Talk:Neural Darwinism

Terseness of the article

This comes off as a graduate-level reading. Perhaps one or more persons may break it down and simplify it? - Dennis Francis Blewett III

Replication

It states that replication is a precondition for selection, and that the absence of replication in fact logically falsifies Neural Dariwnism. Although Crick probably (like many others) believes this, it is not at all uncomplicatedly true. I have myself published on this topic and I think it's not just a mistake but a quite serious mistake whose commonness only makes it worse. I will not go into the details here, nor do I think that is necessary in the article - for those interested, the refs are below. It should state something like "Crick argues that this..." or something like that - not state it as an uncontroversial truth. The references are (as I said, not necessarily relevant for the article):

Andersson, Claes. 2008. “Sophisticated selectionism as a general theory of knowledge.” Biology and Philosophy 23(2):229-242. Andersson, Claes. 2011. “Splitting the replicator: generalized Darwinism and the place of culture in Nature.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.11.108 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Previous work of Jean-Pierre Changeux

The article does not mention even in passing the prior work of Changeux, although it definitively should. A previous formalized theory of a pre-existing neural connections followed by selection by activity was presented in "Changeux JP, Courrege P, Danchin A (1973). Theory of epigenesis of neuronal networks by selective stabilization of synapses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 70: 2974-2978". The original article is very mathematical, and people generally quote the later review "Changeux JP, Danchin A (1976). Selective stabilization of developing synapses as a mechanism for the specificication of neuronal networks Nature, 264 (1976) 705—712". Edelman's book heavily borrowed from Changeux's ideas, and it is not difficult to see the "neuronal groups" as equivalent to Changeux's "neuronal graphs". Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Second that. Other significant precursors are Turing's "A-brain and B-brain" paper, which itself took some of its inspiration from Hebb's initial ideas on synapse reinforcement through use.137.205.183.109 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference to Hayek

I do not dare to edit this entry at that place by myself. I think that I was the one who pointed out the relation between Hayek and Edelman for the first time. This was in: Carsten Herrmann-Pillath, The Brain, Its Sensory Order and the Evolutionary Concept of Mind, On Hayek's Contribution to Evolutionary Epistemology, in: Journal for Social and Biological Structures 15/2, 1992, 145-187. http://ssrn.com/abstract=950592 A scan of that paper (the journal is now defunct) can be found on the SSRN website as indicated. I will appreciate if somebody can check this and may find it worthwhile to insert this citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cahepil (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't want to add the citation because I haven't read Hayek and don't really want to, but I don't see any reason why you shouldn't add it -- you've certainly been transparent enough about your involvement. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read both Hayek's book and some of Edleman's writings in this area. I noticed the connection on my own, being unfamiliar with the Hermann-Pillath paper. I feel you can legitimately add the citation.StN (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtually

Virtually all biologists support Neutar Darwinism, so what's the point in listing two names ? --Taw

They are 'leading proponents'. I incline towards the Neural Darwinist theory (or at least my currently dominant neural subsystem does), but I am not a 'leading proponent' of the theory. These guys have written books advocating the theory. -- The Anome

Why no discussion of the criticisms of Neural Darwinism? They do exist, and they're not all Creationists. - Discolando 10:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

This theory could be a part of general theory of the Consciousness, which has to include it as a biological explanation of formation of "the cultural emotions" in the human consciousness. This understanding could be a one of "fundamental stone" in understanding of whole structure of the human Consciousness.--Eugene Gaufman 07:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Neural Darwinism refers to Edelman's theory, because as Taw says, virtually all scientists would support the proposal that the brain is a product of evolution (natural selection). And in fact, not to support that claim is probably to deny evolutionary theory. When scientists talk of "neural darwinism" they mean Edelman's theory. And that theory says something quite different than that the brain evolved. The theory is that a homologue of natural selection occurs amongst groups of neurons during the lifetime of an animal to effect neural development. the environment and animal's reward ("pleasure", "reinforcement") systems play the role of selector.

So, this article needs changing, preferably by someone who has read Edelman's book, and is familiar with what is going on! Perhaps I'll do it if I get some time.

