USNet (jod@us.net)
Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:17:26 -0400
From: "USNet" <jod@us.net> Subject: Re: Biological Learning Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 18:17:26 -0400
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So...what you say deals with my premise that we must keep in mind the
changes we find in our societal demands in order to keep up with the
expediency of how humans learn. I had written to Steve regarding this
topic, stating that we can keep in mind all the theories of all the past
theorists but they must be maintained within the context of the world in
which the learner (and teacher) lives in today. Certainly, learning has to
be different today than it was 10 million years ago, simply because, if one
follows the premise that we adapt to survive, our methods of adapting to
societal demans are certainly not the same, nor are our learning skills or
habits or genetic development.
Johanna Dold
Lafayette School
-----Original Message-----
From: Muhammad Khalifa Betz <mbetz@mcafeemail.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list IFETS-DISCUSS
<IFETS-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.READADP.COM>
Date: Monday, August 09, 1999 4:55 PM
Subject: Biological Learning
>List address to send message to everyone:
ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
>Details of current discussion:
http://grouper.ieee.org/ltsc/ifets/discussions/discuss.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>My contribution to this discussion is admittedly different
>from Leamnson's focus on Brain Learning, yet it is certainly
>just as biological.
>
>This type of biological learning, as established by Lorenz
>(whom I have mentioned earlier), asks two questions up
>front: How does homo sapiens learn? and How has homo
>sapiens' complex methodology for learning evolved? This
>topic is indeed very complex and time consuming, but it
>holds some interesting premises. For example, given the
>evolutionary nature of humans, the role of learning or the
>drive to learn is related to a gene-driven search for
>adaptive modifications that ensure continued survival of
>the species.
>
>What Lorenz has done in many of his works is to trace the
>evolution of learning from the earliest or lowest forms of
>life to the latest or highest. The earliest forms of life
>learn without a brain. Higher forms of life subsume lower
>learning in ways that supercede but do not dispense with
>lower learning. This evolutionary, epistemology of human
>learning sets an important backdrop to "brain learning," so
>it seems to me.
>
>To return to Leamnson's questions (see his paper, Technology
>and the Biological Basis of Learning), I affirm that
>learning is a biological process, but I would say that the
>functioning of the brain is less important in normative
>circumstances and more important in abnormal circumstances.
>
>Muhammad Betz, Ph.D.
>Educational Instruction & Leadership
>Southeastern Oklahoma State University
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Better than free email: calendar, files, and more...
>Get your 'McAfee.com Briefcase' at http://visto.mcafee.com
>
>---------------------------------------------------------
>Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
>Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
>Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
>---------------------------------------------------------
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 10 Aug 1999 - 02:40:05 MEST