> John Paul Fullerton wrote:
> > Roy responded to some of my earlier comments
> > Not knowing the letters
> > of the alphabet before learning them doesn't seem like it should be
> > counted as an error.
and Roy answered
> You may be interpreting the meaning of my comments to primarily
> digital situations which have go/no-go answers. I would apply my
> contentions to more analog situations, such as learning how much to turn
> the wheel of an automobile in order to get it to perform a 90 degree turn
> at 17 miles per hour within a 40 foot radius. In these analog situations,
> one must make errors in order to learn. If one merely steers the one
> correct course by chance, then one does not have a useful map of the
> territory. One has defined "what to do" without defining "what not to
> do."
Yes, that seems right to me. I was wanting to make the "learning
situation" such as
punching my friend + grieving = learning not to punch him
possibly unnecessary :)
Some "learning situations" may not need to be experienced for the needed
understanding to be working. Often when we gain knowledge from someone
knowledgeable there's the sense - yes, this person knows what they're
talking about. That's another example of where we can get the
understanding we need without pressing against the limits of the data. We
can, in fact, open an unsealed envelope and take out its contents without
so testing its limits that it tears.
-- Have a nice day John Paul Fullerton jpf6745@acs.tamu.edu