when I am part of a learning community I fall in love with the collective intelligence produced by that community in an online space. An online space that we co-own, co-create, and co-engage in.
This is the essence of education, right?? Co-create and co-engage. So, it's not only a matter of the enclosed gardens that endanger the Web, but also the effect they do on people: they are designed to inhibit the creation of Web stuff. Thus, they're foes not friends.
I feel the web has devolved into a main menu driven experience for so many of us, only this time the content behind the choices is being delivered to enhance a revenue opportunity
When the Internet really happened, I was struck by the open architecture of the Web and my ability to explore all that this new place had to offer. Discovering new websites that people were building and curating was pretty awe inspiring. It was huge … and it was really small.
comentario aqui...
Jonathan Zittran say something really interesting at the time — “the web has no main menu.”
I can see what I was doing a handful of years ago or to see a forgotten picture of one of my children doing something cute.
for the duration of the semester I get to create the Internet I love.
Facebook is a main menu on the web. It is a filtered gateway that seems to have sucked the joy out of creating new and interesting open content online.
using a course blog as the hub of the teaching and learning experience.
¡Bienvenidos a las anotaciones compartidas! En este espacio se comparten anotaciones en el marco de mi taller en #compedu17 / 12 de mayo de 2017.
Hoy, viernes 29 de abril, estamos compartiendo anotaciones abiertas con los colegas de #STEMmED en @sagradoedu. Saludos a tod@s, también a los participantes del #mpw2 de @hetsorg.
The top players, it turns out, can’t fully access their own knowledge about how they’re able to perform so well. This self-ignorance is common to many human abilities, from driving a car in traffic to recognizing a face. This strange state of affairs was beautifully summarized by the philosopher and scientist Michael Polanyi, who said, “We know more than we can tell.” It’s a phenomenon that has come to be known as “Polanyi’s Paradox.”
"The top players, it turns out, can’t fully access their own knowledge about how they’re able to perform so well. This self-ignorance is common to many human abilities, from driving a car in traffic to recognizing a face.[...] It’s a phenomenon that has come to be known as “Polanyi’s Paradox.”
What if the mystery of "consciousness", i.e. the ability of being conscious of oneself were just that? Is it there really "consciousness"?
AlphaGo no more understands the game of Go than a robot mower understands the concept of a lawn. What it understands is zeroes and ones, and the patterns that can be drawn from their prodigiously smart crunching.
Reallyy?? I am just reading that so many humans' do not not comprehend at all most of their decisions and acts. Furthermore, most significant decisions and mindful processing are taken by the subconscious.
So, what does it mean to "understand", really? Are we sure that AlphaGo's pure number-crunching is not equivalent to some sense of understanding? And cannot it be that the relative "awareness" of some of our being comes from that simple, non-intelligent number-crunching?
It’s that we don’t allow these conversations to happen in the first place because we keep our phones in the landscape.
Are we sure the technology that mediates conversations actually impedes it or at least diminishes them? After all, tech has always mediated conversation (ie. telephone, pencils, language...).
For example, when the telephone was introduced, some people actually feared it would take intimacy out of the conversation. Did it happen?
Cannot it be simply that the very idea of conversation changes with time and the technologies which mediate it?