learning_paradigms:cognitivism
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
learning_paradigms:cognitivism [2011/03/21 13:25] jpetrovic [Criticisms] |
learning_paradigms:cognitivism [2011/03/21 13:30] jpetrovic [Criticisms] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
| * **[[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Gödel's incompleteness theorem]]** which claims that "//within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements.//"((Jones & Wilson. An Incomplete Education. In [[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Denton, W. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Miskatonic University Press.]])). Oversimplified, this means computers will never be capable of human-like cognition since they are limited to a limited set of axioms. The information-processing model should therefore have a limited application in case of humans. | * **[[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Gödel's incompleteness theorem]]** which claims that "//within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements.//"((Jones & Wilson. An Incomplete Education. In [[http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html|Denton, W. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. Miskatonic University Press.]])). Oversimplified, this means computers will never be capable of human-like cognition since they are limited to a limited set of axioms. The information-processing model should therefore have a limited application in case of humans. | ||
| - | * **[[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-turings-halting-pr|Turing's halting problem]]** are often held as proves for this point of view, showing how some things are naturally non-computable. | + | * **[[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-turings-halting-pr|Turing's halting problem]]** which claims that given a description of a program, it is impossible to decide whether the program finishes running or continues to run forever for any given program input. This theorem proven by [[http://www.alanturing.net/|Alan Turing]] in 1936 shows how some things are naturally non-computable. |
| During the 1970s **humanism** evolved as an opposing view to both behaviorism and cognitivism beginning with the **holistic approach**, belief in the power of an individual and view **learning as a way of fulfilling his potentials**. | During the 1970s **humanism** evolved as an opposing view to both behaviorism and cognitivism beginning with the **holistic approach**, belief in the power of an individual and view **learning as a way of fulfilling his potentials**. | ||
learning_paradigms/cognitivism.txt · Last modified: 2023/06/19 18:03 (external edit)
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International
