A molecular basis for Piagets schme as memorycode

A molecular basis for Piaget’s “schème” (as memory-code): Some surprising implications © R. R. Traill (2012) ------- “notes & references”: www. ondwelle. com/Molecular. Scheme. Notes. pdf Also: You may wish to download the Cette présentation est également disponible en français: www. ondwelle. com/Molecular. Scheme. Fr. ppt

Paper presented at the 42 nd Annual Conference of the Jean Piaget Society 31 May – 2 June, 2012, Toronto, Canada Conference Theme: Rethinking Cognitive Development

I. Piaget as Epistemologist — (Knowledge Theorist) • XEPISTEMOLOGY • What is knowledge? • How is it assembled? • x(& by what mechanisms? ) • How does it relate to the x reality it “depicts”? • How are advanced ideas “written” and retrieved? • XXXXXX etc.

(a) His main agenda -- & ours: xxxxx Knowledge in ●the Brain

(b) but also agenda in a 2 nd domain: x Knowledge in ●Science / Society

(c ) Then there are 2+ further xxx Knowledge-learning domains 1 (“epistemologies”): xx●Immunology & ●Darwinian Evolution • X “Training” • x antibodies D NA

(c ) That makes 4+ altogether. xxx (Each offers helpful analogies): 2

II. Use Piaget’s Approach to the“Science domain” to enhance his Account of the “Brain domain” i. e. …

II. Can JP’s “Science domain” tackle deep mysteries of his “Brain domain”? • (d) • Note the scientific vagueness of most psychology concepts: • x Ego, motive, … , x & even Scheme • Is there a cure? ? ? ? ψ? ?

(e) Science just by Observation? x Piaget (& Hume) saw that as naive: • “Popperians” insist on direct observation BUT: • Hume (1748): that’s never rigorously sound • Piaget (1949) Traité de Logique; (intro. ) • Piaget & Garcia (1983/1989) –x[“P&G”] xx“Psychogenesis and the History of Science”. • &: What about unobservables: e. g. Thought!

(f Theory(with (equilibrated in Science) (f)1)Theory equilibration in Sci. ) n: xx as as an an alternative to direct observ alternative to direct sight: Problem: Unobservables e. g. Thought, (or History) • x in science, (as for individuals) Existing superficial observations Much unsolved Unobservable mystery areas

(f Theory(with (equilibrated in Science) (f)2)Theory equilibration in Sci. ) n: xx as as an an alternative to direct observ alternative to direct sight: Problem: Unobservables e. g. Thought, (or History) • Just add more traditional observations? No!! • Instead collect all sorts ---of observations, • & “Join the dots”, while • Seeking internally- coherent models, -(“extensively plausible”!) in science, (as for individuals) Existing superficial observations Much unsolved Unobservable mystery areas

(f Theory(with (equilibrated in Science) (f)3)Theory equilibration in Sci. ) n: xx as as an an alternative to direct observ alternative to direct sight: Problem: Unobservables e. g. Thought, (or History) • Just add more traditional observations? No!! • Instead collect all sorts ---of observations, • & “Join the dots”, while as a canny Detective! • Seeking internally- coherent models, -(“extensively plausible”!) in science, (as for individuals) Existing superficial observations Unobservable mystery areas

(f Theory(with (equilibrated in Science) (f)4)Theory equilibration in Sci. ) n: xx as as an an alternative to direct observ alternative to direct sight: • x Problem: Unobservables e. g. Thought, (or History) in science, (as for individuals) • Just add more off-topic ---observations? No!! • Instead collect all sorts ---of observations, • & “Join the dots”, while • Seeking internally- coherent models, -(“extensively plausible”!) next Existing superficial observations Unobservable mystery areas

(f Theory(with (equilibrated in Science) (f)5)Theory equilibration in Sci. ) n: xx as as an an alternative to direct observ alternative to direct sight: • x Problem: Unobservables e. g. Thought, (or History) • Just add more off-topic -- observations? No!! • Instead collect all sorts --of observations, • & “Join the dots”, while • Seeking internally--coherent models, -(“extensively plausible”!) in science, (as for individuals) Systems (apparently selfconsistent) that represent theories within science. That’s like “equilibration” within the brain.

(g) Seek “extensively plausible”xx model – if only as an “Aunt Sally” for criticism & improvement-steps • Find plausible “coherently working” The more 1 st coherent obvious system; but theory evidence (but it will often • Don’t expect have anomalies) evidence more instant evidenc e Arcane perfection! evidence • Yet it may be Adapted from Piaget & Garcia (1983) to emphasize the only way their simple starting-point: that theories usually progress E. g. Bohr’s “planet” atom (half true) initial theory best so far revised theory

That was “in principle” but now: III. A Serious Attempt to Transcend Brain-Enigmas:

III. So Brain theory – but now rethought using info-tech, physics & epistemology (h) Helpful properties in hypotheses-for-models: • • Fairly-stable elements – allowed to interact Holistic awareness Not too many conceivable xxsolutions; (1 if true=best!) • Testable in some way: Ambiguity if possible Do the supposed-parts fit: Perception? Each other? ?

(j) Piaget’s potentially stable element-of-thought = “Schème”: • Each is a hypothetical brain-encoding for some __specific action-sequence, including: • Internal & External actions • Overt & Covert actions • Genetic & “Learned” actions • Each Preformed: ----- “In the beginning was the deed!” (Faust / Furth!). • Such spontaneous “Trial & Error acts” (chez l’enfant) - seem comparable to Darwinian Trial-&-Error

(k) Topology of the scheme: Action-codes in a 1 D list Schème-element xas 1 D “text” co-ordinated motor activity beads feedback (+ or – reinforcement) RELEVANT on which STIMULUS we can imagine some useful details: = Programmed-emission “beads” Adap ted from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www. ondw elle. c om/ OSM 05. p df “telephone number” = Label-like beads: TUNED LABEL as aerial ! Adapt ed from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www. (wait for coordinating signal) ondw elle. c om/O SM 05. pdf where: “Wait until input-signal [e. g. LABEL PROPER ] arrives, then proceed” CONTINGENCY WAITS = I. R. photons = acoustic phonon Adapted from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www. ondwelle. com/OSM 05. pdf Note some similarity to computerprograms (at the “machine” level)

(L) Advantages of 1 D text-like coding: • • • Compact • 1 D can co-exist with 2 D -- coding, and even Economical -- embody it (as in TV). Maintainable ----And as a precedent: Easily scanned • 1 D is used by the other Easily copied xx 3 epistemological “What comes next? ” -- domains: ---is usually clear

IV. Implications & Consequences (m 1) Possible 1 D material schemes: • • • Very specialized strings of neurons !? – Never seen? – inefficient+vague Protein? – too lumpy! – and too like bricks! PNA? – too rare and unstable? ? DNA (basic code)? -- too stable! DNA (epigenetic switch-setting)? -- Maybe in part. See below! • RNA? Best guess: x ●Mediumxstability x●Flexibility x x● 97% available as “nc. RNA” for this-&-as-regulators!! xx(Mattick 2000+). [Only 3% used as protein-templates!] x●Direct evidence of involvement (Hydén 1967+, etc. ), xxthough it did not then “make sense”, though see next:

(m 2) Possible 1 D material schemes: • • • Very specialized strings of neurons !? – Never seen? – inefficient+vague Protein? – too lumpy! – and too like bricks! PNA? – too rare and unstable? ? DNA (basic code)? -- too stable! DNA (epigenetic switch-setting)? -- Maybe in part. See below! • RNA? Best guess: x ●Medium stability when alone x●Flexibility x x● 97% available as “nc. RNA” for this-&-as-regulators!! xx(Mattick 2000+). [Only 3% used as protein-templates!] x●Direct evidence of involvement (Hydén 1967+, etc. ), xxthough it did not then “make sense”, though see next:

(n 1) Pre-1980 belief in RNA-role for memory Hydén (1967+) and others showed that RNA-changes did accompany learning. x–– But why largely forgotten now? ? The problems seem to have been: ●Everyone assumed that RNA was merely an aid to synapse-changes – [actually autonomous? ] ●No plausible mechanisms – except very vague! ●Distraction over perhaps-irrelevant experiments on injecting “RNA-memory” into naïve animals. ●In short: The ideas did not really make sense. But now it seems timely to reconsider such work; & Piaget himself took it seriously (“Biol. &Knowl. ” 1967).

(n 2) Pre-1980 belief in RNA-role for memory Hydén (1967+) and others showed that RNA-changes did accompany learning. x–– Why largely forgotten now? ? The problems seem to have been: ●Everyone assumed that RNA was merely an aid to synapse-changes – [actually autonomous? ] ●No plausible mechanisms – except very vague! ●Distraction over perhaps-irrelevant experiments on injecting “RNA-memory” into naïve animals. ●In short: The ideas did not really make sense. But now it seems timely to reconsider such work; & Piaget himself took it seriously (“Biol. &Knowl. ” 1967).

