And I don't understand the same things you dois it true that once you learn something you can't unlearn it?
|i|
behaviourists would argue that it's the consequence of the action which determines the strength of the learned pattern/event. thus, a new and stronger behaviour would have to be imprinted over the old one in order for unlearning to take place. though i would agree somewhat with skinner et al, there has to be something more than a basic anticipation of consequence that determines why we do the things we do. cognitivists are great at boxing and labelling mental processes into neat packages, all interlocking and interacting properly like little blocks of lego. behaviour is determined by the activation of certain nodes which are dependent on the frequency of exposure to certain patterns/ideas. thus, behaviour is explained in a more top-down method, and changes in behaviour depend on the mental interactions vs physical ones.
but really, a satisfactory answer probably lies in the messy gray that exists between the two.
|ii|
the process of unlearning...forgetting...backtracking...has romantic but gloomy overtones to it, doesn't it? it reminds me of Ms Havisham's upstairs parlour-a museum of stunted memory: decaying roses, heavily curtained windows, deep-seated aching. does all vestiges of a memory ever leave your person? can you ever unknow a person?