I'm almost done with it so maybe I'll attempt it as well. --1000Faces 04:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

If the article title is meant to name the theory it should not be capitalized (see MOS:CAPS), but if it is applied to the book, of course it should be capitalized. What do you think? --Blainster 11:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Uses in technology

I'm not an expert on Neural Darwinism, so I'll make this comment and let other editors can consider it. Background to comment from material on genetic programming with Wikipedia links added by me: "William James, the father of American psychology, argued in 1874, just 15 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species that mental processes could operate in a Darwinian manner. Evidence in cognitive research shows such competing patterns of thought and consciousness, where we consciously perceive only the tip of the iceberg. A very good overview of these thoughts is provided by Nobel laureate Gerald M. Edelman in his seminal book Neural Darwinism from 1987." It seems the most compelling, simple explanation, is that evolution of thoughts is fundamental to our adaptive nature and is an advanced survival mechanism: allowing destructive thoughts to die instead of the species. Application in technology: I've recently listened to the Singularity Summits (online) in which the transition to smarter than human technology was discussed (and have also been reading, etc.). There is a concensus among AI scientists that most advanced and promising area of evolutionary algorithm (inspired by natural evolution, this area of technology evolves software) is genetic programming (using mechanisms cross-over and mutation). A great first source in this area is "Genetic Programming, An Introduction," by Banzhaf, Nordin, Keller, and Franconé. But there is also already an entry on genetic programming in Wikipedia. GP was started by John Koza, who also has a Wikipedia entry. Development of "a complete cognitive system for robotics" based on GP and the work of Peter Nordin has been announced by irobis [1]. Rogerfgay 09:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding whether that is just a comment or whether you're proposing a change to an article. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Replace this description of the concept with the one at Gerald Edelman

Can I propose replacing the present description of neural Darwinism with the clearer, less jargon-laden description at Gerald Edelman? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Differential Amplification of Selected Variants Within A Population Generalizes the Replication Requirement

This strength of my opinion on this is open to debate, but I believe that Edelman deals with the issue of replication by generalizing the concept as a differential amplification of selected elements within a population of variant elemements. There are at least two fundamentally different contexts within which this can take place: 1) within a population made up of individual replicators as Darwin proposed OR 2) within an physical structure comprised of a population of elements that can differentially respond to future events on the basis of past experience, much as Jean-Pierre Changeux proposed in his Theory of Synaptic Stabilization. Edelman explicitly acknowledges Changeux's contribution and inspiration in the intro to Neural Darwinism.

Replication can be of individuals within a population, but in Changeux and Edelman's telling it can also occur as the enhanced response of adaptive configurations within the nervous system. It is the (degenerate) replication of a specific response within a system of potential responses the system is capable of. It is the increased response of one cell assembly or neuronal group relative to other cell assemblies or neuronal groups that evolves over time in response to the hedonic evaluaion of environmental circumstances. The population is made up of response elements, the selection mechanism is the result of hedonic feedback, and the differential amplification is of changes in the strength of weighted elements of the system. This process is the basis of adaption, memory, and recognition in structures organized on the basis of the principles of somatic selection.

I would have to review the material related to replication-based critiques of the theory to adequately respond to their criticisms, but I believe the confusion most people have regards the way Changeux and Edelman have extended the type of systems that selection can occur within. Edelman's concept of selective systems is far-reaching, having implications for biology far beyond just immunology, embryology, and neuroscience. He has also shown how this concept can be applied to populations of small rRNA complimentary-fragments in the modulation of protein synthesis at the Ribosome - allowing for diffenential amplification or suppression of gene expression beyond that of transcription. By extending the Selective System framework beyond replication of individual structures to include replication of functional response elements, the concept can be applied to almost the entire range of biological phenomena - metabolic pathways, genes, ribosomes, cell membranes, cells, cell populations, multi-cellular organisms, ecologies and bioshperes when the appropriate elements have been identified. The term Neural Darwinism really only covers the application of the much broader idea of Somatic Selective Systems to the nervous system.

Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of sections

Jtwsaddress42 you proposed the following reorganization of the article on my talk page:

I was thinking of organizing the overall layout of the article similar to the way Edelman does in Neural Darwinism, since this is the core work. He divides the book into three main sections, Somatic Selection, Epigenetic Mechanisms, and Global Functions. I was thinking that the main sections might go:

   Introduction to Neural Darwinism
   Population Thinking - Somatic selective systems
   Topobiology - Genetic and Epigenetic Mechanisms
   Building a theory of global brain function
   TNGS - The theory of neuronal group selection
   Reception

After the intro, the next three sections would layout the necessary background, science, and philosophy required to make sense of what TNGS is trying to do and why Edelman takes the approach he does. The TNGS section would layout a concise, but properly detailed, statement of the theory and it's postulates. By doing it this way, the subtopics can be organized in a coherent fashion that is consistent with the way Edelman presented the work.
— User:Jtwsaddress42 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a couple of thoughts on this:

• First, I think we have to get clear on whether this article is about the concept or the book Neural Darwinism.
• Second, if this article is about the book, then a restructure like this makes sense, if the article is about the concept, then I would oppose such a restructure. Because the topic Neural Darwinism needs more: it needs an introduction, explanation, situation in the literature(?), it needs a receptions section, and in general the next point:
• Third, still on the same, if this article is about the concept ND then I think this article relies to heavily on one source (Edelman). The concept is important enough (I think) that other authors' perspectives need to be included.
• Fourth, I think you are on good track of making this into a good article the way you are working on this , but I think the issues about (a) scope: book vs concept and (b) depth: relying to heavily on one source would need to be sorted out.

