Contents - Konrad Lorenz Institute

Theresa S. S. Schilhab
in that the distinction is operationally unclear (e.g.,
BERRY 1996; FRENSCH 1998). It is clearly impossible
to show that lack of report is due to non conscious
awareness of learning. For one, silence with respect
to the learned material could come about as a result
of the subject’s inclination to withhold information
he/she is not confident of (for discussions on methodological
artifacts in implicit tests see BUCHNER/
WIPPICH 2000) 2 . Moreover self-report is by no means
an exhaustive criterion of consciousness (SCHILHAB
2001). (On discussions of self-report and consciousness,
see also DAVIS 1997; GOLDMAN 2000; VELMANS
1996).
Irrespective of operational considerations, perhaps
it is time to get past the conundrum of consciousness
and ask in what way consciousness predicts
the function of the different learning systems.
Though one cannot argue for one process being superior
to another (RAAB 2003), the question of what
is achieved by using one strategy rather than the
other seems theoretically important (see for instance
TAYLOR 2001, WILSON/SCHOOLER 1991). Specifically,
what assets and drawbacks characterise implicit
versus explicit learning In what respect are
they unique and how they might possibly supplement
each other
To REBER, implicit learning is phylogenetically
more original than explicit learning in the sense,
that the former antedates the latter and is in general
dedicated to ensuring survival. Among other things
he predicted distinctive characteristics of implicit
learning such as robustness of the memory as well as
age and IQ independence.
Here, following the approach recommended by
REBER, I characterise implicit and explicit learning
within a phylogenetic framework and go one step
further to analyse the epistemological qualities
(modes of knowledge) specific to each. To characterise
implicit and explicit learning epistemologically
is to explore which functions they were developed
to fulfil. My primary focus will be on contextual
matters in learning. The paper focuses on the issue
of detachment from reality by using either mode of
learning. Specifically, how explicit learning condenses
reality will be considered. Based on this discussion
I will introduce the notion of vertical and
horizontal learning to capture the specific attributes
of implicit and explicit learning respectively. Vertical
learning (i.e., depth) refers to implicit learning
understood as contextual learning based on relational
aspects, such as the connectivity of available
information in learning situations. Horizontal
learning (i.e., width) refers to explicit learning as
context free, abstract learning. The concept of vertical
and horizontal learning clarifies what separates
implicit and explicit learning as regards evolutionary
adaptation. To qualify claims on the consciousness-based
distinction of implicit and explicit learning
REBER (1992, 1993) recently argued for an
evolutionary stance on the different qualities of the
learning systems.
To Be Explicit is to Be Context-Free
Explicit learning is stored as knowledge that can be
represented deliberately by words or other symbols.
The symbolic character of explicit learning makes it
possible to ‘translate’ knowledge obtained in one
‘language’ into different vocabularies by being context
free (DEACON 1998).
To exemplify; we can talk of the capital of France
as Paris, as a red mark on a map, as a fixed letter
string, as the location which accommodates the
Eiffel Tower and the Triumphal Arc or as the city in
which the final stage of the Tour de France ends
(among other designations). All of these designations
have Paris as their referent. Though Paris is determined
differently from one conception to the
other, by disregarding the information specific to
any particular interpretation, one finds the referent
‘Paris’ to be intrinsic to all. 3
Hence ‘Paris’ is implied in all of the above-mentioned
descriptions, and can replace any of them
without changing the meaning of the sentence.
This transparency entails that we are equally capable
of treating the notion in the language of geography
as in the language of professional bike racing.
Thus, the symbolic nature of explicit knowledge
shows extensive manipulability by being detached
from context.
Two Senses of
‘Detachment from Context’
What is meant by detachment from context Taken
at face value, the assertion is false. Paris is always defined
as part of a greater whole, (the bicycle race,
capital of France, scene of the French Revolution
etc.) though the symbolic representation appears to
grasp the essence of Paris. When dealing with different
understandings of Paris we choose perspective.
Initially, as we came to know of Paris some elements
(variables) or contingencies seemed relevant to our
particular idea of Paris, while others were concurrently
discounted as irrelevant. For instance if interested
in bicycling, watching the Tour de France
Evolution and Cognition ❘ 172 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 2