Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning

The general process view of learning, which guided research into learning for the first half of this century, has come under attack in recent years from several quarters. One form of criticism has come from proponents of the so-called biological boundaries approach to learning. These theorists have presented a variety of data showing that supposedly general laws of learning may in fact be limited in their applicability to different species and learning tasks, and they argue that the limitations are drawn by the nature of each species' adaptation to the particular requirements of its natural environment. The biological boundaries approach has served an important critical function in the move away from general process learning theory, but it is limited in its ability to provide an alternative to the general process approach. In particular, the biological boundaries approach lacks generality, it is in some respects subservient to the general process tradition, and its ecological content is in too many cases limited to ex post facto adaptive explanations of learning skills. A contrasting, ecological approach to learning, which can provide a true alternative to general process theory, is presented. The ecological approach begins by providing an ecological task description for naturally occurring instances of learning; this step answers the question: What does this animal learn to do? The next step is an analysis of the means by which learning occurs in the course of development, answering the question : How does the animal learn to do this? On the basis of such analyses, local principles of adaptation are formulated to account for the learning abilities of individual species. More global principles are sought by generalization among these local principles and may form the basis for a general ecological theory of learning

Session 5: Development, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psychology

Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Workshop in History and Philosophy of Biology, Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, March 23-24 2001 Session 5: Development, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Psycholog

Precis of neuroconstructivism: how the brain constructs cognition

Neuroconstructivism: How the Brain Constructs Cognition proposes a unifying framework for the study of cognitive development that brings together (1) constructivism (which views development as the progressive elaboration of increasingly complex structures), (2) cognitive neuroscience (which aims to understand the neural mechanisms underlying behavior), and (3) computational modeling (which proposes formal and explicit specifications of information processing). The guiding principle of our approach is context dependence, within and (in contrast to Marr [1982]) between levels of organization. We propose that three mechanisms guide the emergence of representations: competition, cooperation, and chronotopy; which themselves allow for two central processes: proactivity and progressive specialization. We suggest that the main outcome of development is partial representations, distributed across distinct functional circuits. This framework is derived by examining development at the level of single neurons, brain systems, and whole organisms. We use the terms encellment, embrainment, and embodiment to describe the higher-level contextual influences that act at each of these levels of organization. To illustrate these mechanisms in operation we provide case studies in early visual perception, infant habituation, phonological development, and object representations in infancy. Three further case studies are concerned with interactions between levels of explanation: social development, atypical development and within that, developmental dyslexia. We conclude that cognitive development arises from a dynamic, contextual change in embodied neural structures leading to partial representations across multiple brain regions and timescales, in response to proactively specified physical and social environment

From Microbial Communities to Distributed Computing Systems

A distributed biological system can be defined as a system whose components are located in different subpopulations, which communicate and coordinate their actions through interpopulation messages and interactions. We see that distributed systems are pervasive in nature, performing computation across all scales, from microbial communities to a flock of birds. We often observe that information processing within communities exhibits a complexity far greater than any single organism. Synthetic biology is an area of research which aims to design and build synthetic biological machines from biological parts to perform a defined function, in a manner similar to the engineering disciplines. However, the field has reached a bottleneck in the complexity of the genetic networks that we can implement using monocultures, facing constraints from metabolic burden and genetic interference. This makes building distributed biological systems an attractive prospect for synthetic biology that would alleviate these constraints and allow us to expand the applications of our systems into areas including complex biosensing and diagnostic tools, bioprocess control and the monitoring of industrial processes. In this review we will discuss the fundamental limitations we face when engineering functionality with a monoculture, and the key areas where distributed systems can provide an advantage. We cite evidence from natural systems that support arguments in favor of distributed systems to overcome the limitations of monocultures. Following this we conduct a comprehensive overview of the synthetic communities that have been built to date, and the components that have been used. The potential computational capabilities of communities are discussed, along with some of the applications that these will be useful for. We discuss some of the challenges with building co-cultures, including the problem of competitive exclusion and maintenance of desired community composition. Finally, we assess computational frameworks currently available to aide in the design of microbial communities and identify areas where we lack the necessary tool

Developmental explanation and the ontogeny of birdsong: Nature/nurture redux

Despite several decades of criticism, dichotomous thinking about behavioral development (the view that the behavioral phenotype can be partitioned into inherited and acquired components) remains widespread and influential. This is particularly true in study of birdsong development, where it has become increasingly common to diagnose songs, elements of songs, or precursors of songs (song templates) as either innate or learned on the basis of isolation-rearing experiments. The theory of sensory templates has encouraged both the dichotomous approach (by providing a role for genetic blueprints to guide song learning) and an emphasis on structural rather than functional aspects of song development. As a result, potentially important lines of investigation have been overlooked and the interpretation of existing data is often flawed. Evidence for a genetic origin of behavioral differences is frequently interpreted as evidence for the genetic determination of behavioral characters. The technique of isolation rearing remains the methodology of choice for many investigators, despite the fact that it offers only a rather crude analysis of the contribution of experience to song development and provides no information at all about genetic contributions to development. The latter could in principle be elucidated by the application of developmental-genetic techniques, but it is unlikely that these can easily be applied to the study of birdsong. Because developmental questions are so often posed in terms of the learned—innate dichotomy, "experience"istaken to be synonymous with "learning" and the possible role of nonobvious contributions to song development has largely been ignored. An alternative approach, based on Daniel Lehrman's interactionist theory of development, permits a more thorough appreciation of the problems that have yet to be addressed, and provides a more secure conceptual foundation for theories of song development