Marvin,

The image/metaphor of an ''event horizon'' is very interesting.  In physics, it is a limit for the existence of space time defining a black hole.  We can re-use this image for consciousness as a limit of what could be understood and which is ''experience'': a nexus of growth of our interaction.  I like this metaphor. And this consciousness, which each of us is is the constructor that each of us is, constructor of our interaction, our nexus of growth.  Conceptually we will never reach there but existentially we are all there.

In constructivism the subject, driven by his own interests, builds actively his own concept of reality through a process of integration of multiple perspectives offered.

Constructivism regains some concepts of positivism and neo-positivism: knowledge as an active construction of the subject, is present in most research.

Learning is not seen only as a personal activity, but as the result of a collective dimension of interpretation of reality. New knowledge is built not only and especially on the basis of what has been gained in past experiences, but also through sharing and negotiation of meanings expressed by a "community of actors".

Constructivism so defined, for various changes on the cultural, philosophical level and on technological research, originated as a new theoretical framework in the 70s and 80s. It stems from the collapse of the idea that knowledge can be objectively learned.

It arises primarily as a need of abandoning cognitive HIP (Human Information Processing) that has never completely given up some of its mechanistic components of behaviorism.

The main concepts which characterize the present constructivism are the following:

1) knowledge is the product of an active construction of the subject,

2) knowledge has character "located", anchored in the concrete context,

3) knowledge takes place through particular forms of collaboration and social negotiation

In the foreground is placed the "construction of meaning" emphasizing the activity character  not predictable of such an activity.

Therefore, the theory of knowledge (epistemology) of constructivists postulates that knowing be

the product of an active construction by the subject, closely connected to the concrete situation in which learning takes place rising from the social collaboration and interpersonal communication.

The philosopher and cybernetic Ernst von Glasersfeld in speaking of constructivism and its philosophical reflections asserts that human knowledge continuing a "true" or "objective" representation of a world that already exists "in itself", has determined the history of Western philosophy from its beginning until today. Ensued ingenious attempts to solve a paradox, namely that to prove a certain "truth" it would be necessary to compare all knowledge with that part of the reality that it is supposed to represent; but to make this comparison, it should have access to the reality as it was before going through the operations of the subject observer. In other words, such a proof of authenticity would require a comparison between one thing that is known and another unknown.

Already the pre-Socratics, half a millennium before Christ, knew that insurmountable paradox and provided to the school of Pirrone material for the formulation of the main arguments that all the skeptics to follow have not ceased to repeat.

For this reason, the skepticism has always stressed the need to find an alternative theory of knowledge which should be based on the fact that

1) knowledge is not something passively received, but something that the thinking subject constructs actively;

2) the cognitive function is adaptive, useful to the organization of the world of experiences and not the discovery of ontological reality.

Usually, however, skeptics declared that the reliable and true knowledge is impossible: they have decided not to change the concept of knowing.

Paraphrasing Ernst von Glasersfeld: over the last twenty years or so, it has been recognized the influence that constructivism exercised on teaching methods aimed at encouraging the thinking subject to build, adapting on the base of experience. The cases in which this approach has been applied have given generally successful results attested by an extensive literature. But there was also an inevitable backlash, a reaction that has taken the name of constructionism arguing that the conception of language and society reflects things that have a life of their own and independent as well as the construction of individual minds. The taking of some correspondence remains a metaphysical fiction since no confirmation of that correspondence can be provided as part of experience. Constructivism is a theory of knowledge and concerns, not how much it could "exist", but just how much can be known rationally.

I totally agree with your statement that objectivity is not outside and independent of the subject. If the subject is the learner in our teaching/learning context, it is the learner who will come across knowledge, interact with it, accept, adapt and acquire it or interact, attempt to adapt and reject it depending on their need, interest, motivation and existing schemata. Therefore, I love the idea in constructivism that "the subject, driven by his own interests, builds actively his own concept of reality through a process of integration of multiple perspectives offered." No matter how much you encourage, push or demand from the learner to get the new knowledge, s/he may fail to acquire it without his/her intrinsic motivation.

Dr. Tucci,

Given your excellent exposition, I would favor to disagree on few instances: First, the view that skeptics hold about acquisition of knowledge, i.e., "knowledge is not something passively received..."- is a flawed concept. Let me elaborate on this issue.

The concept of knowing has several dimensions. It is not just human beings that learn and gain knowledge: knowing means having acquaintance with something previously unknown. The reason that learning and knowing is confined to human beings has been challenged by many scholars of thought, as Dennett's (1995) excellent elucidation on animal learning and behavior throw light on the nature of animal behavior and learning. Learning, which mostly occurs in animals, is of passive in nature. Active learning which is goal oriented, perhaps lacks in animals. Animals by far depend mostly on transduced information since they lack a central representation mechanism/system. They also depend on sense behavior where they unify information from all sensual cues which they perceive and act accordingly. This is an example of passive modality of learning. This serves their purpose.

