Display options
Cite
Burgos JE. Is a Nervous System Necessary for Learning?. Perspect Behav Sci. 2018;41(2):343-368doi: 10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7.
Burgos, J. E. (2018). Is a Nervous System Necessary for Learning?. Perspectives on behavior science, 41(2), 343-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7
Burgos, José E. "Is a Nervous System Necessary for Learning?." Perspectives on behavior science vol. 41,2 (2018): 343-368. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7
Burgos JE. Is a Nervous System Necessary for Learning?. Perspect Behav Sci. 2018 Nov 05;41(2):343-368. doi: 10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7. eCollection 2018 Nov. PMID: 31976400; PMCID: PMC6701508.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Perspect Behav Sci. 2018 Nov 05;41(2):343-368. doi: 10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7. eCollection 2018 Nov.

Is a Nervous System Necessary for Learning?.

Perspectives on behavior science

José E Burgos

Affiliations

  1. Centro de Estudios e Investigaciones en Comportamiento, Universidad de Guadalajara, 180 Fco. De Quevedo, Arcos Vallarta, 44130 Guadalajara, Mexico.

PMID: 31976400 PMCID: PMC6701508 DOI: 10.1007/s40614-018-00179-7

Abstract

In this article, I propose some elements for a conceptual foundation for a negative answer to the titular question, based on a historical conceptual analysis of some definitions of "learning" in the specialized literature. I intend such a foundation to include learning in living organisms as well as inorganic machines. After analyzing several behavioral and nonbehavioral definitions, I argue that although most of the former favor a negative answer, they tend to be restricted to living organisms and thus exclude inorganic machine learning. They also face the yet-unresolved issue of behavioral silence, which makes behavior not defining of learning. Some nonbehavioral neurobiological definitions favor an affirmative, others a negative answer, but still exclude inorganic machines. Nonneurobiological definitions are more suitable, but they commit us to some form of computationalism (Turing machine or connectionist) about learning, which is premature. I thus propose elements for an alternative definition of "learning" without such commitment. The elements are elaborations of the notions of learning as a kind of causal interaction between causal stochastic environmental and internal processes, and minimal learner as a kind of abstract system that shares certain internal structural and functional features with animals, spinal vertebrates, bacteria, plants, and inorganic machines.

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018.

Keywords: Causal processes; Concepts; Definitions; Internal mechanisms; Learners; Machines; “Behavior”; “Learning”

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of InterestI declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brain Res Bull. 1976 Mar-Apr;1(2):177-83 - PubMed
  2. Anim Behav. 2009 Jul 1;78(1):103-110 - PubMed
  3. Nature. 1999 Jan 14;397(6715):168-71 - PubMed
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Apr 25;97(9):4649-53 - PubMed
  5. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2009 Sep;92(2):260-6 - PubMed
  6. Psychol Rev. 1950 Jul;57(4):193-216 - PubMed
  7. Behav Biol. 1972 Feb;7(7):47-53 - PubMed
  8. Annu Rev Physiol. 1966;28:107-36 - PubMed
  9. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1988;11:329-52 - PubMed
  10. J Biol Phys. 2011 Jan;37(1):1-38 - PubMed
  11. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014 Feb;108:155-71 - PubMed
  12. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1971 Oct;77(1):152-4 - PubMed
  13. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):631-42 - PubMed
  14. Psychol Bull. 1978 Nov;85(6):1256-74 - PubMed
  15. Behav Anal. 2013 Fall;36(2):283-293 - PubMed
  16. Annu Rev Neurosci. 1986;9:435-87 - PubMed
  17. Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 02;6:38427 - PubMed
  18. J Neurosci. 1981 Dec;1(12):1426-37 - PubMed

Publication Types