I am a little mystified by your assertion of "information as process."
What, exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general
(Shannon). Is it related to Whitehead's process notions?

In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism
and modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how
information theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the
synaptic level because the actions and the decisions made are made across
the structure and not at a single location.

Recognition, for example, is not a point event but occurs rather when a
particular shape is formed in the structure (of the CNS, for example) and
is immediately covariant with the "appropriate" response (another shape)
which may be characterized as a hyper-functor (which may or may not include
neurons and astrocytes in the brain).


On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>

> Dear Carolina,  Bob L., Bob U., Sören and Krassimir,
> First of all thanks to Carolina for having launched a most interesting
> thread, of which I have changed the title since the issues are broader than
> that of Neuroinformation alone, as Francesco has noted.
> My first point is a response to Sören since I feel his book does not
> address Information-as-Process as 'physically' as I think necessary. His
> reference to the use of this term by Buckland (on p. 77 not 87), (which I
> had missed when first reading /Cybersemiotics/), however, is followed by a
> reference to information processing. (He later states that a new metatheory
> is required to replace the information processing paradigm, and he proposes
> Peircean semiotics, whereas I have proposed Logic in Reality.) I also note
> that Buckland places Information-as-Process in the 'Intangible' column of
> his matrix and one can question the ontological meaning of this.
> In the compendium /Philosophers of Process/. 1998. Browning and Myers
> (eds.). New York: Fordham University Press, Peirce is represented by four
> papers: "The Architecture of Theories", "The Doctrine of Necessity
> Examined", "The Law of Mind"  and "Man's Glassy Essence". Unfortunately, in
> none of these is the word 'process' used, let alone described as a concept.
> 'Process' is not an entry in the COMMENS Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce,
> edited by Bergman and Paavola, so the most one can say is that process was
> not a common concept in Peirce. If Information-as-Process is to be
> developed as a concept, I doubt that Peirce's semiotics will help.
> In the notes of both Bob. L and Bob U., however, one finds workable
> properties than can be assigned to Information-as-Process, the verb-noun
> dialectic and the concept of real trophic exchange. Krassimir's concept of
> information being dynamic (a process) or static depending on what it
> reflects does not give as complete a notion as I would like that
> information is /in-itself/ a process, even it reflects (refers to) static
> or abstract objects. Nevertheless, Krassimir clearly sees the dualism of
> information as composed of dynamic and static entities, whose interaction,
> as in the case of the first two approaches, can be discussed in the
> framework of Logic in Reality. The problem is his use of the term
> 'reflection' whose nature is not clear as I have remarked to him before.
> I look forward to further discussion.
> Best wishes,
> Joseph
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu>
> To: "Carolina Isiegas" <cisie...@gmail.com>
> Cc: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
> Dear Dr. Isiegas:
> I envision neuroinformation as the mutual information of the neuronal
> network where synaptic connections are weighted by the frequencies of
> discharge between all pairs of neurons. This is directly analogous to a
> network of trophic exchanges among an ecosystem, as illustrated in
> <http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/SymmOvhd.PDF>.
> Please note that this measure is different from the conventional
> sender-channel-receiver format of communications theory. It resembles more
> the "structural information" inhering in the neuronal network. John
> Collier (also a FISer) calls such information "enformation" to draw
> attention to its different nature.
> With best wishes for success,
> Bob Ulanowicz
>  Dear list,
>>     I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
>> exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific
>> backgound
>> (Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the
>> topic of neuroinformation, how information "exists" within the Central
>> Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested in
>> investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory,
>> specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such
>> brain
>> functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, where I
>> spent 7 years). I generated several genetically modified mice in which I
>> could regulate the expression of this pathway in specific brain regions
>> and
>> in which I studied the effects of upregulation or downregulation at the
>> synaptic and behavioral levels. However, I am conscious that the
>> "information flow" within the mouse Nervous System is far more complex
>> that
>> in the "simple" pathway that I was studying...so, my concrete question for
>> you "Fishers" or "Fisers", how should we contemplate the micro and macro
>> structures of information within the neural realm? what is
>> Neuroinformation?
>> Best wishes,
>> --
>> Carolina Isiegas
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to