i think the word learning is a misnomer here, the term learning in itself is dubious enough

look to the best line, and i'd argue one of the most important ideas to ingestively portray to a mainstream population, in 2008 cinema, also an argument could be made to increase that reach.. perhaps in the last decade, century, however hyperbolically you care to extend the reach.. from the film burn after reading(i):

CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don't know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I'm fucked if I know what we did.

i think what victor is suggesting here would aide moreso in efforts to improve understanding than facilitate a traditional understanding of learning

when quantum mechanics was young there was a sudden rush of interest in quantum understanding and one of the modes of expressing improvements in that understanding was to create models(ii) sometimes completely replacing old models, if i remember victor even says bohrs name in relation to this concept

this i think is the sorts of things victor is alluding to, stead seeing it as learning think of it as new perspectives to improve understanding.. interestingly though one would have to learn the concepts, both current and avant, in order to know when a new expressive medium improves on the old

so knowledge accumulation is a part of this sort of environment, but arguable only subordinate to the true goals

the shot of the stick figure pushing on a bond between elements in a molecular model i feel is the best representation of this idea

i'd love to have a room like that:

a central tool with supporting data surrounding it
the central tool is imbued with evidencial data w
when i manipulate the tool new data is expressed in different ways around me
i apply my changes physically
the the data maps all changing in sync

lets say i want to try to bond a new element in place of an old one, i can do it physically and watch as the object changes before me

in the picture the stick figure is applying force on that bond, perhaps the idea the figure is testing is what if i bend this bond or strain it, what then? or if i move this bond over here does this better represent our understanding of molecules?
.

my issue with the talk was two fold, i thought victor tended to talk down efforts others have already made or are making to do something with similar goals but in a wholly different means, and victor also failed to mention the number of people already doing the very things he is suggesting,
it came off as unnecessarily dramatic and i found those were the times when he really lost me to wandering thoughts

and also i found it interesting that victor seemed to suggest this new dynamic reality would manifest without the use of current forms of creation

things like, ~programming of the future will be different than programming of today~ which i both agree and disagree with, i think both the current and future ways to program will be in tandem and it will be more of a matter of who touches what aspects of it,

i think like hardware design and manufacture programming will become a specialised field

look at compilers, that is people really interested in low level bit moving granting people with high level interests.. in the programming sense stead some cogitive nobile sense.. access to their expertise from within the comforts of the higher level

the same i believe will be true but that gap will likely grow as it has with hardware manufacture

there will always be a need and opportunity for tinkers to challenge the manufacture to keep it fresh, like the hardware scene(iii), but realistically this shift in software will most likely have the same dramatic effect on quality of life as the hardware model has

.

(i) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt

(ii) https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/atomic-model-timeline--3

(iii) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdcKwOo7dmM