From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: what is consciousness for?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:14:34 GMT

In article <BtG0Eq.KBz@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> cpshelle@logos.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>[...]
>> When you are riding a bicycle, the procedure to turn left is:
>>    turn the handlebars slightly to the right;
>>[...]

>So, if I understand you correctly, the difference between conscious
>and unconscious learning is not necessarily what is learned or how,
>but the awareness (or intention?) of learning.  At least this is the
>meaning I take from "it helps to not have the conscious fighting the
>unconscious for control" in the bicycle example.

In the case of the bicycle example, what is learned consciously is of a
different nature from that learned unconsciously.  Your conscious
learning about bikes is largely in the form of acquiring formal rules:
"to turn left lean the bike to the left and turn the handlebars left".
Your unconscious knowledge is more in the form of recognition of
patterns, perhaps quite complex patterns, and reaction to them.  Your
unconscious has detected an association between turning the handlebars
right, and turning a corner to the left.  But it is not a formal rule.
The unconscious learning does not have the type of formal structure you
tend to associate with knowledge.  It is more a cumulative effect of
experience.

>                                                  It seems that
>conscious learning is [not] really learning per se, but lubrication for
>unconscious learning.

I've taken the liberty to add the word "not" above.  I'm guessing that
was what you were intending to say.  To a large extent I agree.  I
believe unconscious learning is vitally important, and a major function
of consciousness is to expedite unconscious learning.  This might seem
to contradict my comments on formal structure and conscious learning.
But the formal structures of conscious knowledge are usually encoded
linguistically, and the unconscious can learn to recognize the patterns
of associated words without regard to whether they represent a formal
structure or not.

>                       But if the conscious and unconscious can be at
>odds during learning, then the presence of a consciousness doesn't
>seem to guarantee that learning will be more accurate or rapid, does
>it?

I would say that conscious learning is less accurate than unconscious
learning.  Perhaps this is because it is rapid, so based on less
experience.  As for rapidity of conscious learning, this is due to
consciousness providing a feedback system which reinforces learning.
That is, since we are aware of our conscious thoughts, they are in
effect recycled as input, and this constitutes a reinforcing feedback.

>Is it possible that, rather than providing rapidity, consciousness
>provides breadth to the range of things that can be learned?

An excellent question.  However I think this has it backwards.  That
is, unconscious learning is already quite broad.  Consciousness
provides a focus, so provides narrower learning.  By way of example,
conscious rote memorization is very narrow.  The unconscious learning
associated with the bicycle example requires very broad learning, since
a non-obvious association was learned.