Symbols of Conversation

In a previous blog I spoke about language as an important element of the learning process. In a discussion with a friend, we considered what we mean by language, and with a bit of debate (and still open to debate), we concluded that there are at least three types of languages that people use: Spoken language and sound utterances, written symbols and strings of symbols, and gestures and body stance. A fourth possibility could be telepathy, but given that there is a lack of well documented evidence, we decided, for now, to not consider it.

Some written text (this sentence for example) conforms to a set of rules for the English language and it is represented by a combination of symbols called the English/western alphabet. I could have done something similar by using another form of encoding, called the Chinese character set, or any other one of several sets. In each case the character combinations would either develop a word or a concept, or even be a full concept. This written language is a record of the spoken languages that we learn for example during our early formative years. At some stage we might get formal instruction as to the use and rules of the language and some individuals master it to such an extent that they can ‘verbalise’ and put to text very complex emotions and mental images. Poetry is an example, and the picture below is my rather untidy handwritten section from a poem by an Afrikaans poet called Breyten Breytenbach (from “Die Windvanger”).

Mathematical symbols may be used to convey certain principles more effectively. However, here the rules are strict, and instruction on the use and the rules are needed before this written form (some of which are called equations) will make sense to readers. Mathematical symbology allows us to describe in a consistent way the world around us and some of the natural phenomena we perceive. There are also several implied relationships, as in this equation ascribed to Euler and the equation from the discipline of chemistry followed by one from physics:

Similarly, the notation of music must be mastered before music may be written down or, as in the case of the poem, before music may be composed successfully. We need to understand what the symbols and strings of symbols mean, what their spatial relationships imply and we must understand the context, before the symbols will make sense.

We use “body language” and facial expression to communicate. The following set of images are taken from Daniel Goleman’s book “Destructive Emotions” and shows what can be termed universal human emotional signals.

It is my contention that all these elements are in play during the process of learning, from birth onwards. Over a glass of dry white wine, a young friend of mine recounted her experiences at school, both good and bad, and we found some interesting patterns! Successful teachers know how to utilise all the language elements and apply them in imagination-stimulating ways to convey concepts. They tell the stories that make the symbols friends! They recount situations and generate scenarios where the expectations can be linked to internal theories towards solving the problem of making sense of the environment. This environment could be many things. It could be the lines and dots of the Cartesian plane, it could be the pathways of the nerve system, it could be the patterns and behaviour of the benzene ring in chemical design and it could be the form and stroke of a brush on a virgin canvass.

There is one prerequisite though for all of this to succeed. We must recognise that we as humans, although we have the a priori (genetic) ability or predisposition for symbol manipulation, still need to be made aware of the rules of engaging with these symbols and we must master them before we can apply them successfully. The South African school system seems to have missed this point completely and it reflects in the demonstrated slip in international standing in reading and maths ability. Please ensure that this does not happen where you live on our beautiful planet. It cuts to the heart of what makes us different from other species on this planet. Humanity cannot afford to have our young people crippled in this way.

So now, go read a poem or page through a book on mathematical proof and listen to some music. Find the sheet music for your favourite song. Be human to the hilt!

(Copyright notice: I use graphic elements licensed to me by iStockphoto.com. Observe the rights of the owners of this material.)

Learning

The question of learning is a fascinating one. Why do we learn, how do we learn, and what do we learn? One can probably try and answer these questions by considering the current thinking on cognition. Perception is fundamental to this tack. With perception goes the thinking around memory stores: long term memory and short term memory. All of this seems a bit mechanistic to me to be honest.

Yes, surely situation awareness is key to learning, for many events are just filtered out. Interaction with the environment may be seen as core to the process of learning and indeed, it forms the basis of nearly all theories of learning and intelligence. But is that it? My dog is rather aware in this sense, and in terms of homology it has an organ similar to my brain in the physical space. Does this mean that my dog is just especially impaired when it comes to learning? Where did humans leave dogs behind in evolution of the learning ability of the brain and can we be sure that this is in fact the case? Is knowledge just the product of learning or can we claim the concept of a priori genetic knowledge? Darwin punts the need for evolutionary learning (a priory learning) as a prerequisite for survival. Does this mean that real learning can only happen in the context of survivability, that is, the acquisition of true knowledge, knowledge that transcends the individual is dependent on threat scenarios?

Some authors, notably Karl Popper, point to language as a key concept in self-awareness and the concepts of knowledge (Popper is careful to not call this knowledge the equivalent of the German “Wissen” – the Greek equivalent of the knowledge of the gods). If this conjecture is accurate (it approaches Truth), then there is definitely a difference between me and my dog. However, my dog has signalling abilities; I used signals recently in France to explain that I was feeling like death warmed up to a French doctor. I signalled my pain when I breathed, coughed and looked dizzy! He considered my situation knowingly and did exactly the tests that my Afrikaans speaking doctor would do had I consulted him. And he came to the same conclusion and prescribed similar antibiotics. Surely, this was only signalling. In context to be sure, but my dog can do that as well. I am just not sure that my dog will be able to put together the story of its own misery in a past, present and future coherent sense.

Being conscious of identity, having a theory (not just a sense) of time and being able to construct discourse on expectation seems to be other aspects of learning that are important when I read musings of the enlightened ones. I know that my dog has a sense of time, but I have no evidence that it can construct a signalling event to me or another dog to communicate the expectation of me going on holiday and sending it off to the dreaded kennels!

All of this made me wonder how the people in charge of the school system come up with the methods used to train humanity. Do they use threatening circumstances to get kids to become mathematicians? Possibly, but I suspect that approach is not too successful. Is it about “cognition”? Again Popper has a bit of a different view. His conjecture is that we theorise about things, that we see problems, that we attempt solutions before we observe in a directed manner. We seem to have an expectation of events that drives our need to know. I am sure that I am not doing Popper justice, but this is the best I can do on a blog site!

What is more, theorising is connected to being able to tell a story, to imagine a beginning, middle and end, to see causality as a thread during the recounting of something, even if it is imaginary, like a fairy tale. Telling a story is uniquely human it seems, and that brings me to the (possibly) related work of Stephen Denning on Business Narrative. Here stories are used to share learning and discovery. Back to the start of the blog, and we find the cognition elements there, but if we follow Popper and Denning in a logical fashion, it seems that cognition (and learned information) is a result of experience on the back of a theory of possible outcomes and expected problems, and expectations met or refuted, in the real world or in the imaginary world.

Maybe successful learning is a result of such a process, and not just copying of behaviour or patterns. Yes, that may be part of learning, but true knowledge seems to come from some empirical process. I think this means that we must 'learn' to listen to our inner stories, have mind experiments, develop models and stories, expect outcomes and test this against reality. Another important point is that when I talk about "language", I include all the concepts of mathematics and music as well. Just like the construction of conversation in spoken word was learned during childhood, we must learn the concepts of mathematics for example. Again Popper points out that normal children have a priori language abilities...

The core concept is that we need to suggest possible outcomes even before we experience them. From the delta we deduce something new about the world (even if the delta is zero!) and we adapt accordingly.

If someone will tell me a story about Einstein and his problems, his conjectures and theories, then maybe, just maybe, I can be a successful student of relativity theory? Well, it is clearly not as simple as that, because as Popper points out, I must do my own theorising then with what I have heard and with what I expect, build my own expectation set and "solve" the problems from my unique perspective. Just maybe I can find the story that will lead me to new discovery on the back of what I already understand through the manipulation into a causally/logically coherent theory of possible worlds. Maybe a story is at the heart of learning….

Democracy

Let me start by saying that this is not a critique on democracy, and that it is not an attempt to describe or explain democracy. It is a simple commentary on the state of affairs.

For some time now I have had this uneasy feeling around what is being described as democracy in South Africa. It is thus fitting to look at what the word means and in what context it stands. Consider “monarchy” – mon:archy, the rule by a single person and “aristocracy” – rule by the aristocrats, those that are the “best”. Democracy stands in relation to these as the “rule by the (free) people”. It implies that the people have the power and jurisdiction to direct how things will be done.

As a theory it sounds great, as long as the assumptions are clear. For example, as long as the majority is not much bigger than the minority, that is, as long as there is a power balance, those representing the people in the positions of decision making will be careful to consider what actions might swing the power balance. If the democracy is based on some sort of representation that is not specifically allied to the party from which the representatives come, then the individuals may make the best decisions on behalf of the constituency. The assumption is that party dogma will take the back seat and that the individual will operate with integrity and within the moral value system of the majority.

My concern is with these assumptions. If the understanding of democracy is only that the “will of the people is paramount”, and if the people are not sensitive to how they may be open to powerful suggestion from those in the positions of power, things may go horribly wrong. It might be that the people come to recognise less and less of the failings of the bureaucrats because of a cultural predisposition to believing that those elected are indeed morally sound. Ultimately, if the elected individuals fail, the implication is that the people failed!

How can one test whether a democracy, or any other form of rule, is sound? I suppose there are many logics available for this, but I like the approach of Karl Popper. Unless the people can remove the government without bloodshed, the system is flawed. I also feel that if it becomes exceedingly difficult to ensure that government does what is in the best interest of citizens, and if government resorts to “sloganism” in order to suggest new realities and values and to preserve their positional power, then there is no rule by the people and a “tyranny” is taking root. In fact, then the country has embarked on the road to dictatorship.

It is with this in mind that I consider the situation in South Africa. I see slogans everywhere, urging the people to rule in step with the wishes of the ruling party and in many cases towards the preservation of those in power. The majority is not balanced by a minority that can shift the power by pointing out the immoral acts or failings of those in power. Those in power talk about blood and spread fear. Is this a democracy? Back to Popper: there are two kinds of state: one where it is possible to get rid of the government without bloodshed, and the other where this is impossible. Then I must consider how the previous regime exited: was it through bloodshed? The new regime is quick to claim that this is so, but closer scrutiny shows revolution fired by dogmatics, pushing children into the line of fire for the cause and finally the previous regime that negotiated itself out of power. I cannot claim that this is the only way to see the situation, but it definitely is one that, if it is close to the truth, takes South Africa close to the edge of chaos. Then we must now consider how we shall preserve our freedoms as a matter of urgency.

The last word goes to Popper: “Democracy in the sense of ‘rule by the people’ has practically never existed, and when it has, it has been an arbitrary and unaccountable dictatorship. Rule by the people cannot be; it is unaccountable.”