Holographic theory of learning (external link): what are your toughts on knowledge?
First of all, this is my first post and I hope I have chosen the right category. If not, please bear with me as I learn to navigate the forum.
I stumbled across this well written article (not by me) which seems to build on texts Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in Neuropsychology.
Note: It is neither mandatory nor necessary to read the paper, as the article is quite self-explanatory.
After reading it, I think that most of the general principles are valid, and that knowledge is like an infrastructure of intertwined passages that easily lead to broader environments.
While the article itself is not specifically philosophical and does not seem made for debate, I think it is a great starting point for a broader question: what do you think of knowledge?
More specifically, do you think that there can be a field of knowledge or a body of knowledge that is just so specific or so diverse that it does not lead to a near universal knowledge? Or do you think that this whole holographic theory of learning is stretched and invented? I am very interested in your views.
I stumbled across this well written article (not by me) which seems to build on texts Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in Neuropsychology.
Note: It is neither mandatory nor necessary to read the paper, as the article is quite self-explanatory.
After reading it, I think that most of the general principles are valid, and that knowledge is like an infrastructure of intertwined passages that easily lead to broader environments.
While the article itself is not specifically philosophical and does not seem made for debate, I think it is a great starting point for a broader question: what do you think of knowledge?
More specifically, do you think that there can be a field of knowledge or a body of knowledge that is just so specific or so diverse that it does not lead to a near universal knowledge? Or do you think that this whole holographic theory of learning is stretched and invented? I am very interested in your views.
Comments (3)
Not in conflict with anything you've written, but it brought to mind some studies done by Karen Wynn and others that show that even infants have a sense of quantity and some very basic "arithmetic" skills.
Welcome to the forum. This general subject is something I've thought a lot about. Some thoughts:
Calling knowledge "holographic" seems a bit highfalutin to me. It gives the concept a veneer of exotic science that I don't think is needed.
This gives me a chance to bring out my favorite quote from Franz Kafka:
When I've posted this quote before, people respond that obviously you can't know about Newton's laws sitting alone in your room, but that's not the point. What you can learn is how the world works, how we know what we know, how we fit in the world. I think this is the kind of thing we learn "holographically." Not something specific, but an awareness of our own thinking process and how to use it to know things.
The other thing we get from small bits of knowledge is bricks for our wall. In my experience, I have a mass of connected knowledge that builds a model of the world I live in. Each small piece of knowledge is connected to others to make a structure of interconnected pieces. I have a vivid visual image of this model as a cloud, lit from within, which contains everything - dogs, cats, protons, love, poundcake, values, Donald Trump, and oxygen. Areas where I have a lot of knowledge are more in focus than those where my knowledge is lacking. As I understand it and experience it, this model is the source of my intuition. I can make judgments about ideas based on how they fit into my model, even if I have relatively little knowledge. That doesn't mean I don't have to go back and verify things with more formal methods of justification, but it helps tell me where to get started and what is worth worrying about.