 Furthermore, in human beings learning occurs both actively, and passively. Gain of new knowledge in humans occurs from both perception, cognition and observational activities. It is intention-driven. The aspects of learning are manifold: behavioral, cognitive, observational, perceptional, etc. Whatever may be the modality of learning, it involves some definite constructs. There exists many behavioral methods to study learning in humans and animals, but I am not delving into that.

There are also, two states of perception: active and passive states (Freeman, 1999). In passive modes of learning, stimulus inputs provide information. The nature and amount of information acquired differs in both actively perceived states and passively perceived states. This means that, there are facts and information which we often gain without actually knowing that we are learning:reflexive learning. Learning by passive modes of perception also involve constructs, since the pathway of learning whether active or passive involve common physiological functions; e.g.,processing information, symbols, matching, storing or retrieving information.

While in active learning, we profoundly depend on perception and awareness which involve cognitive functions that enable us to actually “learn” and gain knowledge (goal oriented). However, it is also a flawed notion that we do not learn anything during passive states of perception. In active states of perception, we are busy incorporating complexities of nature into mental constructs. Nevertheless, it is factual that in our active states of learning (or, knowing) constructs modulate how much can be known rationally. Perception of reality and reception of the senses which integrate all the inputs for processing, modulate our cognitive functions which enable us to conceive our immediate "real" environment that involves both dimensions of perception: active perception and the passive one. So, as a matter of fact, some learning occurs or knowledge is gained by passive modalities of perception.

 Nevertheless, it is true as you have mentioned above, objectivity is an integral aspect of the subjective individual, and not outside or independent of the subject.

Ref:

1. Comparison of Brain Models for Active vs. Passive Perception

Walter J Freeman (1999).

2. Animal consciousness: what matters and why.

(In the Company of Animals) Daniel C. Dennett.

Social Research, Fall 1995 v62 n3 p691(20)

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/dennett_anim_csness.html

Best regards,Sidharta

Dear Dr. Tucci.

Constructivism has been sadly perverted by some education departments to elevate process knowledge above content knowledge in such as way to undermine the Enlightenment values on which Western culture is built and which we still need to further progress.

The fundamental tenets of constructivist epistemology say  Knowledge is a construct rather than a compilation of empirical data.

There is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of functional and effective methods.

One cannot focus on an ontological reality, but instead on a constructed reality. Indeed, search for ontological reality is entirely illogical hence verify that one has reached a definitive understanding of the real.

One must already know what Reality consists of Knowledge and reality are products of their cultural context, that is, two independent cultures will likely form different observational methodologies

One can trace constructivist ideas back to 

Heraclitus’ adage "panta rhei (everything flows)" or "you cannot fall in the same river twice"

Protagoras’ claim that   "man is the measure of all things"

The Socratic maxim  "I only know that I know nothing,”

Dear Sidharta Chatterjee,

Since learning is a process that always demands action from the animal (higher animals such as mammals and birds) than it is never passive.  The constrast should be between automated learning and learning where conscious control play a role.  Humans are probably the only animal with some conscious control of learning.

Dear Brassard,

Indeed learning is a sensorimotor function that involves both the perceptual mechanisms and behavioural control. Learning demands attention, as we all know. All actions are motor functions, and I don't deny it. However, it has been debated that there is also a component of subconscious learning which you may call passive learning wherein, the subject do not take any action, but still learns: its only sensory stimulus which triggers such subconscious state of learning. Recent research shows that such passive learning is possible.

Have you ever heard about the concept of sleep learning? Although it is hard to prove actually if someone ever learned anything in sleep, some studies show that it might be possible.

If that is true, then the statement "learning is a process that always demands action" may be reviewed. Yet, whether if learning can occur below the threshold of conscious perception is still debatable.

Higher animals like birds and mammals do learn, but their learning is different from human models of learning. Birds can build their nest consciously, since they have learnt it before, but they can't protect their nests with mortars or bricks.

Well, birds don't go to school... (P.S:).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1476-subliminal-study-shows-subconscious-learning-is-possible/

Dear Sidharta Chatterjee,

I agree with your last post.  The difference between humans and higher non-human animals is attention control.  Most of our learning is taking place subconsciously but we  have some control on what the sub-conscious is working on.

I think animals can endeavor ("the cat captured the mouse') but learning only comes about. he same is rue for humans though they can wish or contemplate to learn or choose a specific path or course with the goal to learn.  Though a simple thought- there  no 'animal schools'-it is natural to blur things and essential  to  ask questions and discuss.  The mind can get seriously side tracked.

