>
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
And I don't understand the same things you do
is 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?
is 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?
// posted by naomi @ 12:35 p.m. 
Comments:
<< Home
Yeah, I think it's true that once you learn something you can't unlearn it. You may "forget" it on a surface level but I think that everything we encounter becomes part of our cell structure (for lack of a better analogy). In the end, our inheritence to those left is the diary of our life, written on our faces, in our eyes, and in our hearts. We are a culmination of our collective experience on this planet. I think if more people lived knowing that everything they do and say has an eternal impact, we'd be a more careful, more loving, more patient animal than we are. Self awarenes is a knowledge of, not only, who we are but also what we do and how we do it.
Thanks for your post. It reminded me to be more gentle on this earth.
Gillian
Post a Comment
Thanks for your post. It reminded me to be more gentle on this earth.
Gillian
<< Home
