Dear Arturo, James, and FIS Colleagues,
Thanks for the intriguing presentation. Maybe it is difficult to make
sense in depth of these curious topological views applied to nervous
systems function. In an offline exchange with the authors I was arguing
that the countless mappings among cerebral areas, both cortical and
subcortical, are almost universally described as "topographical" and
that the information related to deformations, twisting, gradients,
inversions, bifurcating "duplications", etc. is not considered much
valuable for the explanatory schemes. However, just watching any of
those traditional "homunculus" described for both motor and
somatosensory mappings, the extent of deformations and irregularities
becomes an eloquent warning that something else is at play beyond the
strictly topographic arrangement.
Now, what we are being proposed --in my understanding-- is sort of an
extra-ordinary cognitive role for crucial parts of the whole topological
scheme. Somehow, the projection of brain "metastable dynamics"
(Fingelkurts) to higher dimensionalities could provide new integrative
possibilities for information processing. And that marriage between
topology and dynamics would also pave the way to new evolutionary
discussions on the emergence of the "imagined present" of our minds. Our
bi-hemispheric cortex so densely interconnected could also be an
exceedingly fine topological playground with respect to the previous
organizational rudiments in the midbrain (in non-mammalian brains).
Therefore, couldn't we somehow relate emergent topological-dynamic
properties and consciousness characteristics?...
In what follows am trying to respond the initial questions posed:
1)Could we use projections and mappings, in order to describe brain
activity?
**Yes, quite a bit; in my opinion, they are an essential ingredient of
complex brains.
2)Is such a topological approach linked with previous claims of old
“epistemologists” of recent “neuro-philosophers”?
** At the time being I am not aware of similar directions, except a few
isolated papers and a remarkable maverick working in late 1980s (Kenneth
Paul Collins), with whom I could cooperate a little (with his help, I
prepared a booklet in Spanish) .
3)Is such a topological approach linked with current neuroscientific models?
** I think Collins was a (doomed, ill-fated) precursor of both the
topological ideas and the quest for dynamic optimization principles,
somehow reminding contemporary ideas, eg, the great work of Alexander
and Andrew Fingelkurts, who are also inscribed in the list for this
discussion.
4)The BUT and its variants display four ingredients, e.g., a continuous
function, antipodal points, changes of dimensions and the possibility of
types of dimensions other than the spatial ones. Is it feasible to
assess brain function in terms of BUT and its variants?
** I think it should be explored. Future directions to investigate this
aspect could also contemplate the evolutionary changes in central
nervous system structures and behavioral/cognitive performances.
5)How to operationalize the procedures?
** Today's research in connectomics can help. Some very new
neurotechnologies about cell-to-cell visualization of neuronal activity
and gene expression could also help for future operationalization
advancements.
6)Is it possible to build a general topological theory of the brain?
** Topology, Dynamics, Neuroinformation and also elements of Systems
Biology and Signaling Science should go hand-with-hand for that crazy
purpose.
7)Our “from afar” approach takes into account the dictates of far-flung
branches, from mathematics to physics, from algebraic topology, to
neuroscience. Do you think that such broad multidisciplinary tactics
could be the key able to unlock the mysteries of the brain, or do you
think that more specific and “on focus” approaches could give us more
chances?
** In my view, both the disciplinary specific and the multidisciplinary
synthetic have to contribute. Great syntheses performed upon great
analyses--and which should be updated after every new epoch or new
significant advancements. One of the founding fathers of neuroscience,
Ramón y Cajal, made a great neuro-anatomical (and functional) synthesis
with the elements of his time at the beginning of the past century. It
was called the "doctrine of the neuron" and marked the birth of modern
neuroscience...
Finally, before saying goodbye, half dozen new Chinese parties from the
recent conference in Chengdu have joined the list; they have ample
expertise in neuroscientific fields and in theoretical science domains.
At their convenience, it would be quite nice hearing from them in this
discussion.
Greetings to all, and thanks again to Arturo and James for their valiant
work,
--Pedro
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis