From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Dec 31 2002 - 20:47:39 MST
Gordon Worley wrote:
> Going to four levels of learning doesn't make any sense, anyway.
> First, let's subtract 1 from all of those levels; it's a bit easier to
> keep track of them then.
> At level 0 there is no learning involved, per se. The mind is just
> being force fed facts: they magically appear in its memory.
> At level 1 there is normally learning involved that we are all familiar
> with. It's the kind that goes on between children and parents, goes on
> while reading, and goes on in schools (or at least is supposed to).
> Level 2 is more interesting. This is where you learn techniques like
> associating memories with each other to strengthen your ability to
> remember them and that practice helps you get better at complex tasks
> like algebra and calculus.
> Level 3 is flat out exciting. Now you can learn to learn better. If
> you can't understand the theory of Friendly AI, all you have to do is
> reprogram yourself to be able to learn it. It goes further than that,
> though. At this level you already get the ability to reprogram
> yourself to reprogram yourself better. You're working at that level
> already, so it's no problem to just jump over and rewrite the running
> code (assuming the system supports it, but in the general case it's
> already available).
> If a level 4 exists, this would be extending to ontotechnology but
> would be debatable to continue to think of this in terms of levels of
> learning. That would certainly still be an applicable domain, but
> things were already starting to open up at level 3 and the seams are
> busted wide open at level 4.
Bateson reckons that level 3 learning occurs in humans only very slowly,
i.e. over years via complex forms of "cognitive maturation."
Basically, your comments are strongly in accordance with Bateson's
reflections on the topic, which is not surprising...
-- Ben G
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT