Heard a theory that we don't actually learn new things, it's all already in our brains. Who's theory is this?
472894
This was a belief of Socrates the great philospher.  For questions of this sort, Socrates raises a serious dilemma: how can we ever learn what we do not know? Either we already know what we are looking for, in which case we don't need to look, or we don't know what we're looking for, in which case we wouldn't recognize it if we found it. \n\nThe paradox of knowledge is that, in the most fundamental questions about our own nature and function, it seems impossible for us to learn anything. The only escape, Socrates proposed, is to acknowledge that we already know what we need to know. This is the doctrine of recollection, Plato's conviction that our most basic knowledge comes when we bring back to mind our acquaintance with eternal realities during a previous existence of the soul. \n\nThe example offered is in the discovery of an irrational number, the square root of 2. Socrates leads an uneducated boy through the sophisticated geometrical demonstration with careful questions, showing that the boy somehow already knows the correct answers on his own. All of us have had the experience (usually in mathematical contexts, Plato believed) of suddenly realizing the truth of something of which we had been unaware, and it does often feel as if we are not really discovering something entirely new but rather merely remembering something we already knew. Such experiences lend some plausibility to Plato's claim that recollection may be the source of our true opinions about the most fundamental features of reality. What is more, this doctrine provides an explanation of the effectiveness of Socratic method: the goal is not to convey new information but rather to elicit awareness of something that an individual already knows.  Hope this helps!
161995
What ??? your brains ?
754053
This person meant that you have slow brain proccedure of understanding thinks or that you are moving slowly. For example, the old trains used coal to move and in comrarison with the newer trains they were really slow!This has to do either with the phisycal or with the mental movement.You get it now,don't ya?
1178226
Fish brains don't have much of a prefrontal cortex. It would be hard for the them to "think" as we know it. Much less think about something long enough to develop self-awareness.
52382
Do your Theory of Knowledge Paper yourself :-)\nbut remember everything we experience is part of our personal attributes
765095
I bet we got it all wrong, our minds are way too primitive to even comtemplate what started it all!
807452
Whever I learn new things but not apply them constantly, I completely forget them! It's like I never learnt them in the first place! To be able to retain new information or skills.. you got to start applying them as soon as you've acquired it.
1119417
a question for the ages !\n\nthere is currently NO complete physical theory on thought ( maybe perhaps because theories are thoughts ! ).\n\nalthough many philosophical theories exist, none can be deemed acceptable scientifically.  \n\nphysically, thought is considered a process of the brain and is based in the electrochemical reactions therein. \n\nthe "experience" of thought is not well understood ( what does it mean to see "blue" for example ).\n\nsome philosophers believe the problem is "intractable" ( unsolvable ) becuase human rationality will never be satisfied with an answer ( i.e. there will always be more questions ).\n\nancient hindu philosophers believed your mind was only a receiver of thoughts that existed independently.  how you"tuned in" into to these infinite floating thoughts in space would comprise of your particular mind.  \n\nalthough theories range from one extreme to another,  a few things can be pinned down :\n\n1.  thought probably occurs in your brain. ( medically disease accurately shows this ) \n\n2.  thought is probably "stored" in the brain ( memories retrieved and amnesia )\n\n3.  thought may not exist at all but may be an illusion to which we assign a word "thought" .  this illusion is actually the process of the elecrohemical reactions themselves. this illusion is abolished when you sleep or are unconscious.  \n\n4. this illusion is called consciousness and is more metaphysical in nature.  ( i.e not a subject for the sciences ).\n\n5. i believe consciousness is a subjective experience which in some individuals opens an infinity of questions and in others be a solved problem ( e.g. state of nirvana or cosmic union ). in other words, its a matter of accepting a belief.\n\n6. i dont think your question can be approach rationally since the question itself is a thought .  in other words,  the answer to what a thought is made of is only another thought and so on ad infinitum.......\n\n7.  you may want to read "the physics of consciousness" for a good scientific survey of your question.\n\n:)
811390
In brief (lol) - As children we give equal importance to al the data we receive.\n\nLearning can be from any sense source, but we are slowly 'taught' to learn exclusively with our ears, and we develop a language, despite the fact that 90% of communication is visual - body language.\n\nJust when the child has got over the fact that it has to learn by audio means, we throw it back into confusion, by introducing a written (visual) code, which has to be learned.\n\nThe majority of children will have a nano-cortex (brain) divided into two halves, and store this info from the central mammalian brain (short-term memory).\n\nSleep allows the brain to refresh these memories, and sort out chemical links so we learn to relate certain things to others, and thus learn.\n\nSome children will have breaks in the chemical chains, or have divided their brain before birth into more sections (dyslexia) so they may find the established methods of acquiring data a little difficult at first.\n\nAt about 11 years, the cranium joints in the protective bones of our skull fuse together, and we free to then go on to develop the inside functions. This results in the development of abstract thought.\n\nIt can be simplified to this\n\n1. Unconsciously unaware don't know, and you don't know it.\n2. Consciously unaware, don't know, but you realise that you don't know.\n3. Unconsciously aware. You do know, but have not realised it.\n4. Consciously aware. You know, and you realise this.\n\nAt the end of your life, the chemical links you have built up over a lifetime start to decay, and you find it harder to recall the bits you haven't used for some time.\n\nSome people like Gardiner, theorised that we learn in spirals, building up on the last information, by revisiting it.\n\nBriggs Mayer identified that we like to learn in one of four preferred styles, or combinations of them, and thus learn best when taught in a style that suits us.\n\nLook at teaching books in the library - pedagogic (children), and androgogic (adults)
1147277
We who have evolved brains already know it.
955995
Something is missing. Your brain maybe?
673315
Every new skill (and thought and emotion) tries to resolve itself against the patterns of your previous experience..  That is, if it is recognised as something familiar, then those linkages (neuronic connections) are reinforced.  Totally new information must create NEW linkages to your OLD information.  This process MUST be repeated (learning) or you will not remember the new information for long
761779
It isn't true that we only use 10% our brains.  That is a very common myth that was started because of misinterpretation of scientific data.  The fact is that only 10% of our brains is made of up actual neurons that transmit signals, while the rest are glial cells that provide structural support and nutrition to the neurons and clear waste products and excess neurotransmitters.   However, these cells are all used most of the time.\nTo answer your actual question though, the brain is sort of designed to forget things for two reasons.  There is so much going on around us that we experience, if we paid attention to and remembered everything we would be overloaded by all this information pretty quickly.  Secondly, new connections need to be made all the time to incorporate new things that we learn, so in the midst of that some other connections are weakened or lost.  Sometimes things we mean to remember are lost in this process.  Of course, our brain doesn't always work how we would like it to, but like you said generally the things that are most important are the things that we remember, which is exactly how it should be.  Why store unnecessary information?
528616
imagination...  without imagination, we wouldnt have any knowledge.  without wondering how things work, or why things behave in a certain way with our imagination, there would never have been any persuit of knowledge.
539503
"He who refuses to learn from history is doomed to repeat it."  Arnold Toynbee.  Who can afford NOT to be a history buff?\n\nDid Toynbee really say that?  (Source?)  Or are you thinking of \nGeorge Santayana:  "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned \nto repeat it."  (*The Life of Reason*, 1905)\nOr, John Buchan:  "The hasty reformer who does not remember the past \nwill find himself condemned to repeat it."  (*Great Britain*, 1923)\nOr, G.W.F. Hegel:  "Rulers, statesmen, nations, are wont to be \nemphatically commended to the teaching which experience offers in \nhistory.  But what experience and history teach is this--that peoples \nand governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on \nprinciples deduced from it."  (*Philosophy of History*, 1899).
972458
Stop asking such hard questions!  :-)\n\nBut depending on who you ask, not really.  For all anyone knows for sure, the person reading this is actually a brain in a jar in a lab somewhere being "fed" misinformation.   (No, the Matrix guys didn't think that up, it's been a concept since before Buddha or Socrates.)\n\nThe usual answer is that while we can't know "reality" we can make logical judgments about the ideas being fed to us in our "brain jars"\n\nRead up on Socrates, Buddhism, and maybe Existentialism for a starting place.  Or email me for a dissertation... :-)
530487
The original quote was actually "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." The statement was made by George Santayana, philosopher, from Reason in Common Sense. \n\nThe quote has been tweaked a bit throughout history, perhaps to give a more modern and personal connection to the quote.