Re: neuro: and what else

(message from Don Mikulecky---mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu)

I'll be happy to chyime in. Whatever technical language one uses, it is the
context dependent nature of information that is most representative of what
complex systems are over the simpler mechanistic models so useful in applied
science. As a biologist I am so awatre of the presence of all that DNA in EVERY
cell (think of Dolly) and yet how useless it all is out of context. The real
information lies in process and relationships which are transient and
self-referential.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky

Bela Banathy wrote:

> Allan,
>
> There are a number of ways we could approach the unification of the posited
> three aspects (constitutive, generative, communicational) of information.
> When I last struggled with this question, the most fruitful approach seemed to
> be to consider the entailment relationship between (among) the different
> aspects. As is often the case, when one tries to do this, one tends to come
> up with different entailment relationships depending upon the ontological
> assumptions that one is willing to make.
>
> My ontological stance was based on my interpretation of the work of George
> Kampis and Robert Rosen. This led to the generative (referential, or active)
> aspect being able to entail the others, not the other way around. The
> constitutive aspect turned out to have the least entailment reach.
>
> An empiricist stance might well lead to the communicational aspect entailing
> the others. A traditional reductionist view would probably find the three in
> mutual entailment with any communicational discrepancies attributed to
> randomness or error. It would be interesting to work out the entailment
> relationships from each of the perspectives that have commanded attention in
> the history of western, and not-so-western thought. We might be able to
> rescue the "sciences" of complexity by working in this direction; or at least
> shed some light on why it is so difficult for us to agree on what information
> is.
>
> Bela
>
> ps...I copied this note to George Kampis and Don Mikulecky....with the hope
> that they may be able to join the discussion when discretionary time becomes
> available.
>
> Allan L Combs wrote:
>
> > >To Pedro Marijun, Do you think these three info aspects you mention
> > >(constitutive, generative, comunicational) could be lumped together in a
> > >unified brain info theory, as you seem to suggest implicitly in another
> > >message?
> >
> > This is a fundamental question, on related to the earlier query regarding
> > the role of representation in the brain. Is neural activity in the brain
> > constitutive (e.g., comprising some kind of informational structure),
> > generative (e.g., generating emotions, thoughts, and behaviors in a
> > fashion best understood as an unfolding creative process), or
> > communicational (e.g., the basis conversations between nerve cells, as
> > suggested in traditional texts)?
> >
> > Allan Combs
Received on Wed May 03 16:27:45 2000