[Fis] R: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Dear Karl, Your noteworthy account is a typical example of a well-built scientific theory: by putting together different bricks from several influential sources (Piaget, Gibson, dynamic systems theory), you create a solid, concrete building that sounds very logic, and also in touch with common sense. However… sometimes it takes just a single, novel experimental data, in order to destroy the pillars of the most perfect logical buildings. Your account is false, because your premises do not hold. You stated that: “The ability to be oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there. What children and animals have and use before they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective (the ego). This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and Chemistry, where life is possible. The rules are detectable, because they root in logic and reason.” The problem is that… “Bees Can Count to Four, Display Emotions, and Teach Each Other New Skills” (PLOS Biology 2016). http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bees-can-count-to-four-display-emotions-and-teach-each-other-new-skills Therefore, pay attention to the truth of logic explanations! Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ Messaggio originale Da: "Karl Javorszky" <karl.javors...@gmail.com> Data: 06/12/2016 11.29 A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es> Ogg: [Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN Toposcopy Thank you for the excellent discussion on a central issue of epistemology. The assertion that topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to be clarified. The assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding considers the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and hides behind something that obstructs the view from that angle. This shows that the child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which point out in a mental map his position and the path of the seeker. The child has a knowledge of places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for "space" and "study". As a parallel usage of the established word "topology" appears inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when watching the places of things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of the world as it finds home from a discovery around the garden. This ability predates its ability to count. The ability to be oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there. What children and animals have and use before they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective (the ego). This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and Chemistr
[Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Toposcopy Thank you for the excellent discussion on a central issue of epistemology. The assertion that topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to be clarified. The assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding considers the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and hides behind something that obstructs the view from that angle. This shows that the child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which point out in a mental map his position and the path of the seeker. The child has a knowledge of places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for "space" and "study". As a parallel usage of the established word "topology" appears inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when watching the places of things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of the world as it finds home from a discovery around the garden. This ability predates its ability to count. The ability to be oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there. What children and animals have and use before they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective (the ego). This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and Chemistry, where life is possible. The rules are detectable, because they root in logic and reason. The rules may be hard to detect, because, as Wittgenstein puts it: one cannot see the eye one looks with, fish do not see the water. We function by these rules and are such in an uneasy position questioning our fundamental axioms, investigating the self-evident. The rules have to do with places and objects in places. Now we imagine a lot of things and let them occupy places. It is immediately obvious that this is a complicated task if one orders more than a few objects according to several, different aspects. We introduce the terms: collection, ordered collection, well-ordered and extremely well ordered. As a collection we take the natural numbers, in their form of a+b=c. This set is ordered, as its elements can be compared to each other and a sequence among the elements can be established. We call the collection well-ordered, if every aspect that can create a sequence among the elements is in usage, determining the places of elements in sequences. A well-ordered collection can not be globally and locally stable at the same time. In most parts and at most times, it is in a quasi-stable state. The instabilities coming from contradictions among the implications of differing orders regarding the position of elements will appear in many forms of discontinuities. We call the collection extremely well-ordered, if the discontinuities, which appear as consequence of praemisses which are no more compatible to each other, in their turn cause such alterations in the positions of the elements that henceforth the praemisses are again compatible to each other. The extremely well-ordered collection maintains a loop of consequences becoming causes while changes in spatial configurations take place. In the well-ordered collection there is a continuous conflict, out of which loops that maintain stability can evolve. The mechanism is easy to recreate on one's own computer. Nothing more than a few hours of programming is required to understand and to be able to use the toposcope. Its main ideas are known under "cyclic permutations". It is important to visualise that elements change places during a reorder. The movement between "previously correct, now behind me", "presently here, not yet all stable" and "correct in future, not yet there" has many gradations and many places. Patterns evolve by themselves, as properties of natural numbers. There is a simple set of numeric facts that build the backbone of spatial orientation. The archaic knowledge shared by animals and children is based on a simple set of algorithms. These algorithms predetermine the connection between
Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Thank you for the excellent discussion on a central issue of epistemology. The assertion that topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to be clarified. The assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding considers the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and hides behind something that obstructs the view from that angle. This shows that the child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which point out in a mental map his position and the path of the seeker. The child has a knowledge of places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for "space" and "study". As a parallel usage of the established word "topology" appears inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when watching the places of things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of the world as it finds home from a discovery around the garden. This ability predates its ability to count. The ability to be oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there. What children and animals have and use before they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective (the ego). This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and Chemistry, where life is possible. The rules are detectable, because they root in logic and reason. The rules may be hard to detect, because, as Wittgenstein puts it: one cannot see the eye one looks with, fish do not see the water. We function by these rules and are such in an uneasy position questioning our fundamental axioms, investigating the self-evident. The rules have to do with places and objects in places. Now we imagine a lot of things and let them occupy places. It is immediately obvious that this is a complicated task if one orders more than a few objects according to several, different aspects. We introduce the terms: collection, ordered collection, well-ordered and extremely well ordered. As a collection we take the natural numbers, in their form of a+b=c. This set is ordered, as its elements can be compared to each other and a sequence among the elements can be established. We call the collection well-ordered, if every aspect that can create a sequence among the elements is in usage, determining the places of elements in sequences. A well-ordered collection can not be globally and locally stable at the same time. In most parts and at most times, it is in a quasi-stable state. The instabilities coming from contradictions among the implications of differing orders regarding the position of elements will appear in many forms of discontinuities. We call the collection extremely well-ordered, if the discontinuities, which appear as consequence of praemisses which are no more compatible to each other, in their turn cause such alterations in the positions of the elements that henceforth the praemisses are again compatible to each other. The extremely well-ordered collection maintains a loop of consequences becoming causes while changes in spatial configurations take place. In the well-ordered collection there is a continuous conflict, out of which loops that maintain stability can evolve. The mechanism is easy to recreate on one's own computer. Nothing more than a few hours of programming is required to understand and to be able to use the toposcope. Its main ideas are known under "cyclic permutations". It is important to visualise that elements change places during a reorder. The movement between "previously correct, now behind me", "presently here, not yet all stable" and "correct in future, not yet there" has many gradations and many places. Patterns evolve by themselves, as properties of natural numbers. There is a simple set of numeric facts that build the backbone of spatial orientation. The archaic knowledge shared by animals and children is based on a simple set of algorithms. These algorithms predetermine the connection between where and
Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Dear Pedro, Good morning from a snowy corner of the University of Manitoba. Many thanks for initiating this very important and stimulating discussion about the marriage of topology and the brain. The proposed topological framework for the brain has far-reaching implications, especially if we consider the rich mathematical structures that are implicit in the variants of Borsuk-Ulam theorem. It is definitely possible for us to use projections and mappings in the description of brain activity. Best regards, Jim Peters James F. Peters, Professor Computational Intelligence Laboratory, ECE Department Room E2-390 EITC Complex, 75 Chancellor's Circle University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6 Canada Office: 204 474 9603 Fax: 204 261 4639 email: james.pete...@ad.umanitoba.ca https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Gyorgy Darvas [darv...@iif.hu] Sent: November 24, 2016 11:17 AM To: Pedro C. Marijuan; 'fis' Subject: Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN A recommended recent additional reading: http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(16)30500-1 On 2016.11.24. 17:45, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: 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
Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
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
[Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Dear FIS Colleagues, We continue with our customary discussion sessions. This time the topic is: *"A TOPOLOGICAL APPROACH TO BRAIN FUNCTION"* And our invitees chairing the session are: * **Arturo Tozzi* AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ *James F. Peters ** *Professor Computational Intelligence Laboratory ECE Department University of Manitoba, Canada https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf The kickoff text will be posted tomorrow. Best wishes to all --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 X 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
