Editing Cognitive development (section)

== Beginning of cognition ==
In cognitive development, the essential issue in beginning cognition is how the nervous system grasps perception and shapes intentionality in the sensorimotor stage (or before) when organisms only demonstrate simple reflexes (see articles [[perception]], [[cognition]], [[binding problem]], [[Multisensory integration|multi sensory integration]]). The significance of this knowledge is that the mode to cognize at the stage without communication and abstract thinking, being a pre-requisite of social reality formation, determines the development of everything from cooperative interactions and knowledge assimilation to moral identity and cultural evolution that provides building societies (see also [[Social cognition]] and [[Collective behavior|Collective behaviour]]). The contemporary academic discussion on a controversy in cognitive development (whether cognitive development is mainly determined by an individual's innate qualities or personal experiences) is still in progress.

Many influential scientists argue that the genetic code is no more than a rule of causal specificity based on the fact that cells use nucleic acids as templates for the primary structure of proteins. However, it is unacceptable to say that DNA contains the information for phenotypic design.<ref name="Thompson 2019">Thompson, E. (2010). ''Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind.'' America: [[Harvard University Press]].</ref> The epigenetic approach to human psychological development – that cascading phenotypic effects are not encoded directly in the genes – contrasts sharply with many so-called nativist approaches.<ref name="Tomasello 2019" /> Opponents of innate knowledge discuss four problems in appearance of the perception of objects.

'''The binding problem''' – According to cognitive psychologist [[Anne Treisman]],<ref>Treisman, A. (1999). "Solutions to the binding problem: progress through controversy and convergence." ''Neuron,'' 1999, 24(1):105-125.</ref> the [[binding problem]] can be divided into three separate problems. (1) How are relevant elements that should be related as a whole selected and separated from elements that belong to other objects, ideas, or events? (2) How is the binding encoded so it can be transferred to other brain systems and used? (3) How are the correct relationships between related elements within the same object defined? This problem is also connected to the problem of [[multisensory integration]] in [[perception]].

'''The perception stability problem''' – According to research professor of [https://www.liepu.lv/en Liepaja University] Igor Val Danilov,<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception">{{Cite journal |last=Val Danilov |first=Igor |date= 2023|title=Low-Frequency Oscillations for Nonlocal Neuronal Coupling in Shared Intentionality Before and After Birth: Toward the Origin of Perception |url=https://www.lidsen.com/journals/neurobiology/neurobiology-07-04-192 |journal=OBM Neurobiology |language=en |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=1–17 |doi=10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2304192|doi-access=free }}</ref> newborns and infants cannot capture the same picture of the environment as adults because of their immature sensory systems. They cannot sense environmental stimuli from social phenomena to the same extent as adults. The outcomes of processing similar sensory stimuli in immature and mature organisms differ. The corresponding holistic representations of objects can hardly occur in these organisms.

'''The excitatory inputs problem''' – According to the received view in cognitive sciences, cognition develops due to experience-dependent neuronal plasticity, e.g.,.<ref>Li, K.T.; Liang, J.; Zhou, C. (2021). "Gamma oscillations facilitate effective learning in excitatory-inhibitory balanced neural circuits." ''Neural Plast.'' 2021; 2021: 6668175.</ref><ref>Gilson, M.; Burkitt, A.; van Hemmen, J.L. (2010). "STDP in recurrent neuronal networks." ''Front Comput Neurosci.'' 2010; 4. Doi: 10.3389/fncom.2010.00023.</ref> Neuronal plasticity refers to the capacity of the nervous system to modify itself, functionally and structurally, in response to experience and injury.<ref>Von Bernhardi, R.; Bernhardi, L.E.; Eugenín, J. (2017). "What is neuralplasticity?" In: ''Theplasticbrain.Cham: Springer;'' 2017. pp. 1-5.</ref> However, the structural organization of excitatory inputs supporting spike-timing-dependent plasticity remains unknown.<ref>Tazerart, S.; Mitchell, D.E.; Miranda Rottmann, S.; Araya, R. (2020). "Aspike-timing-dependentplasticityrule for dendritic spines." ''Nat Commun.'' 2020; 11: 4276.</ref> How is the relation between a specific sensory stimulus and the appropriate structural organization of the excitatory inputs in specific neurons formed?<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception" />

