Hi Chuck,
Speaking as a musician myself, I know what you mean about learning to
play an instrument. I suspect it`s partly why music lessons used to be
considered a normal part of a well-rounded education, back before
everything got "modernized."
What`s interesting to me is some of the information coming out of
robotics. On the one hand, we have digitally programmed robots, costing
millions and millions of dollars. They use pre-programmed logic, where
the operator must guess ahead of time, every possible set of conditions
and program in a response.
On the other hand, we have so-called analog robots, costing about
thirty bucks. They have almost no explicit programming, but instead use
a form of aversion-attraction. They`re given a "task" to perform, and
"learn" the best way to do it through trial an error.
A digitally programmed robot can perform countless types of tasks. The
analog type of robot performs only a very small set of tasks, but does
it a lot better and less expensively.
To my mind, "play" is like being an analog robot. You have
pain-pleasure, and the driver of curiosity. If it works, it causes
pleasure. If it fails, it causes pain. We tend to avoid pain, and move
toward pleasure. However; using this trial-and-error system
accomplishes a particular task only, until or unless we`re given a new
task to learn.
"Learning" goes along with work, and seems to me to be the digital form
of development. The problem is setting up the massive amount of
programming, which would be the 12 years of schooling we start out
with. It`s complex, expensive, not much fun, and carries no real
pain-pleasure incentives. Yet the outcome is a much more sophisticated
system.
My conclusion is that the best of both worlds is to a) teach children
how to improve their adaptation skills, and b) focus on
incentive-punishment systems, while all the time strengthening the
Curiosity Factor. :-)



