I can see some parallels, but there are still some important differences that, to me, are enough to negate the usefulness of the concept of 'evolution driven by natural selection' as an analogy for brain development.
It isnt an analogy but
litiraly evolution, just not the common biological (genetic based) evolution we are use to. The basic component that is passed on and modified here is the
idea.
I think now that the wiring of neurons in the more basic regons of the brain - the visual reigon for example - may not have these advanced evolutionary 'tactics' but relies mostly on an inherant genetic tendancy towards seeing more than selection and modification, though the selectionary prosses still exists.
Growth is not reproduction. They can sometimes regenerate after injury, but neurons in the CNS cannot replicate themselves or give birth to progeny.
The growth I meant was the ability of the brain to rewire itself as to give a fuctionality to almost any reigon in the brain - after lossing sight or something. The neurons themselves dont do the actual reproduction in terms of evoltion (your right about that), the units that do that are the ideas - they reproduce and are modified.
That's variation in your 'population'.
I agree, good call.
But these are neurons that "store" ideas (I realy need a better word for that).
One criteria for evolution, yes, but 'descent with modification' is now broadly interpreted to mean heritable mutation.
And there can be no heritability without reproduction.
See the above comment about ideas reproducing.
Once agian, I have a problem with a 'synapse' as a unit of selection, though.
I understand that this process of pathway consolidation does involve changes in neuronal RNA, but the selective force is a positive one in this case - 'usage' of a particular pathway 'selects' for consolidation of synapses, and degradation of un-used synapses occurs through lack of use. However, I have difficulty viewing synapses as 'units of selection' analogous to individual organisms because they do not exist as independent entities but are merely connection points between cells. It takes at least two cells to make a synapse.
Its not the synaps itself that makes for a unit of selection, but the 'information' or ideas it stores. This is analogous to DNA or RNA (not ribozymes) as a random selection of nuleotides - but put them in the right order and they 'contain information' {its not a very good analogy
).
I am still not clear on what kind of mechanism in the brain could possibly be analogous to heredity, simply because I have yet to find any form of neuronal reproduction that would seemingly be a prerequisite for heredity.
The neurons that contain ideas and pass them on to other poeple or are modified through interation with the world or with other 'ideas', this is analogous to heredity.