   For example I think we all  would agree that all things proceed by contrast/disparity yet we forget the issue when we conjecture the existence of "universal consciousness"-after patting the dog on the head he seems aware, everything seems to have the property to some extent as it reacts.  However the concept of "universal consciousness" is conceived, other than with respect to contrast of the awareness observed in humans and the dog to other existing things, but to nothingness.  Awareness of awareness I think is limited to humans, awareness alone to some animal;,  consciousness is not universal although a common aspect may underlie consciousness, cognition, existence/the existence of anything.  

Marvin,

There is no formal animal schools but there is the custom of the herds, the pods which are changing and the young learn from the group.  Whales songs changes.  Birds have to be exposed to bird songs before learning them.  Primate groups develops new habits over time.  Woolf cubs learn to hunt with the group.  Dolphin participate in group fishing and it has to be learned.  

@Louis   "There is no formal animal schools but there is the custom of the herds,....."

   I had forgotten th evidences  of cultural "learning and transmission in animals. I suppose there are many e.g. groups that hang around together such as birds that ride the backs of larger animals, animals that roam together, transmitted behavior in chimps that guards against a certain disease, the following of wisdoms of pack leaders as one type. 

    Most important to discussion is the existence of an event horizon< I believe necessarily leaves a mark in the animals memory, whether readily aware or not .  In this case there is  a consciousness that can I do not think can be classified separately from human consciousness-postulated to grow from the event horizon.

    My central  point is that what we call "consciousness" comes about from interpretation of a perceptual disparity; is subject determine, subjective rather than objective..

Dear Dr. Brassard,

In your previous comment, you have correctly stated that some animal behaviours are learned behaviours, and to this I add, they learn all those behaviours subconsciously. Off course there are no formal schools for animals, however, some account of animal learning can be ascribed to primates in captives (chimps). Dogs can be trained to identify people, places and objects, and they use sense of smell to accomplish such. Without drifting afar from the topic concerned, it may be agreed upon that instructional modules are absolute necessary for learning, wherein, the subject builds a construct of the reality by absorbing cues, information, facts, data, etc. following immediate perception or observation. Observation is limited to human beings only (since it require attention), whereas higher animals are able to perceive (recognize, seek out, etc.). But this is a too narrow view of the animal world on which I would elaborate later on.

Following information processing, some of the perceived facts (learned actions) are stored as “learned behaviours” while others are discarded. These are constructs which gets stored in the subliminal memory that you may call “learned behaviours”.

As Dr. Turan Paker aptly mentioned in his post above, it is the learner who interacts with knowledge, and adapts it accordingly to build a schema (a representation) of the external reality. One interesting fact is that, the concept of motivation, which Dr. Paker ascribes as “the subject, driven by his own interests, builds actively his own concept of reality”, may be extended to some higher mammals and primates, since learning is driven by intrinsic motivation wherein the subject finds the object of learning interesting, and explores further to satisfy its curiosity. This type of behaviour is typically observed in puppies and chimps. Chimpanzees and apes learn behaviour from each other, and they learn to be compassionate by “observing” others chimps. To be noted, this action- observation is a complex behaviour that requires conscious attention which the chimps elicit. This reminds me of Dr. Goodall’s work on primate behaviour.

Perhaps few scientists might have ever studied primate behaviour in as much detail as possible as Jane Goodall did throughout her entire career devoted to primate behaviour and care. And there is a lot to learn from her research papers/books etc.

http://www.janegoodall.ca/about-chimp-behaviour.php

Best regards, Sidharta

@Louis    There is an important event horizon in my school career with regards to this very topic.

AS an undergraduate in my senior year taking  Advance General Biology I felt fairly disorganized and as if I really didnt understand the material. One day at a class meeting a student bearing a broad grin  discussing animal behavior presented  a large white board with a complex equation involving a limit of of  sums, integrals and differentials and I broke out in laughter.  The professor angrily called me out to the class as an example of a poor student.  I later handed in a 50 page paper  that pointed out my thoughts that involved things other than inherited or instinctual aspects of animal behavior, was treated very  harshly and given a D. My college friend who helped me type it felt I should have saved the paper because it was original containing many things they felt hadnt been thought about.

I think it true that the event horizon comes about almost  immaculately within a latitude of possibility, it may hardly ever be known. but for a professors making a spectacle of a personal view that normally might had passed unmarked. 

to add  I do not think it would be ethical to conduct a search for "event horizons" in nature, does focus at points of perspective no favors,,,vis  myself, grinning student, angered professor, or animal test subjects.

Marvin,

The image/metaphor of an ''event horizon'' is very interesting.  In physics, it is a limit for the existence of space time defining a black hole.  We can re-use this image for consciousness as a limit of what could be understood and which is ''experience'': a nexus of growth of our interaction.  I like this metaphor. And this consciousness, which each of us is is the constructor that each of us is, constructor of our interaction, our nexus of growth.  Conceptually we will never reach there but existentially we are all there.

It's hard to be objective in a society oriented search of bright characters. The objective is a time when virtually nameless activities evaluate descendants.