Ron has provided an example of what I'm concerned about in the
organisational learning conversation. That is, everything become
"learning".
Ron says:
>echidnas, which are spikey-backed anteaters that manage to look like
> spinafex grass, as they burrow into the ground avoiding predators. Some
> of this is no doubt genetic, some of this is no doubt learned.
This is an example of adaptation. There is no evidence that anything
like what we're distinguishing as learning occurred or was involved.
(There might have been, there's just no evidence that I know of or
that he puts forward.)
Who cares? Well, we might learn about many ways of adapting that
would be useful if we didn't call it learning. By _not_ including it
in the learning category, we will have to look for mechanisms outside
of current learning theory and then import tme back (transformed) or
add new processes that, in certain areas, may be more powerful and
useful than attempting to learn to adapt.
>
> For my own part, I do think humans have one major facility that
> distinguishes the species from other animals -- the ability to create and
> detect irony.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk