Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 10:45 7/9/97 PST, Tom wrote:Good for you, Brian, I have posted my preliminary message, but to work
writes:
On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 08:32:00 brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
toI would like to offer with my usual modesty, a definition of
'understanding' which is objectively measurable and does not
suffer from the semantics of
educational or psychological jargon.
Understanding can be measured by first providing leading details of
the physical behavior of some mechanism or process, and then
establishing if the subject can provide predictions of outcomes
and results for given
variations in the mechanism's states or configuration.
The requisite behavior on the part of the subject is the ability
intuition',form a coherent model of the mechanism which she can manipulate in
accordance with the given configuration.
You will see that this is close to the idea of 'physical
havea quantity which Maxwell, Feinman (sp?) and Einstein are said to
better.possessed in great measure.HI Brian, This is good, but with a little more thought, we can do
Regards
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK
Regards / TomI personally doubt that Tom can come up with as good a definition of
'understanding' as mine, but being a very modest person, I'm willing
to read over what he may offer in a spirit of helpful critiquing.
Regards :-)
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK