- warning - Another digression (being bright, and being conscious). On 27 Apr 2004 11:12:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Art Kendall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >part 2 > >One thing that is being done very frequently today is to have children > >teach each other some of the time. Recall Seneca's "docens discimus", > >"in teaching, we learn". Trying to find different ways to communicate > >the same concept to people broadens and deepens our understanding. > > >In addition, my recall of my grammar school education is based on my > >perception at the time when my mind was much less developed. > > This may be the case for adults, but not necessarily for > children. When my son was 6, he understood, and could do, > algebra and logic, but he could not explain anything. > > One has to learn a lot to explain something which is, to > him, completely obvious, to someone who does not see it. Oh! Now we introduce 'consciousness'. I have previously assumed that consciousness was a good thing for science and math, and underlies future learning. So, I would have expect that your well-advanced son could learn by teaching. I thought that the arguments for 'natural ease' were confined to production in certain of the arts, as performed by very young people. Yes, adults want to get back to naturalness and unconsciousness, but we do that most fruitfully after training -- which (I think) is characterized by being conscious. I am curious, do folks here assume the same, or otherwise? -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
