This can get worse.
Havind read @head-teach.bsky.social excellent latest post seems a good time to share this again.
On why we might be making terrible mistakes around how we're framing the new drive to inclusion.
bennewmark.wordpress.com/2026/03/26/t...
And that is what my question aims at. What is the perception situation and actions
All you are doing is restating my first principle. Actions have actants. What is the nature of these actants when change happens via imaginally situated action?
My chosen 1st principle is change only occurs via action.
Learning is a change.
Therefore learning occurs via action.
So what is the nature of this action?
In my classroom it is ~90% via imaginal sense making rather than via physical action.
What’s the nature of this imaginable sense making action?
Sheffield welcomes you.
Oh. I didn’t recognise any of your points as arguing against my position. It seems to me that you are confining your arguments about learning to a knowing about learning from a third person perspective rather than learning being a first person process. Seems both are valid.
Learning most definitely is an action. But the action they are doing as they are listening to my explanation is not visible. The action they are doing is a kind of imaginal subconscious sense making of their perceived situation. This sense making is mostly hidden from them & totally hidden from me.
Yes I would say Christian’s stock and flow diagrams are explanatory models that externalise snd make explicit the relevant logical causal chains they can use to understand biological systems.
Rather than pupils making choices based upon fuzzy half hidden causal logic.
I agree with you Peter. The unfolding choice making of both the teacher and the pupils in the classroom is the the most important thing for me to consider.
That is why I am chasing the nature of sense making.
What are your thoughts on choice?
Well embodiment is the inclusion of knowing via tethering to physical interaction and AI is already being tethered to physical interaction. But yes this physical embodiment is not human physical embodiment.
😀
It isn’t easy to know what a community of LLMs entails. It’s certainly tethered to the history of human knowledge. But what part of being human is missing that is important to this interaction?
And what difference if any would it make if both of these situations were managed by AI rather than a person?
But then the question is, are there meaningful differences between being motivated when interacting with objects or interacting with people?
And is there a difference in the meaning that emerges from each interaction?
If you have ever taught biology, it is obvious that this explanatory model building approach is so much better than just teaching the facts, descriptions and explanations.
youtu.be/Ux2-Y_6IryM?...
Lovely consistent way to help pupils to build explanatory models that make sense to them which then helps them to make sense of the otherwise isolated details.
I also really like the clarity of the step between direct reading of the model to extended inferences from the model.
Metaphors serve as metaphors if they refer to something that has obvious meaning to the person and so that meaning will be analogously associated to the item of interest.
If a metaphor does not have obvious meaning it does not serve as a metaphor.
Yes. The metaphors to try to describe and understand the mind have always been a reflection of the most powerful technology of that time. If the mechanism of that technology is graspable to most people then its mechanism becomes the metaphor of the mind.
Yes. I agree the importance of transience dwarfs all the other effects. But as soon as we take seriously the transience we realise there is another blind spot which is the learner. Their prior experience is instrumental to the importance of transience at any given moment.
All of what has come before is still very relevant to teaching in our classrooms but from this point onward, the point of judgement, this is where it is now starting to become particularly relevant to classrooms.
If anyone is interested I might think about the mythic & theoretic stages later.
/10
The demonstrator no longer has direct feedback and now has to judge when they need to mitigate the transient effect by slowing and repeating.
/9
If they just watch us rather than copying as we are showing then they are completely reliant on imaginal mimicry to remember how to do that skill later. The understanding transience effect is is now very important.
/8
However, running alongside the physical action is the mental action, the imaginal mimicry. The imaginal and physical mimicry support each other to remember and correctly carry out the skill later.
/7
If they are copying me as I am showing, the effect of transience obvious because I can see the learner is not keeping up, we can easily mitigate the transient effect because we get direct feedback. We slow down, we repeat. This doing by the pupil then causes a physical change. (Physical memory).
/6
Mimetic stage. Is now externalising the internal with the intention of change in another individual. It is I show they do. There are two types.
/5
(later mnemonics were created to artificially increase the relevance of not very relevant information by deliberately attaching episodic associations to the information)
/4
Will we remember the current event later? That depends on the relevance of the current situation. The more relevant the more change it causes to us the higher chance of remembering later. Transience is inbuilt to this process. Some episodic things we remember most we do not.
/3
The episodic stage is an internal process, it is automatic pattern recognition of the situation to a stored change due to a prior experience. It is immediate and automatic happening in the now. In this episodic stage there is no understanding transience because we either understand or we don’t.
/2
Thinking about transience and Donald’s stages.
There are two ways to view transience. The transient affect on the understanding of the now and the transient affect on the remembering later. We could call these the understanding transience and the remembering transience.
/1
Aha.
So total gravity is conserved.
And, if we can increase the mass of the planet we would all feel less gravitas.
Bigger is better!
It all makes sense.