Re: [Phys-l] "Unlearning"

[Bill Nettles <bnettles@uu.edu>]

I like the linking of "associations" as a memory tool. Could the "unlearning" problem also be linked to an order of learning, i.e., things learned first are stored in a different section of the brain than later things? By way of a story, I have a friend from India who also speaks English well.  Several years ago, he had a stroke and couldn't speak a word of Hindi (his native tongue..he could still think and conceptualize in Hindi) for quite a while, but he never lost his English speech.  It was the oddest thing.  Obviously, he had multiple speech centers



-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Denker
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 10:06 AM
To: Forum for Physics Educators
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] "Unlearning"

On 09/14/2010 03:50 AM, Dan L. MacIsaac wrote:

> I'm having a hard time seeing how to bridge the gap between the 
> thread comments on simple factual recall of single items and the 
> reorganization of complex systems of hypothetical - deductive 
> reasoning that require considerable time to construct.  Though 
> clearly they must be intertwined.

Let me turn that thought around:  I'm not convinced there
is any such thing as "simple" recall of anything.  I suspect
any kind of recall is a fantastically complex process.

Just because we can do it doesn't mean it's simple.

> > - whether anything can be "unlearned" at all

Clearly _forgetting_ exists.  I can testify to that.  I
know lots of people, myself included, who are adept at
forgetting things, even things they want to remember.

As for "unlearning" ... that is a one-word label attached
to an exceedingly complex process, and I trust that none
of us would ever rely on such a word to tell us very much.

1) In that spirit, as a FIRST approximation it has been
suggested that "unlearning" involves some combination of
 a) weakening of old memories, and
 b) adding new memories that "out-compete" the old ones

I don't know what the ratio of (a) to (b) might be ... and
I'm not sure it matters.  Indeed I suspect this is not
exactly the right question to be asking.

2) As a second approximation I reckon it is better to talk
about _recall as a process_ rather than talking about
this-or-that memory as a thing that can become weaker
or stronger.

I think the example of driving on the left versus driving
on the right is a good illustration of this point (2).

Consider the following scenario:
 a) Joe Doaks starts in Britain and learns to drive on the 
  left.  He drives on the left for years and years.
 b) Then he comes to the US.  Learning to drive on the right 
  is a struggle.
 c) Then he goes back to Britain.  Re-learning to drive on
  the left is much easier compared to (a) or (b).
 d) Every time he goes back and forth the switch gets easier.

The result is a complex structure that contains both the 
low-level left-driving skill and the low-level right-driving
skill ... plus some higher-level process that controls the
switchover from one to the other.

I reckon there are many layers upon layers of this sort of
switching logic implicit in everything we do, even things we 
are tempted to call "simple factual recall of single items".

To say the same thing in other words, I'm not sure there is
any important distinction between "memory" and "thought".  
I prefer to think of the _recall process_ as being a
_thought process_.  

  This even includes the thing we call rote memory, which
  is still a thought process ... just highly simplified
  (and often oversimplified) thought process.

William James in 1892 spoke of associations between memories:

] As I have elsewhere written: Each of the associates is a hook to
] which it hangs, a means to fish it up when sunk below the surface.
] Together they form a network of attachments by which it is woven into
] the entire tissue of our thought. The 'secret of a good memory' is
] thus the secret of forming diverse and multiple associations with
] every fact we care to retain. But this forming of associations with a
] fact,-what is it but thinking about the fact as much as possible?
] Briefly, then, of two men with the same outward experiences, the one
] who thinks over his experiences most, and weaves them into the most
] systematic relations with each other, will be the one with the best
] memory.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l