Abstract/Summary

In this reply to Neal and Hesketh and to the commentators, we argue that implicit knowledge is partly abstract and can be usefully defined by the criteria of both metaknowledge and intentional control. We suggest that the pattern of dissociations supports a claim of separate implicit and explicit learning modes. According to our characterization, implicit learning leads to knowledge that is not automatically represented as knowledge by the learning process; instead, the presence of knowledge has to be inferred by the subject (partial explicitation) if metaknowledge is gained at all. During explicit learning, knowledge is automatically labeled as knowledge by the learning process, so that metaknowledge comes immediately and to the fullest extent. Finally, we suggest that implicit knowledge may to some degree apply regardless of intention.