Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."
It is interesting to consider under which conditions a representation will remain unconscious based on combining these two principles (Cleeremans, 2008). There are at least four possibilities. First, knowledge that is embedded in the connection weights within and between processing modules can never be directly available to conscious awareness and control. This is simply a consequence of the fact that consciousness, by assumption, necessarily involves representations (patterns of activation over processing units). The knowledge embedded in connection weights will, however, shape the representations that depend on it, and its effects will therefore detectable – but only indirectly, and only to the extent that these effects are sufficiently marked in the corresponding representations. This is equivalent to Dehaene and Changeux’s (2004) principle of “active firing.”
In closing, there is one dimension that I feel is sorely missing from contemporary discussion of consciousness: Emotion (but see, e.g., Damasio, 1999, 2010; LeDoux, 2002; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). Emotion is crucial to learning, for there is no sense in which an agent would learn about anything if the learning failed to do something to it. Conscious experience not only requires an experiencer who has learned about the geography of its own representations, but it also requires experiencers who care about their experiences.
A couple points:
1) With regards to the first quotation (see emboldened phrases): I dislike assumptions. I try to avoid them if possible. In this case, it is.
Also, I find the idea that knowledge is embedded
between processing modules problematic, at least inasmuch as it would be relevant to, well...processing modules. Practically, this consideration seems to fall by the wayside of any relevance, both as a response to my comment and to you or I.
2)
e·mo·tion
əˈmōSH(ə)n/
noun
a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
"she was attempting to control her emotions"
synonyms: feeling, sentiment; More
instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.
"responses have to be based on historical insight, not simply on emotion"
synonyms: instinct, intuition, gut feeling; More
Since we know pre-limbic living things learn, too, I'm focusing on the emboldened characteristics of the word "emotion." Accordingly, I'm having a hard time understanding why learning requires experiencers who care about experiences.
learn·ing
ˈlərniNG/Submit
noun
the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught.
"these children experienced difficulties in learning"
synonyms: study, studying, education, schooling, tuition, teaching, academic work; research
"a center of learning"
knowledge acquired through experience, study, or being taught.
"I liked to parade my learning in front of my sisters"
synonyms: scholarship, knowledge, education, erudition, intellect, enlightenment, illumination, edification, book learning, information, understanding, wisdom
"the astonishing range of his learning"
Based upon these definitions: 1) Emotion is defined independent of reason or knowledge; 2) Learning is knowledge acquisition.
Original claim: Learning requires experiencers care about their experiences.
Premise 1: Emotion = not reason or knowledge
Premise 2: Learning = acquiring knowledge
Premise 3 (Introduced): Caring is an emotional experience.
Rephrased claim: Those able to acquire knowledge are enabled by an unreasonable, unknowledgeable experience.
Edit: To clarify, I understand the differences between general experience, emotional experience, and learning from emotional experience (e.g. "This makes me feel bad/good"). I just don't find it convincing at all that a learner
requires an emotional experience, which by definition provides no reason or knowledge upon which to act. I think we can learn just fine by following logical rules of inference which yield sound conclusions whether we give a damn or not.
Edit 2: I'd like to give some further thought to whether incentives are required for learning.
