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.
A learning rate of 0.15 and a momentum of 0.5 were used during training of the first-order network. In a first condition of high awareness, the second network was trained with a learning rate of 0.1, and in a second condition of low awareness, a learning rate of 10⁻⁷ was applied. Ten networks were trained to perform their tasks concurrently throughout 200 epochs of training and their performance averaged. The performance of all three networks is depicted in
Figure 3.
You confuse the development of consistent representations (patterns of activation over processing units) (Cleeremans 6) with the phenomenology of a conscious experience begotten thereof.
Which part of my post indicates that confusion? I thought this was covered when I acknowledged "learning from emotional experience," where learning is to "conscious experience begotten thereof," and the emotional experience itself is to "patterns of activation over processing units."
