Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear Loet, Steven, and colleagues, During last ten years or so, with particular success in most recent years, Karl Friston has developed his free energy optimization principle, based on Shannon's information theory and optimal control theory as well as on the Bayesian brain hypothesis. I think this is the most advanced work towards a unified brain theory today. The minimization dynamics of the cerebral free energy construct (it is a sort of Helmoltz program revisited) becomes a generative process of perception, action, learning and adaptive behaviors in general. The 2010 paper (Nature Reviews Neurosceince, doi: 10.138/nrn2787) where he precisely argues about a unified brain theory, is quite representative of his proposals. On a personal basis, during last two decades I was following and cooperating with Kenneth Paul Collins (we published a book in Spanish about the emergence of behavior from brain dynamics). Our scheme was based on the minimization of a collective variable supposedly a sort of entropy of excitation/inhibition ratios topologically distributed among neuronal surfaces of the cortex that was performed essentially by the medial parts of the brain. Although very rich in qualitative and behavioral aspects, the formal part was too weak (awfully weak). Until recent years I could not connect meaningfully Collin's approach with other works, and unfortunately he left scientific research long ago--but now the marriage with Friston's is remarkable. Putting them together may be a very fertile exploratory avenue. best ---Pedro Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. J The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff /Emeritus/ University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM *To:* l...@leydesdorff.net *Cc:* Joseph Brenner; fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: mailbox:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/pcmarijuan.iacs/Datos%20de%20programa/Thunderbird/Profiles/2vg9i0k9.default/Mail/pop3.aragon-1.es/Inbox?number=1793468636header=quotebodypart=1.1.2filename=image001.png in which mailbox:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/pcmarijuan.iacs/Datos%20de%20programa/Thunderbird/Profiles/2vg9i0k9.default/Mail/pop3.aragon-1.es/Inbox?number=1793468636header
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 127-138 (February 2010) | doi :10.1038/nrn2787 http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v11/n2/full/nrn2787.html :) Ken On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Loet, Steven, and colleagues, During last ten years or so, with particular success in most recent years, Karl Friston has developed his free energy optimization principle, based on Shannon's information theory and optimal control theory as well as on the Bayesian brain hypothesis. I think this is the most advanced work towards a unified brain theory today. The minimization dynamics of the cerebral free energy construct (it is a sort of Helmoltz program revisited) becomes a generative process of perception, action, learning and adaptive behaviors in general. The 2010 paper (Nature Reviews Neurosceince, doi: 10.138/nrn2787) where he precisely argues about a unified brain theory, is quite representative of his proposals. On a personal basis, during last two decades I was following and cooperating with Kenneth Paul Collins (we published a book in Spanish about the emergence of behavior from brain dynamics). Our scheme was based on the minimization of a collective variable supposedly a sort of entropy of excitation/inhibition ratios topologically distributed among neuronal surfaces of the cortex that was performed essentially by the medial parts of the brain. Although very rich in qualitative and behavioral aspects, the formal part was too weak (awfully weak). Until recent years I could not connect meaningfully Collin's approach with other works, and unfortunately he left scientific research long ago--but now the marriage with Friston's is remarkable. Putting them together may be a very fertile exploratory avenue. best ---Pedro Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. J The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet Loet Leydesdorff /Emeritus/ University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/ brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith *Sent:* Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM *To:* l...@leydesdorff.net *Cc:* Joseph Brenner; fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: mailbox:///C|/Documents%20and% 20Settings/pcmarijuan.iacs/Datos%20de%20programa/ Thunderbird/Profiles/2vg9i0k9.default/Mail/pop3.aragon-1.es/ Inbox?number=1793468636header=quotebodypart
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear All, Several of you have asked recently for a description of Logic in Reality (LIR) that is more accessible that what I have written. Thank you for that. Let me respond by simply saying here that LIR is a logic of /change/, better of change and stability, non-change. The basic concept is that all complex processes or states-of-affairs have two major components in an antagonistic or contradictorial relation. If one component predominates, is more actual or actualized, the other is less dominant, is potential or potentialized. It is possible to refer to the states of these elements in terms of non-standard probabilities, thus going one step further than just description :-). To refer to Loet's examples, brain, culture and economy, LIR would say that antagonistic processes in the brain, not a model of the brain, are isomorphic to processes in culture and the economy in that the same movement from actual to potential, and potential to actual and to emergence of new entities takes place in all of them. The reason LIR is a logic and not physics or biology is that it permits inferences to be made about the direction of development of such processes. It is thus most interesting to read that there is also an heuristic movement between domains in Loet's approach. The relation to information, from my perspective, is that information-as-process is now recognized as a complex of two elements, one obviously energetic, the substrate or carrier and its 'meaning', which is less obviously energy in some form. I suggest that the problem is how to understand 'meaning'. One should perhaps also talk of 'meaning-as-process' - the experience of meaning in a human interpreter - which clearly involves physical processes. I would be glad to answer further questions, especially if they refer specifically to the relation of LIR and information, on which I have two or three papers easily accessible on-line in Information. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Loet Leydesdorff To: 'Steven Ericsson-Zenith' ; 'fis' Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 7:53 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. J The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet -- Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM To: l...@leydesdorff.net Cc: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (*i*) for the multivariate case (*ijk*…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: ·Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. *Social Networks, 13*(4), 301-345. ·Theil, H. (1972). *Statistical Decomposition Analysis*. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. -- Loet Leydesdorff *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, SPRU, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of Sussex; Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing; Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith *Sent:* Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM *To:* Joseph Brenner *Cc:* fis *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process 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). Regards, Steven On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: 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
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear Steven and colleagues, I did not (yet) study your approach. Is there a paper that can be read as an introduction? It seems to me that one can distinguish between formal and substantial theories of information. Shannon’s mathematical theory is a formal apparatus: the design and the results do not yet have meaning without an interpretation in a substantial context. On the other side, a theory about, for example, neuro-information is a special theory. One can in this context use information theory as a statistical tool (among other tools). Sometimes, one can move beyond description. :) The advantage of information theory, from this perspective of special theories, is that the formal apparatus allows us sometimes to move between domains heuristically. For example, a model of the brain can perhaps be used metaphorically for culture or the economy (or vice versa). The advantages have to be shown in empirical research: which questions can be addressed and which puzzles be solved? Best, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 10:13 PM To: l...@leydesdorff.net Cc: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process The problem with this approach (and approaches like it) is that it is descriptive and not explanatory. The distribution of the shape, in my model, can be described, perhaps, but the process or action decision point and response covariance is impossible to consider. It is for this reason that I use holomorphic functors and hyper-functors in which I can express the explicit role of a base universal (per gravitation). Nor is it clear to me that this is what Joe referred to as information as process. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net wrote: Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: *Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345. *Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es ] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process 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
Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
Dear colleagues, Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis (North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures. In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write: in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution. This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…), and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time). Best, Loet References: *Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345. *Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. _ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Honorary Professor, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/ SPRU, University of Sussex; Guest Professor http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/ Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html ISTIC, Beijing; Visiting Professor, http://www.bbk.ac.uk/ Birkbeck, University of London; http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=en From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process 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). Regards, Steven On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: 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
[Fis] Information-as-Process
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
