> In the science fiction books I read as a kid, reading had often been replaced by some more efficient way of acquiring knowledge. Mysterious "tapes" would load it into one's brain like a program being loaded into a computer. That sort of thing is unlikely to happen anytime soon [...] because even if one existed, it would be insufficient. Reading about x doesn't just teach you about x; it also teaches you how to write.
Well, but if we could produce a tape that taught x, presumably we could also produce a tape that taught writing.
I think he’s referencing Asimov’s profession novella there, though the main point of that story was that the protagonist couldn’t get the tapes because of the capability for original thought (some people had to make the tapes).
And yeah, probably a tape that structured your brain in some way that had the knowledge may include the prerequisites necessary for it to work (better language/reasoning and writing).
But even if it didn’t, Asimov’s story agrees with him - it was insufficient. It’s why they made some people avoid the tapes.
I haven't read that Asimov story. However, I suppose the core question is this: from a neurological perspective, is learning factual information different from learning a skill?
I'm inclined to believe it's not, because we're actually pretty bad at rote memorization. We usually need to understand the memory—how it can be used, or why it's important. Professionals construct "mental palaces", effectively building artificial meaning.
Well, but if we could produce a tape that taught x, presumably we could also produce a tape that taught writing.