>Memory plays a role in learning. Does it play the biggest role? Let's assume it does. Is learning only memory? I don't think so.
The end result of learning (having learnt) is, I'd say, only memory.
If the memory is of static information or dynamic state (the difference between a file with data and a program's runtime loaded with state) it's still however just memory.
What else would it be?
Sure, the process of learning, on the other hand, can take different forms. Those would be analogous to loading a memory store via different mechanisms.
>Let's say the information is about driving. I can have a driving manual memorized. Can I remember that information about driving? Yes. Have I "learned" driving? No.
Let's say we can distinguish between two types of learnable things.
When it comes to information from the digits of pie or the lyrics of a song, or the periodic table and many other things, having such things memorized is enough for us to say we "learned them".
Your example with driving, however, is not about mere learning some information, but about learning an activity. In your example we can surely say you've learned the contents of the driving manual. That's not the same as learning to drive, but nobody said it is. It is still learning the information within the manual, though.
Now, for learning to drive one would need to learn some/all of the same information (perhaps in another form, simpler, more colloqual, etc), and also the motions involved, how to respond to various road situations, etc. This however is a "loading the memory part".
Isn't the end result the same though? Information (somehow, not really relevant how) stored in the brain of the person that learned to drive (including things like "muscle memory")? The process is not the same as memorizing static information (e.g. a piece of text), but the end result is still a brain that has a new state, similar to an RAM or SSD that has a new state.
See also my point above regarding static vs dynamic memory.
The end result of learning (having learnt) is, I'd say, only memory.
If the memory is of static information or dynamic state (the difference between a file with data and a program's runtime loaded with state) it's still however just memory.
What else would it be?
Sure, the process of learning, on the other hand, can take different forms. Those would be analogous to loading a memory store via different mechanisms.
>Let's say the information is about driving. I can have a driving manual memorized. Can I remember that information about driving? Yes. Have I "learned" driving? No.
Let's say we can distinguish between two types of learnable things.
When it comes to information from the digits of pie or the lyrics of a song, or the periodic table and many other things, having such things memorized is enough for us to say we "learned them".
Your example with driving, however, is not about mere learning some information, but about learning an activity. In your example we can surely say you've learned the contents of the driving manual. That's not the same as learning to drive, but nobody said it is. It is still learning the information within the manual, though.
Now, for learning to drive one would need to learn some/all of the same information (perhaps in another form, simpler, more colloqual, etc), and also the motions involved, how to respond to various road situations, etc. This however is a "loading the memory part".
Isn't the end result the same though? Information (somehow, not really relevant how) stored in the brain of the person that learned to drive (including things like "muscle memory")? The process is not the same as memorizing static information (e.g. a piece of text), but the end result is still a brain that has a new state, similar to an RAM or SSD that has a new state.
See also my point above regarding static vs dynamic memory.