As someone who worked with aphasics for some time, and who studied the
earlier neurolinguistics (not the AI/Neuralnet stuff, but the relationship
of brain structure to linguistic structure) I have to agree with Mike.
The left/right analogy is more than adequate for describing what we are
discussing here. If we get down to the synaptic level, we'll out of our
element, and talking through our hats. Different types of learning occur
because of different cultural as well as physical structures. As I
realized when writing a dissertation on the mechanisms of metaphor and
analogy as strategies for retrieving and generating information, I am an
intellectual leaf, borne from idea to idea on the winds of associative
thinking. For me, this was an important discovery. It meant that I
shouldn't be so concerned with the listing of details and memorization of
periodic tables and the like. I could look that stuff anytime I needed
to. My brain needs to be free to move around in knowledge space,
regardless of the electrochemical relationships of lipids and proteins.
For me, all learning is important because of the next generative wave.
Pigeon holes are only places where I keep stuff I haven't found a use for
yet and psuedo-science is something we haven't gotten enough results from
to hang a name on.
-- jzavacki@wolff.com John Zavacki The Wolff Group 800-282-1218Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>