(n 3) Pre-1980 belief in RNA-role for memory Hydén (1967+) and others showed that RNA-changes did accompany learning. x–– Why largely forgotten now? ? The problems seem to have been: ●Everyone assumed that RNA was merely an aid to synapse-changes – [actually autonomous? ] ●No plausible mechanisms – except very vague! ●Distraction over perhaps-irrelevant experiments on injecting “RNA-memory” into naïve animals. ●In short: The ideas did not really make sense. But now it seems timely to reconsider such work; & Piaget himself took it seriously (“Biol. &Knowl. ” 1967).

(n 4) Pre-1980 belief in RNA-role for memory Hydén (1967+) and others showed that RNA-changes did accompany learning. x–– Why largely forgotten now? ? The problems seem to have been: ●Everyone assumed that RNA was merely an aid to synapse-changes – [actually autonomous? ] ●No plausible mechanisms – except very vague! ●Distraction over perhaps-irrelevant experiments on injecting “RNA-memory” into naïve animals. ●In short: The ideas did not really make sense. But now it seems timely to reconsider such work; & Piaget himself took it seriously (“Biol. &Knowl. ” 1967).

(n 5) Pre-1980 belief in RNA-role for memory Hydén (1967+) and others showed that RNA-changes did accompany learning. x–– Why largely forgotten now? ? The problems seem to have been: ●Everyone assumed that RNA was merely an aid to synapse-changes – [actually autonomous? ] ●No plausible mechanisms – except very vague! ●Distraction over perhaps-irrelevant experiments on injecting “RNA-memory” into naïve animals. ●In short: The ideas did not really make sense. But now it seems timely to reconsider such work; & Piaget himself took it seriously (“Biol. &Knowl. ” 1967).

(o 1) So de-throne synapse as THE key element – (of intellect at least) Key Elements for our intelligence-coding? Synapse? No! RNA? Probably! Yet Synaptic systems still clearly have vital roles: ● Contact with outside world – Obviously! ● Pattern-recognition (copied commercially!) ●“Directing Traffic” ● … etc. …

(o 2) So de-throne synapse as THE key element – (of intellect at least) Key Elements for our intelligence-coding? Synapse? No! RNA? Probably! But there are 2 Technical Anomalies which we must look into: Yet Synaptic systems still clearly have vital roles: ● Contact with outside world – Obviously! ● Pattern-recognition (copied commercially!) ●“Directing Traffic” ● … etc. …

Two anomalies in RNA-Scheme idea: V. (p): Single RNA? (q): Action-potential no good here!

(p 1) Single RNAs as unreliable & x unstable: Need “chorus” of clones? x. Schème’s xmolecular “chorus”? co-ordinated motor activity feedback (+ or – reinforcement) RELEVANT STIMULUS & maybe each “high skill” entails its own large well-coordinated “chorus” Adap ted from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www. ondw elle. c om/ OSM 05. p df

(p 2)…and maybe a near-clone-chorus facilitates long-term stability? feedback (+ or – reinforcement) Adap ted from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www. ondw elle. c om/ OSM 05. p df ● IF such coordinating signal-networks exist, xxxmight these also confer mutual stability? ? ? (If so, this could help explain self-organization of Long Term Memory)

(q 1) Efficient communication for such sites? – Needs infra-red (IR). Serious Technical Hitch: • The textbook “voltage-spike” signals are much x---too coarse for sub-molecular code-sites !! • Natural quantum-jumps for such sites would ---require infra-red photons instead !!!!! That clue quickly leads to new realizations: • Myelinated nerves co-axial cables for IR! • Vastly improved “broadband” now available! • =? “ultra-weak” IR photons known since 1923!

(q 2) Efficient communication for such sites? – Needs infra-red (IR). Serious Technical Hitch: • The textbook “voltage-spike” signals are much -- too coarse for sub-molecular code-sites !! • Natural quantum-jumps for such sites would -- require infra-red photons instead !!!!! That clue quickly leads to new realizations: • Myelinated nerves co-axial cables for IR! • Vastly improved “broadband” now available! • =? “ultra-weak” IR photons known since 1923!

VI. New paradigm: New Opportunities ?

VI. New paradigm: New opportunities! (r 1) micro vast hidden capacity: ● 1014 synapses vs 1023 RNA sites? ● 10 -3 sec “spike” vs 10 -14 sec IR-wave -- ie. improvements × 109 & × 1011 --------------------------------------------------------- These allow a radical re-think, e. g. Now feasible for memory-“writing” to be a Darwinian choice from many waiting pre-schèmes, thus solving the “write” enigma!

V. (r 2) micro vast hidden capacity: ● 1014 synapses vs 1023 RNA sites? ● 10 -3 sec “spike” vs 10 -14 sec IR-wave -- ie. improvements × 109 & × 1011 --------------------------------------------------------- These allow a radical re-think, e. g. Now feasible for memory-“writing” to be a Darwinian choice from many waiting preschèmes, thus solving the “write” enigma!

