I propose the following hypothesis:
The No Free Lunch Theorem and hypothesis of instinctive animal behavior, according to which they are completely innate.
Article The No Free Lunch Theorem and hypothesis of instinctive anim...
Its an interesting paper! I look forward to going through it in detail...!
There are a few resources you may find useful.
There are over 5 volumes on the quantitative analysis of behavior alone. The precision and scope of the models have only just began to be implemented in AI research and the results are impressive. [http://www.sqab.org/books.php]
An exploratory take which focuses on the role of learning in artificial-intelligence research [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3359852/]
One way we parse 'knowledge-acquisition' and 'learning' is through the demonstration of mutual/combinatorial entailment along with transformation of stimulus functions. So far, these appear to be the fundamental processes that separate verbal (human) from non-verbal (non-human) organisms and have yet to be reliably shown in an animal. Two papers you may find useful
[Potential Applications of Relational Frame Theory to natural language systems] - Self-explanatory
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24318964] One take on the fundamental differences between human and non-human populations
If you are convinced by the assumptions of the 'entailment' and 'function transformation' constructs but unsure of how they actually relate to 'higher' functions such as problem-solving, this article provides an excellent answer
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881844]
Always congenital are acquired in the process of evolution, that is live the organisms have acquired new properties, which could gain a foothold in the genes as tradition and handed down to posterity as genetic inclinations, which could be identified or changed as well.
Всегда врожденное приобреталось в процессе эволюции – в процессе жизни организмов приобретались новые свойства, которые могли закрепляться в генах как традиции и передаваться потомству как генетические задатки, которые могли выявиться или измениться так же.
But general algorithms to adapt to unknown situations are contradictory.
If the information (image) is new, then it cannot be valuable (cannot be used) because it is not recognized. If the information (image) is recognized, the system has an etalon for it (which existed prior to its presentation), and, therefore, the information is not new. In both cases, the acquisition of knowledge does not occur.
В Природе всё хаотично и случайно, она не может сознательно преднамеренно выбирать что-либо (в этом вы правы), но всё же те свойства организмов сохраняются, та информация, которая соответствует общим законам Природы (хотим мы этого или нет), которые Человек уже смог разгадать, даже если человеческим сознанием (а не каким-либо еще)… Жираф не знал миллион лет назад, что у него будет длинная шея, но так получилось вдруг, потому что это по законам Природы (он ел листья на высоких деревьях). То есть шаблон, образец (законы) в Природе, по которым всё движется (в том числе и новая информация). А шаблон этот заключается в том, что функция и форма связаны друг с другом. Кстати, новое может быть не признанным (не обозначенным), что часто в Природе, но оно накапливается для того, чтобы после быть востребованным, нужным (но если оказывается ненужным, тогда превращается в другое и нужное). Вот так всё в Природе. Привет Уралу!
In Nature, everything is chaotic and random, she can't consciously deliberately choose something (in this case you are right), but the properties of organisms, the information are preserved, which corresponds to the General laws of Nature (whether we like it or not) that People have already been able to discover, even if by means human consciousness (not any more)... Giraffe did not know a million years ago, that it would have a long neck, but it happened so suddenly, because it is according to the laws of Nature (he ate the leaves on tall trees). That is, template, sample (laws) in Nature, in which everything moves (including new information). And this template is that function and form are related to each other. By the way, the new may not be recognized (not labeled) that often in Nature, but it accumulates to after to be in demand, to be need (but if it turns out to be unnecessary, then it turns to another and it to be need). That is in Nature.
It is important to consider specific situation! What can organism do when it meets with unrecognized object?
В первую очередь он в стрессе или в напряжении, поскольку у него возникло противоречие, он не знает, как к нему относиться, но после со временем приспосабливается, вырабатывает свойства, которые могут закрепиться в генах, но они так же могут и исчезнуть, если не нужны.
First of all organism is under stress or tension, because he had a conflict, he does not know how to treat him, but after eventually it adapts, it develops properties that can gain a foothold in the genes, but they can and disappear when it not needed.
Which implies that the organism can "get used" to this new situation? Can it "get used" to arbitrary situation?
I agree with Alexey that the reply is contingent on the organism under study. However, there is immense variability regarding the degree to which an organism may "adapt" to present circumstances (more on "adapt" in a moment). As a highly simplistic example, suppose an organism (lets call her Y) is born into an arid environment although her recent ancestors were successful in humid settings. Y is born with a repertoire of innate behavioral patterns, which we can all agree (I hope) was derived from an evolutionary history.
Suppose when Y sees light, she starts moving away from it. Given the dominance of her ancestors in a humid environment, as external observers we may reasonably speculate that the organisms history of kinesis may have evolved from the circumstantial nature of Y's ancestors being present in a humid environment, where the primary source of light was the sun. Hence, moving away from the sun may have enhanced fitness by preventing dehydration, etc. Simply put, discrimination to photic stimuli may simply have been due to "random" selection processes that most evolutionary biologists are comfortable with.
