[Fis] New Discussion Session

[Raquel del Moral]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

We are preparing a new discussion session. Our invitee will be my 
colleague *Alberto Jiménez Schuhmacher*. He is a molecular biology 
researcher of our Institute (IIS Aragon) who has recently established 
his own lab. (So, he is relatively young!) But he has a very brilliant 
record of research achievements, mostly related to cancer physiology and 
detection and "virtual biopsies".


In what extent are we heading towards a new research paradigm of 
*DATAISM, as the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the 
beginning of data-correlation-driven research?*


In a few days he will post his kickoff text.


Best wishes to all,

Raquel

--
-
Raquel del Moral
Grupo de Bioinformacion / Bioinformation Group

Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza
Tfno. +34 976 71 44 76
E-mail. rdelmoral.i...@aragon.es
-



---
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de 
virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] New Discussion Session: PLANCKIAN INFORMATION

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Almost on the eve of the Göteborg summit IS4SI 2017, with a FIS 
conference there (http://is4si-2017.org/program/conferences/fis-2017/), 
it may be a good idea to re-ignite our discussions with a very enticing 
topic: the proposal of a specific type of  information with widespread 
reach.


*PLANCKIAN INFORMATION: A NEW MEASURE OF ORDER*

It will be imparted by:

*S**UNGCHUL JI*

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University

We will start it in the next days.

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 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

[Fis] R: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[tozziart...@libero.it]

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" 

Data: 06/12/2016 11.29

A: "fis"

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 Chemistry, where life is possible.  The rules are 
detectable, beca

[Fis] Rnv: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Enviado desde mi dispositivo Samsung


 Mensaje original 
De: tozziart...@libero.it
Fecha: 8/12/16 15:38 (GMT+01:00)
Para: karl.javors...@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.es, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN 
FERNANDEZ 
Asunto: R: [Fis] [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 Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Karl Javorszky" 
Data: 06/12/2016 11.29
A: "fis"
Ogg: [Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

Toposcopy[https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]

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, movable

[Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Karl Javorszky]

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

[Karl Javorszky]

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 w

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[James Peters]

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-

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Gyorgy Darvas]

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 
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 
va

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

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 Ara

[Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

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

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION: THE BIOLOGIC

[pedro marijuan]

Thanks Bob, in a while Louis himself will send his kickoff text and 
presentation file (not me!) --Pedro


BlackBerry de movistar, allí donde estés está tu oficin@

-Original Message-
From: Bob Logan 
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 12:50:25 
To: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION: THE BIOLOGIC

Please resend the attachment 


__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications










> On Mar 6, 2016, at 8:22 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear FISers and New Colleagues,
> 
> Louis H. Kauffman (Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer 
> Science, University of Illinois at Chicago) is going to start another short 
> discussion session, this time it will be focussed on the biologic. He will 
> concentrate on the relationships of formal systems and biology, "to consider 
> and reconsider philosophical and phenomenological points of view in relation 
> to natural science and mathematics."
> 
> If there is any trouble in his kickoff message with the attached presentation 
> (ineffable filters of Unizar server!) we would arbitrate some dropbox 
> solution, as we did in the previous session.
> 
> Best regards to all,
> 
> --Pedro
> fis list coordination
>  
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> <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

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION: THE BIOLOGIC

[Bob Logan]

Please resend the attachment 


__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications










> On Mar 6, 2016, at 8:22 AM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
>  wrote:
> 
> Dear FISers and New Colleagues,
> 
> Louis H. Kauffman (Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer 
> Science, University of Illinois at Chicago) is going to start another short 
> discussion session, this time it will be focussed on the biologic. He will 
> concentrate on the relationships of formal systems and biology, "to consider 
> and reconsider philosophical and phenomenological points of view in relation 
> to natural science and mathematics."
> 
> If there is any trouble in his kickoff message with the attached presentation 
> (ineffable filters of Unizar server!) we would arbitrate some dropbox 
> solution, as we did in the previous session.
> 
> Best regards to all,
> 
> --Pedro
> fis list coordination
>  
> ___
> 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] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION: THE BIOLOGIC

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear FISers and New Colleagues,

Louis H. Kauffman (Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, 
University of Illinois at Chicago) is going to start another short discussion 
session, this time it will be focussed on the biologic. He will concentrate on 
the relationships of formal systems and biology, "to consider and reconsider 
philosophical and phenomenological points of view in relation to natural 
science and mathematics."

If there is any trouble in his kickoff message with the attached presentation 
(ineffable filters of Unizar server!) we would arbitrate some dropbox solution, 
as we did in the previous session.

Best regards to all,

--Pedro
fis list coordination

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] New Discussion Session

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

The New Course is here, and with it, it is time to continue our 
discussion sessions. We will start next week with:


INFORMATION AND LOCALITY, by Steven Ericsson-Zenith.

Another three/four sessions are in the pipeline (remember the open 
invitation to suggest themes/presenters). Hopefully we will have an 
exciting Course. During this Summer, I hope you all have had at least a 
decent resting time.

best wishes
--Pedro

PS. Thanks to Michel for his message on predatory publishers. I think it 
clearly connects with our recent discussions on library science. Along 
the 80's and 90's, when gauging the scientific papers and their 
citations became standardized and enormously facilitated (Garfield!), 
the metrics of professional advancement gradually substituted for the 
exchange of ideas in scholarly communication (the stupid 'publish or 
perish'). The increasing penetrance of digitalization has amplified the 
phenomenon and brought unintended spurious consequences as Michel 
describes with the predatory publishing. Now it seems we are entering in 
a next wave of digitalization, affecting knowledge creation itself. What 
unintended consequences may have the widespread presence of AI systems 
capable to handle enormous swaths of knowledge and to creatively 
recombine and apply it? Interestingly, the digitalization of society 
will be the leit motiv of next IS4IS & FIS conference (2017, 
Gothenburg)organized by Gordana...


-
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

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis