Neurophilosophy Self-eval

Chris Kawecki, Self-Evaluation,Neurophilosophy, December 1992
	As I consider the class, I realize two things: that I
learned very much on my own, and that I didn't learn much in
class. As might be expected for somone jumping into a 200 level
class in his first semester, I found that the material became
more comprehensible as I gained a good base of the cognitive
science thought process. I concentrated on comprehension of the
readings, which made some weeks much harder in terms of homework
since I ended up reading passages twice and three times. This is
not to say that I breezed through the last readings- far from
it. But the arguments made were reasonable and applicable,
whereas at the beginning of the year it was hard to grasp
Newell. In a sence, the gains I made this term can be grouped
as: an intuitive ability to question the implications of
cognitive science arguments, and an understanding of various
paradigms for brain activity. Perhaps Newell would identify this
as small-scale chunking and large-scale chunking, based on the
smaller chunks.
	I wish the class had been based on something other than the
reading of people's notes. Mere note reading made for a rather
unenlightening class, as I too had read the book, and, though I
did not make or read notes, I am quite convinced I got everything
when I read it. I have found that those classes which are most
productive take as a given that you understand and have read,
and use the class to use that knowledge as the basis for further
exploration. Indeed, to use what I have learned, I am certain,
is the way I learn things best, not to review. I am disappointed
at my fellow students for not realizing how boring and
unenlightening classes were, and changing them, and at myself
for not being able to figure out a way to tell them this.
Individual discussion with a few students seemed to have little
impact on their class-running; perhaps as a Hegel-applier
suggests they must become even more bored before overthrowing
boringness. Yet recent evidence suggests this is not the case.
	In fact, the day I ran class, I made an effort to get people
to use what they had gained, by analyzing different aspects of
the Pandemonium model and making a connectionist model of their
own. I think it was successful; indeed, even though many people
came into class with a very poor idea of connectionism each had a
better idea of its theory and applicability leaving.
	My final project was a wonderful experience for learning.
It gave me rather a lot of what will probably be worthwhile
experience manipulating computer models, in addition to the
practical grounding of theory I have found essiantial to my
learning. I am very pleased with my progress on my final project,
though it is admittedly not what it will be once I am done with
it this spring. I hope that my apparently exponential ability
with Rumelhart & McClelland's models will continue this spring
so that I can realize the errors I made with my models this
term. I have throughout the term been motivated to think by the
material, and so I would call the combination of this course and
my interest a success.