So far so good. Where the process becomes even more fascinating is when the consequences of Y's actions begin to change its present context, which then bring about changes in Y's ontogenic and phylogenic makeup. Let us imagine Y who is now in an arid environment where relief from the sun is not forthcoming. In an attempt to avoid the aversive light, Y uses her limbs (previously developed for swimming) to burrow in the ground. Behavioral and genetic selection work hand in hand to ensure that, all other things being equal, Y will "adapt" to her new environment I.e. her innate repertoire, which is in constant flux with her surroundings at every moment, will be successful in preserving her fitness. Though highly simplistic, similar circumstances have led to the onset of complex repertoires involved in foraging or, in the case of humans anyway, imagination and creativity.
The distinction between elicited and emitted responses, though subtle, is an arbitrarily applicable heuristic that has been of immense use but is unfortunately unknown to those outside the field of learning. Some material you may find interesting.
LEARNING (2nd Ed.) by C. Catania - A technical account and history of what 'learning' is
ADAPTIVE DYNAMICS by JER Staddon - how organisms adapt and how we can derive regularities from otherwise highly distinct histories
THE SCIENCE OF CONSEQUENCES by S. Schneider -
Thank you for references. When organism Y is born with a repertoire of innate behavioral patterns there are two possibilities for her:
- to recognize this situation (environment) and run innate programs fot this situation,
- if situation (environment) is new (unrecognized) organism only is able to run one of its innate programs. But in this case these innate programs are not suitable for this situation. It is important to note that new programs cannot appear in this case (there is no mechanism for this).
That is all programs of behavior are innate.
If situation B above is correct (- if situation (environment) is new (unrecognized) organism only is able to run one of its innate programs. But in this case these innate programs are not suitable for this situation. It is important to note that new programs cannot appear in this case (there is no mechanism for this).) how can we explain the process of adaptation & evolution? If 1) ALL innate programs available to an organism are not suitable to the situation (e.g., the environment, thus survival - for example no applicable food recognition or foraging programs) then it would appear that the organism must die. If all organisms entering a new situation without an applicable innate program die, how can there be adaptation & expansion into new environments or ecological niches. I understand that some animals may capitalize on the flexibility of innate programs and put them to new uses, but . . .
Also, how can a theory that all programs (I'm reading this as all behavior) is innate explain the appearance of things like primate symbolic language (or communication if you prefer) like like arbitrary symbolic reference for words or phrases that would seem to have no innate basis. Again, the capacity to learn these behavior may be innate, but not the behaviors themselves. Of course, it could be that I am reading this all incorrectly and by programs you mean very basic capacities or mechanisms that can be built on to produce novel behaviors, behavior sets, etc.
1. In my paper I argue that "capacity to learn" is contradictory because universal algorithms are impossible.
2. We can simply explain new skills appearing in such a way: all programs are innate but they begin run only during certain conditions. We know such examples for computer programs: program exists in memory but does not work and begins work only at some conditions.
3. That is: program related to primate symbolic language is innate, but this program begins its work at certain conditions only.
Certain activities in humans and animals are innate, that is, instinctive. Activities such as digestion, breathing, are innate because they take place without our intervention. However, neurophysiological discoveries such as brain plasticity show that everything we learn and experiences are wired up in our brain, making them acquired.
Can you suggest a specific mechanism for acquisition of knowledge? I can show that such mechanism is contradictory.
@ Alexey,
I don't know if your message was aimed at my post. regarding innate and acquired behaviors. If so, please set out your query clearly for a meaningful discussion.
Akpan
Dear Akpan!
You said that "brain placticity and everything we learn" are acquired. But:
If the information (image) is new, then it cannot be valuable (cannot be used) because it is not recognized. If the information (image) is recognized, the system has an etalon for it's recognition (which existed prior to its presentation), and, therefore, the information is not new. In both cases, the acquisition of knowledge does not occur.
WHY are there still constant questions on learned vs innate?? During very important developments (during/with/as ontogeny), behavior change is likely BOTH (in effect) AT THE SAME TIME (I mean literally, not just the effects of each at the same time: BOTH OF EACH operating AT THE SAME TIME).
See "Human Ethology and Development" Project. Read a lot of the short essays (from my updates, question-and-answers, and comments) and then read the 160 page paper attached below ("A Human Ethogram ..."). And, many might want to read the associated 40 page paper, "Information Processing Theories and ... ". NO one has contradicted the view of these 2 papers for months, now, and in the years before eye-tracking technology, no one questioned the view for DECADES.
(This Ethogram Theory should be considered NEW, because ONLY recently has there been the eye-tracking technology in existence to test the major hypotheses.)
We have all just been subjects of 2 great myths: (1) 'advanced' organisms have less innate and more learned (just really a presumption, based on nothing) and (2) all innate factors (including, in behavior!!!) are present at birth (VERY unlikely, and again NO REASON to believe this). I submit that both are FALSE (good evolutionary behavior theory, and ethology argue against those presumptions).
Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...
Dear Alexey V Melkikh
If you are asking me. Outside of periodic innate perceptual (perceptual/attentional) "shifts" (seeing basic "patterns" in the concrete world) and the several extremely important MEMORY capabilities/capacities involved in learning, the other mechanisms involved are simply the simple associative learnings, we all know so well. Basically, those 3 classes of things is all that is necessary for Learning (big L, if you like) and knowledge and cognitive development. BUT let me add: Emotions also do help and need to be "worked in there", BUT that is easy since the patterning and functioning of emotion, seen in any major context where they work, is easy to see and assess.
In my paper it was shown that knowledge acquisition (learning without apriori information) leads to the contradiction.
- Badges
- Science topic