On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There is a lot of evidence that children do not learn through imitation, at > least not in its truest sense. Of course we have all seen young children > imitating adults and older children, but there is a complex difference > between imprinting and childish imitation. And I think this difference may > be attributable or at least found in the conceptual complexity that would be > necessary to explain human actions in full detail. How does the child know > that certain mannerisms actually represents (the experience of) imitation? > I think that childish imitation, in all of its variations, can only be > explained by theories of complex conceptual integration. > Jim Bromer >
I don't mean this kind of imitation. What I mean is low-level imitation that fuels stable perception on higher and higher levels. It can be regarded as an agent network, where many simple little agents imitate their neighbors (and represent regularities in them), with some of the agents connected to senses and action. When considered in bigger chunks (division on agents is somewhat arbitrary), process of imitation becomes less straightforward, up to the level of whole person, where it might be inappropriate to say that there is outright imitation. But individual skills, on all levels, arise from imitation of processes in environment or of interaction of processes within the system itself. -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