Proposal: One, perhaps the easiest, way would be to split this article into two: Neural Darwinism and Neural Darwinism (book), that way you could even have productive links between the two and reference the other without confusing the reader... What do you think? As always, feel free to disagree or disregard whatever I said here. :)

-- Mvbaron (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for the feedback and thoughtful words... Give me some time to mull them over and see what might be done... much appreciated though.

I like the idea of this article being about "Neural Darwinism" as part of a broader background philosophy that Edelman developed. I think the concept of Neural Darwinism goes beyond the book and encompasses the totality of Edelman's work in the neurosciences - which is significant, but only a portion of the overall body of work and thought that he represents. Neural Darwinism is part of a larger framework, not just a book.

I definitely feel it should have other outside souces, but my first wish was to get a clear and accurate exposition of the ideas established first. The whole reason I started on this journey was because I felt the subject deserved a proper exposition before commentary was rendered.

I feel it could be interesting to have a section on the intersection of this theory with the work of others... Alva Noe and his Action in Perception, Porges and his Polyvagal theory, Romer and his dual organism... there are many others...

Having a second page for the book could be useful and would be great, but is a technical exercise that would require discipline! and if you're gonna do that one, the others deserve consideration, and the task multiplies!

Nonetheless, I appreciated your comment on this being a community project. Perhaps there are others out there...?

I think that when I look at the layout as it is right now, while it roughly corresponds to the book structure now, the real purpose appears to break the topic down into 1) the background about population biology and somatic theory 2) the physical cellular and anatomical descriptions and 3) the psychological and behavioral descriptions and then finally a clear statement of the TNGS with all this background in mind... This may or may not be what Edelman intended for the book... but it does follow the trilogy...

At some point, TNGS could be it's own page... as with the Morphoregulatory Hypothesis.

Anyway, all this is just my opinion... I like to hear what other's have to say.

Thanks again for the comments, Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Should I abandon this project?

Should I abandon editing and developing this article? Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

---

I have abandoned working on Neural Darwinism since the entirety of my effort was deleted by User:Sumanuil... I assume they have a better plan...

I've moved my contributions and am reorganizing a re-titled version on my Wikiverstity user page:
Gerald M. Edelman And The Quest to Complete Darwin's Program - Neural Darwinism, Somatic Selection & Topobiology

Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I restored the stable version before the massive deletion of sourced content. There's no reason to delete sourced content en masse like this. if the article is too long, try shortening it down but not wholesale delete everything please --Mvbaron (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

pinging Sumanuil and Jtwsaddress42 -- Mvbaron (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mvbaron,

I will take some time to simplify the layout and scope of this project. I was still developing the exposition, but it got a little too sprawling and tangential... I have already simplified things on my wikiversity page where I moved my work to... It was disheartening to have the entire effort deleted, rather than edited... I had spent way too much time to just abandon the project at this point, whether it was appropriate for Wikipedia or not... So, I broke the article into separate discreet topics here. When I get a chance I'll try to clean things up on this page for a more elegant and compact presentation. Hopefully, if the tone and style of my writing is inappropriate, others will suggest better wording. Thank you for all your input and endeavors! Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If we want to follow the WP:BRD cycle, the content was boldly deleted, I contested it by reverting for the following reason: it was properly sourced content and no valid reason was given for the deletion of properly sourced material. So we're at the Discuss stage now. I do also believed the article could do with some tightening and shortening, but that's no reason for a wholesale deletion in my opinion. Best -- Mvbaron (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I did explain it. Several times. I only even noticed the mess because it popped up in Category:Articles with missing files. If you can fix it while remaining encyclopedic and not ending up in a maintenance category like that one, go ahead. - Sumanuil (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

...And it is in there. Maybe use the preview button? - Sumanuil (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the extraneous material that was only tangentially related to Edelman's concept of Neural Darwinism. Hopefully that will make the article more succinct and to the point. I left the sources and references alone, but can go through and clean up that section if it is desired. As far as my writing style, it is what it is - others can rephrase, paraphrase, or write their own versions. Thank you for your time, insights, and discussion on this matter. Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)