(r 3) micro vast hidden capacity: ● × 109 and × 1011 efficiency ● + Ready-made precision! ● + Ready-made tidy-ordering! ● No need for any “tape recorder”? ---Nature could hardly refuse ---such a digitally-superior offer!? --- despite what mere observation tells us?

(s) The 4 domains. All seem to use: 1 D, trial+error, ext or int test-checks 1 2 A Schème: 1 D? nc. RNA? Antibody (1 D code) DNA (1 D) 1 D-text Use Schème: See…results. Many codes; find what works find survivors Many ideas; observation? Equilibration ( coherence) ? ? Passive “recording”? No, but 2(? ) No! Act effect? (Trial&Error) Yes? espec. Sensori-mot. Physical code used? 3 Test for 4 Test for 5 6 external fit? internal fit? special cases No, except GM/epigenetic Yes! Yes Equilibration coherence? Mixed, and Debatable! ? Often? !

(t 1) Deliberate design? Sometimes: if one domain interferes with another: • Obviously when our human brains override the randomness of: natural immunity genetics the apparent autonomy of Social institutions!!! • But intention & design within the Brain itself? Suppose some Schèmes get the sole role of directing the “normals” (so now less random) That offers a 1 st step to design and intelligence.

(t 2) Deliberate design? Sometimes: if one domain interferes with another: • Obviously when our human brains override the randomness of: natural immunity genetics the apparent autonomy of Social institutions!!! • But intention & design within the Brain itself? Suppose some Schèmes get the sole role of directing the “normals” (so now less random) That offers a 1 st step to design and intelligence. ?

(t 3) Deliberate design? Sometimes: if one domain interferes with another: • Obviously when our human brains override the randomness of: natural immunity genetics the apparent autonomy of Social institutions!!! • But intention & design within the Brain itself? Suppose some Schèmes get the sole role of directing the “normals” (so now less random) That offers a 1 st step to design and intelligence.

(u) Piaget’s stages subdomains? So Pre-op. alters Sensori-motor, etc. NB – The cascade of “interference” – Apparently the key to human intelligence Formal operations subdomain with its own Schèmes Concrete operations subdomain with its own Schèmes Pre-operational subdomain with its own Schèmes Sensorimotor subdomain with “Normal” Schèmes

(z) Unforeseen “spin-offs” from the idea of Infra-Red involvement! That’s another story – not today! [Morphology, Optical interference effects etc. See (2011 a) paper – J. Phys. ] BUT TO SUM UP:

SUMMARY 1. Piaget’s epistemology helps Science-study. 2. So let’s use his method on his own Brain-study (of which the detail has been impossible to “observe”). 3. Conclude: Key Element = RNA (not synapse!) 4. And Key internal-signals are INFRA-RED 5. This offers a 109 -fold increase in efficiency! 6. & … a Darwinian “recording” technique; 7. + … seems to solve enigmas in other bio-fields, including design-ability – and morphology.

Acknowledgements regarding the illustrations not credited elsewhere • The anonymous cartoon of Charles Darwin appeared in The Hornet (22/3/1871) • The brain drawing comes from: W. Wundt (1880) Grundzüge der Physiologischen Psychology, Band I. Leipzig: Engelmann. • I thank Ms Bronwyn Oster for assistance with the drawings of Jean Piaget

THE END (apart from the Appendix) QUESTIONS ? More: www. ondwelle. com + links

APPENDIX (items edited out of the main presentation)

APPENDIX (i) “Start-up” learning (lacking any knowledge of how to learn)! • How? – Getting something out of nothing! • ? Only 1 solution (in any of the 4 domains): viz. Trial-&-error –– with the Darwinian case… as the best known. –– (Life out of chaos). • “What works” oft amounts to “equilibration”? • Stable model Stability in real world so >50% chance of being valid (if dynamic) • Better strategies can come later.

[#]. How build, maintain & randomize physical Scheme-Systems? (v) ? Such “scheme-metabolism” co-evolved with immune system? If so, any inter-domain clues? (w) Random shuffle vs. “mutation” (for variety in candidate schemes)?

(x) Biased mutation-possibilities due to “switching” in DNA codes? (y) “Accommodation” within existing virtual structure? Scheme-swop? ? ! ______________ This is Ondwelle short-monograph No. 16 a: www. ondwelle. com/Molecular. Scheme. ppt The accompanying notes are OSM. No. 16 b: www. ondwelle. com/Molecular. Scheme. Notes. pdf © R. R. Traill, 2012 (June/July) For commercial or multiple use, consult info@copyright. com. au

END OF APPENDIX