Psychology & Neuroscience Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for practitioners, researchers, and students in cognitive science, psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry. It only takes a minute to sign up.
The more I think about the difference between learning and Pavlovian conditioning, the more I'm unable to see how they differ. Even though in theory associative learning is just a portion of learning.
Here is the classical conditioning:
What if we have an observer watching the process? I think that even when the food and the bell are not for them, the fact that they observe their effects to the dog can lead them to a condition response as well. The process is as follow:
Before conditioning: the observer has a belief that that food will make the dog excretes salivation, but bell alone is not. We say that the belief "food will make the dog excretes salivation" is an unconditioned belief, and "bell won't make the dog excretes salivation" a no-conditioned belief.
After conditioning: the observer has a new belief that "bell alone will still make the dog excretes salivation". This belief is a conditioned belief.
We have this analogy:
Unconditioned observation: Observe that the dog is fed
Conditioned observation: Observe that the dog hears the bell
Conditioned belief: Food will make the dog salivating
Unconditioned belief: Bell alone will still make the dog salivating
In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response and conditioned response is the same (both are salivating). In the analogy, the unconditioned belief is not the same with the conditioned belief.
In Pavlov experiment, the unconditioned response can only happen after the unconditioned stimulus. In the analogy, the unconditioned belief can be recalled ("activated") even though there is no unconditioned observation.