Difference between revisions of "Annotation:Text:Piaget’s Legacy: Cognition as Adaptive Activity/Yoeezfupix"
(Created page with "{{Argumentation2}} {{TextAnnotation |AnnotationOf=Text:Piaget’s_Legacy:_Cognition_as_Adaptive_Activity |LastModificationDate=2019-07-26T14:32:41.981Z |LastModificationUser=U...") |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{TextAnnotation | {{TextAnnotation | ||
|AnnotationOf=Text:Piaget’s_Legacy:_Cognition_as_Adaptive_Activity | |AnnotationOf=Text:Piaget’s_Legacy:_Cognition_as_Adaptive_Activity | ||
− | |LastModificationDate=2019-07-26T14:32: | + | |LastModificationDate=2019-07-26T14:32:53.026Z |
|LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | |LastModificationUser=User:Sarah Oberbichler | ||
− | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yoeezfupix","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ43Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ45Ӻ","endOffset":389°Ӻ,"quote":"The experiential environment in which the human organism normally grows up is composed of things and people. The differentiation of these two categories is gradual, and only gradually are different schemes developed for coping with “inanimate” things and coping with people. Eventually the second kind provides far more opportunities for accommodation and learning than the first. Piaget has reiterated this innumerable times, but his critics nevertheless contend that he did not consider social interaction.\nIn fact, the experiential reality we construct for ourselves is to a large extent the result of our social interactions. Insofar as we are able to construct a viable modus vivendi, it is preponderantly due to accommodations in the course of social adaptation. \nIn order to live in a society, a sufficient number of our ideas — our concepts and schemes of action — have to be compatible with those of others. And this compatibility confers on them a viability that goes beyond the merely individual. The same goes for the acquisition and use of language. Communication with others requires that the meanings we attribute to words prove compatible with those of other speakers.\nCompatibility, however, does not entail the kind of “match” that is implied when people speak of “shared ideas” or “shared knowledge”. Compatibility, to repeat it once more, means no more and no less than to fit within constraints. Consequently, it seems to me that one of the most demanding tasks of A.I. would be the plausible simulation of an organism’s experience of social constraints","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°Ӻ,"text":" | + | |AnnotationMetadata=^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yoeezfupix","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ43Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ45Ӻ","endOffset":389°Ӻ,"quote":"The experiential environment in which the human organism normally grows up is composed of things and people. The differentiation of these two categories is gradual, and only gradually are different schemes developed for coping with “inanimate” things and coping with people. Eventually the second kind provides far more opportunities for accommodation and learning than the first. Piaget has reiterated this innumerable times, but his critics nevertheless contend that he did not consider social interaction.\nIn fact, the experiential reality we construct for ourselves is to a large extent the result of our social interactions. Insofar as we are able to construct a viable modus vivendi, it is preponderantly due to accommodations in the course of social adaptation. \nIn order to live in a society, a sufficient number of our ideas — our concepts and schemes of action — have to be compatible with those of others. And this compatibility confers on them a viability that goes beyond the merely individual. The same goes for the acquisition and use of language. Communication with others requires that the meanings we attribute to words prove compatible with those of other speakers.\nCompatibility, however, does not entail the kind of “match” that is implied when people speak of “shared ideas” or “shared knowledge”. Compatibility, to repeat it once more, means no more and no less than to fit within constraints. Consequently, it seems to me that one of the most demanding tasks of A.I. would be the plausible simulation of an organism’s experience of social constraints","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1564144361091° |
}} | }} | ||
{{Thema | {{Thema | ||
|field_text_autocomplete=Viabilität | |field_text_autocomplete=Viabilität | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{Thema | ||
+ | |field_text_autocomplete=Sprache | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 13:32, 26 July 2019
Annotation of | Text:Piaget’s_Legacy:_Cognition_as_Adaptive_Activity |
---|---|
Annotation Comment | |
Last Modification Date | 2019-07-26T14:32:53.026Z |
Last Modification User | User:Sarah Oberbichler |
Annotation Metadata | ^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yoeezfupix","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ43Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ45Ӻ","endOffset":389°Ӻ,"quote":"The experiential environment in which the human organism normally grows up is composed of things and people. The differentiation of these two categories is gradual, and only gradually are different schemes developed for coping with “inanimate” things and coping with people. Eventually the second kind provides far more opportunities for accommodation and learning than the first. Piaget has reiterated this innumerable times, but his critics nevertheless contend that he did not consider social interaction.\nIn fact, the experiential reality we construct for ourselves is to a large extent the result of our social interactions. Insofar as we are able to construct a viable modus vivendi, it is preponderantly due to accommodations in the course of social adaptation. \nIn order to live in a society, a sufficient number of our ideas — our concepts and schemes of action — have to be compatible with those of others. And this compatibility confers on them a viability that goes beyond the merely individual. The same goes for the acquisition and use of language. Communication with others requires that the meanings we attribute to words prove compatible with those of other speakers.\nCompatibility, however, does not entail the kind of “match” that is implied when people speak of “shared ideas” or “shared knowledge”. Compatibility, to repeat it once more, means no more and no less than to fit within constraints. Consequently, it seems to me that one of the most demanding tasks of A.I. would be the plausible simulation of an organism’s experience of social constraints","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°,^"jQuery321091777439976599082":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1564144361091°
|
Thema | Viabilität |
---|
Thema | Sprache |
---|