics Comes From”. A large number of book reviews are located at:
http://perso.unifr.ch/rafael.nunez/reviews.html

Coberst my friend, "What is CS for those of us that have just got here?"

Is it a real science thingie or is it something that is based on your experience? Or maybe some version of both?

And coberst my friend :) you seemed to have involked the ancients, you are not playing with newbes any more :) And these ancients seem to be really smart! Ok? :)

tuck

tuck

Sorry about that, I thought, incorrectly, that I had identified CS as being cognitive science as espoused in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh"by Lakoff and Johnson.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

tuck

Sorry about that, I thought, incorrectly, that I had identified CS as being cognitive science as espoused in the book "Philosophy in the Flesh"by Lakoff and Johnson.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

Coberst, I have to agree with them. :)

And I agree with the rest of what you have posted :)

Coberst how would you like to discuss this? This is my field :) I am a god in this field.

your friend,

tuck

Tuck

I have been trying to interest readers in this domain of knowledge but with little success. I would be interested in helping you try to create an interest in this subject in this forum and in any other forums that you might be interested in.

Tuck

I have been trying to interest readers in this domain of knowledge but with little success. I would be interested in helping you try to create an interest in this subject in this forum and in any other forums that you might be interested in.

Ok Coberst, can I interest you in a biger reality. Minds at play :)

You are a mind at play with a goal, if at all possible. So am I :)

Can I run this by you? "As an old dog, who is a gift to family, can you learn new tricks?" All forums is the family. Most folks relative to "Cognitive Science" on this messageboard are running "Self", to get a power moment. Which is ok, because they create acitvity. And in the end Sparky sorts it out so that we don't have to. But at the sametime, All Forums is a "famility reality". Only family members working together survive. And this is why humankind as a group still exists today. Inspite of the assholes that would destroy humankind and this messageboard, if given the option. :) (and I add a smile to this, just for fun).

So my friend Coberst, can you understand what I just said, from a back ground in "Cognitive Science" reality? "Yes" or "no" works for me :) we are in the middle of a public social reality here and others are watching :) Ok?

All Forums is minds at play. It is not that you can't squash/kill a mind, because you can. The question is, "How many different minds can be at play and :) Sparky and his team can handle it?" Now that is "Cognitive Science" :) ,from a research reality, and All forums stills kicks "butt" as a living entity. Welcome to my world my friend :)

Ok?

Love you!

tuck

tuck

I think I am out of my league, I have no idea of what you speak.

I don't think I agree with Doyle's assessment.

As part of my work, I'm constantly learning new things (historical stuff, mostly). I probably do more research/learning on more diverse topics than 90% of the people I come across. If learning new things means other things disappear from my memory, why can I still recall little snippets of completely non-noteworthy crap that happened two, three, four decades ago?

Shouldn't those things be long gone from my mind by this time? :confused:


I don't agree with Doyle either. I was simply saying what he believed, not what I believe. I believe the mind has an infinite capacity, or so close to an infinite capacity as not to matter to absorb new information.

What I think happens is a change in the way thoughts are interconnected. When we learn new things there is a subtle change in the way our mind works cateloging and sorting information. The new information is intergrated in with the old and new connections between memories are formed.

tuck

I think I am out of my league, I have no idea of what you speak.

Ok :) no problema

All is well!

tuck

I don't agree with Doyle either. I was simply saying what he believed, not what I believe. I believe the mind has an infinite capacity, or so close to an infinite capacity as not to matter to absorb new information.

What I think happens is a change in the way thoughts are interconnected. When we learn new things there is a subtle change in the way our mind works cateloging and sorting information. The new information is intergrated in with the old and new connections between memories are formed.

So Guys, may I ask you this question, "What happens to the neural pathways in our brains when we are indwelt by God?" Do they get thicker and more complex because of information input? Or do things get rearanged and the mind begins to function in a whole new way? "Or does our brain reside in our spirit body and our physical brain is just a bridge to physical reality? Thinking and storage goes on somewhere else."

Guys that one has got me stumped :)

tuck

Guys what is a pseudo intellectual? How does one reconize a pseudo intellectual?

We "suspect" :) that Frogger is one, because he has absolutly no idea what he is talking about :) But he does use alot of big words :)

Hi Frogger :hula: "Please forgive them Father, they know not what they do."

:) It has to be somebody's fault Frogger and it can't be mine :) !

tuck :)