Replying to LO30965 --
Dear Organlearners,
Don Dwiggins wrote:
>Now that's a fascinating question! (Or is it a claim?) My sense is,
>the more complex the organism (or population of organisms), the
>more it's a learning system.
He then continued with:
>Whether the learning cycle above applies to all such learning systems,
>I don't know. It seems like a >reasonable hypothesis, but I wish I
>could take a few months and investigate the biological literature on
>learning in living systems, as well as the literature (philosophical,
>psychological, educational) on the fundamentals of human learning.
Greetings dear Dwig,
Just a short comment.
Your first sentence struck me as most important. I want to agree
completely with you. But i jave my doubts. I think we should make a
distinction between superficial complexity and innate (the best i word
can come up with) complexity.
The learning of a superfical complex system is "thin" whereas the
learning of an innate complex system is profound. (I use profound in
the sense of Dr E Deming.) I have observed this in too many
individuals and organisations to have any doubt. The big question for
me is -- how can an innate complex system be characterised. The 11
essences of a LO (Learning Orgnisation) described by Senge goes a long
way in doing this for complex human organisations.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
This message and attachments are subject to a disclaimer. For full details, please refer to www.it.up.ac.za/documentation/governance/disclaimer/
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.