[throwie_wayward]

IMO, such a viewpoint about "learning" is limited to learning 'knowledge'; i.e. this sort of 'learning' is limited to repeating (replicating) facts external.

I wonder, if learning is remembering, then what is "understanding"??

from my own viewpoint, learning is about something external; for example "what's the word for such and such concept?" ..in english or in spanish?

point being that you need a corpus of consensus about what the specific linguistic-culture calls the learned concept.

but then, what does it mean to understand?

I think the way towards making sense of this (answering it) needs to consider learning of physical (do-able) actions. Because when considering such skills as learned/understood, the distinction between learn/understand seems to vanish.

So then maybe understanding has more to do with having learned something to a proficiency level that allows one to teach (show/explain) to another how to do that action?

finally, to throw a proverbial wrench into my own attempts to make sense, what does it mean to perceive something complicated, such as the meaning out of arbitrary alphabetic glyphs? how is the meaning out of a text understood? what did we have to learn to be able to do it? is it just a matter of knowing most of the contents of a dictionary??

[thenerdhead]

This is cognitive science in a nutshell. Most early philosophers argued exactly what "wisdom" means both externally and internally. Look to the Socratic philosophers for simplified explanations.