'''The problem of [[morphogenesis]]''' – Cell actions during an embryo formation, including shape changes, cell contact remodeling, cell migration, cell division, and cell extrusion, need control over cell mechanics.<ref>Collinet, C.; Lecuit, T. (2021). "Programmed and self-organized flow of information during morphogenesis." ''Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol.'' 2021; 22: 245-265.</ref> This complex dynamical process is associated with protrusive, contractile, and adhesive forces and hydrostatic pressure, as well as material properties of cells that dictate how cells respond to active stresses. Precise coordination of all cells is a necessary condition. Moreover, such a complex dynamical process likely requires clear parameters of the final biological structure – the complete developmental program with a template for accomplishing it. [https://scholar.google.fr/citations?hl=fr&user=QUKCydMAAAAJ&view%20op=list%20works&sortby=pubdate Collinet] and [[Thomas Lecuit|Lecuit]] (2021) pose a question: what forces or mechanisms at the cellular level manage four very general classes of tissue deformation, namely tissue folding and invagination, tissue flow and extension, tissue hollowing, and, finally, tissue branching? They challenge the nativists' notion that shape is fully encoded and determined by genes: how are cell mechanics and associated cell behaviors robustly organized in space and time during tissue morphogenesis? They argue that not only gene expression and the resulting biochemical cues but also mechanics and geometry act as sources of morphogenetic information to ultimately define the time and length scales of the cell behaviors driving morphogenesis. Thus, it is not only the interaction of gene activity with events and experiences in the environment that contributes to the formation of tissues in morphogenesis. Because the nervous system structures operate over everything that makes us human, the formation of neural tissues in a certain way is essential for shaping cognitive functions.<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception" /> According to research professor Igor Val Danilov, such a complex process of shaping the determined structure of the nervous system requires a complete developmental program with a template for accomplishing the final biological structure of the nervous system.<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception" /> Indeed, because even processes of the cell coupling for shaping a nervous system during embryonal development challenge the naturalistic approach, how the nervous system grasps perception and shapes intentionality (independently, i.e., without any template) seems even more complicated.<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception" />

So, the fact that gene activity interacts with events and experiences in the environment (as noted above) may not fully explain the integrative complexity of intentionality-perception development for beginning cognitive development. Nowadays, the [[Shared intentionality]] hypothesis is the only one that attempts to explain neurophysiological processes at the beginning of cognitive development at different levels of interaction, from interpersonal dynamics to neuronal interactions.<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Theoretical">Val Danilov, I. (2023). "Theoretical Grounds of Shared Intentionality for Neuroscience in Developing Bioengineering Systems." ''OBM Neurobiology'' 2023; 7(1): 156; doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2301156</ref><ref name="Val Danilov 2023 SI Modulation">{{Cite journal |last=Val Danilov |first=Igor |date= 2023|title=Shared Intentionality Modulation at the Cell Level: Low-Frequency Oscillations for Temporal Coordination in Bioengineering Systems |url=https://www.lidsen.com/journals/neurobiology/neurobiology-07-04-185 |journal=OBM Neurobiology |language=en |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=1–17 |doi=10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2304185|doi-access=free }}</ref> It also solves the above noted problems. Professor of psychology [[Michael Tomasello]] hypothesised that social bonds between children and caregivers would gradually increase through the essential motive force of shared intentionality beginning from birth.<ref>Tomasello, M. (2008). "Origins of Human Communication," [[MIT Press]]. ISBN 978-0-262-20177-3</ref> The notion of [[Shared intentionality]], introduced by Michael Tomasello, was developed by Research Professor Igor Val Danilov, expanding it to the intrauterine period.<ref name="Val Danilov 2023 Origin of Perception" /> The [[Shared intentionality]] approach also points out that "an innate sensitivity to specific patterns of information" mentioned in the section "Speculated core systems of cognition" is also the outcome of [[Shared intentionality]] with caregivers, who obviously participated in the experiments.<ref name="Val Danilov and Mihailova 2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Val Danilov |first1=Igor |last2=Mihailova |first2=Sandra |date= 2022|title=A New Perspective on Assessing Cognition in Children through Estimating Shared Intentionality |journal=Journal of Intelligence |language=en |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=21 |doi=10.3390/jintelligence10020021 |issn=2079-3200 |pmc=9036231 |pmid=35466234 |doi-access=free }}</ref>