A molecular basis for Piaget’s
“schème” (as memory-code):
Some surprising implications
© R.R.Traill (2012) -------
Also: You may wish to download the “notes & references”:
www.ondwelle.com/MolecularSchemeNotes.pdf
Cette présentation est également disponible en français:
www.ondwelle.com/MolecularSchemeFr.ppt
Paper presented at the
42nd 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 2nd 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
1st coherent 
obvious
system; but
theory
evidence
(but it will often
• Don’t expect
have anomalies)
more
instant
evidence evidence
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
initial
theory
best
so far
revised
revised
theory
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
Ambiguity
xxsolutions; (1 if true=best!)
if possible
• Testable in some way: Do the supposed-parts fit:
observatn &/or equilibration 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 1D list
Schème-element
xas 1D “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
.ond
welle
.com/
OSM
05.pd
f
Adapt
ed
from:
Fig
(v),
page
9, of.
www.
(wait for coordinating
ondw
elle.c
om/O
SM05
.pdf
“telephone number”
= Label-like beads:
TUNED LABEL
as aerial !
“Wait until input-signal [e.g.
LABEL PROPER
] arrives, then proceed”
CONTINGENCY WAITS
signal)
where:
= I.R. photons = acoustic phonon
Adapted from: Fig (v), page 9, of. www.ondwelle.com/OSM05.pdf
Note some
similarity to
computerprograms
(at the
“machine”
level)
(L) Advantages of 1D text-like coding:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compact
• 1D can co-exist with 2D
-- coding, and even
Economical
-- embody it (as in TV).
Maintainable
----And as a precedent:
Easily scanned
• 1D is used by the other
Easily copied
xx3 epistemological
“What comes next?”
-- domains:
---is usually clear
IV. Implications & Consequences
(m1) Possible 1D 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 “ncRNA” 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:
(m2) Possible 1D 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 “ncRNA” 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:
(n1) 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).
(n2) 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).
(n3) 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).
(n4) 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).
(n5) 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).
(o1) 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. …
(o2) 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!
(p1) Single RNAs as unreliable & x
unstable: Need “chorus” of clones?
xSchème’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
.ond
welle
.com/
OSM
05.pd
f
(p2)…and maybe a near-clone-chorus
facilitates long-term stability?
feedback
(+ or – reinforcement)
Adap
ted
from:
Fig
(v),
page
9, of.
www
.ond
welle
.com/
OSM
05.pd
f
● IF such coordinating signal-networks exist,
xxxmight these also confer mutual stability???
(If so, this could help explain self-organization
of Long Term Memory)
(q1) 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!
(q2) 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!
(r1) microvast hidden capacity:
●1014 synapses vs 1023 RNA sites?
●10-3sec “spike” vs 10-14sec 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.
(r2) microvast hidden capacity:
●1014 synapses vs 1023 RNA sites?
●10-3sec “spike” vs 10-14sec 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!
(r3) 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:
1D, trial+error, ext or int test-checks
1
2
A
Schème:
1D? ncRNA?
Antibody
(1D code)
DNA (1D)
1D-text
Use Schème:
See…results.
Many codes;
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
external fit?
4
Test for
internal fit?
5
6
special cases
No, except
GM/epigenetic
Yes!
Yes
Equilibration
coherence?
Mixed, and
Debatable!
?Often?!
(t1) 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
1st step to
design and
intelligence.
(t2) 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
1st step to
design and
intelligence.
?
(t3) 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
1st 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 (2011a) 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.16a: www.ondwelle.com/MolecularScheme.ppt
The accompanying notes are OSM. No.16b: www.ondwelle.com/MolecularSchemeNotes.pdf
© R.R.Traill, 2012 (June/July)
For commercial or multiple use, consult info@copyright.com.au
END OF APPENDIX