tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5729808699509033132.post4837027488097980300..comments2023-06-06T12:12:58.888-04:00Comments on the polemical brain: Memory, Learning, and Modularity: An Interview with Randy Gallistel Maxim Baruhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01889104131534548077noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5729808699509033132.post-34277024979768737362014-10-20T17:02:16.523-04:002014-10-20T17:02:16.523-04:00Hey -- thanks!
I think Gallistel sees learning a...Hey -- thanks! <br /><br />I think Gallistel sees learning as continuous with perception. <br /><br />I think this way of thinking does a lot of work for him in helping to carve up the distinction between memory & learning. <br /><br />I think Fodor & Chomsky (& Norbert?) would probably be pretty squicked out by the idea of making learning & perception the same sort of thing in all cases.<br /><br />But insofar as this view helps to distinguish between the extracting of information from experience, the processing of that information, and the storage of the information (and the results of processing) for further use, I think they could live with it. <br /><br />I labelled this perspective 'computational' more to contrast it with the 'associational' perspective. But with all of its explicit assumptions it falls into the computation camp pretty neatly anyway. <br /><br />// I couldn't say how widespread Gallistel's view of learning is. From my experience learning is such a poorly defined term that we should probably just ditch it altogether. Instead we could talk about extracting information, computing it, drawing generalizations, etc.?Maxim Baruhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01889104131534548077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5729808699509033132.post-7403050185793624882014-10-19T14:24:23.041-04:002014-10-19T14:24:23.041-04:00Interesting interview; thanks for doing it, and th...Interesting interview; thanks for doing it, and the Fodor one too. I was struck by the very broad definition of learning he uses in contrast to Fodor's very narrow definition (rational, hypothesis testing etc.). The claim "Under the computational view, learning is the extracting of information from experience." seems strange to me. Computational views of learning tend to focus more on the narrower problems of generalisation, rather than this definition which is so broad that it almost covers perception. If I stick my finger in a bowl of ice water, sure I have extracted some information about the environment. <br /><br />I don't whether this is just a terminological issue or if it hints at some broader problem or miscommunication. How widespread is Gallistel's broad view of learning?Alex Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04634767958690153584noreply@blogger.com