Re: neuro: and what else

Dear Peter,

Many thanks for your very well crafted questions. In what follows I have
tried to produce some limited answers:

>
>I went through on the issues of Trends in
>Neurosciences 1998-1999, and checked the titles of the papers, where the
>word "INFORMATION" was explicitly used.:
>

In general, these titles use the INFO term in the conventional (artificial)
sense of the info processing machines. In most cases it is almost correct,
but overall it becomes a big mistake (I agree with Allan's comments in his
posting). One opens the door to the "functionalist" scheme and forgets the
differential characteristics of the living neuron: I would particularly
emphasize the unceasing self-production-degradation activities at the
molecular level (in every synapsis too) unknown to the stable artificial
machines.

>There is another important keyword related to
>information: REPRESENTATION. So, let's see this list, too.
>

Quite an important point. This related property or phenomenon of REPR.
becomes an essential ingredient of nervous systems functionning. They can
form "models", simulate their environment, and by doing so a new realm of
efficient, non-reductive causality takes place. Here the comparison with
computers is cogent: representation provides the capacity to generate a new
high level of behavior (or programmimg) that goes beyond the physical
individual constitutive elements. But I immediately switch to the above
caveat on functionalism.

>
>1. What and how Neuroscience can benefit from Information Science?
>(Are there any general priciples what neuroscientists could and should
>apply to their specific problems?

My impression is that we have made very limited advancements in the search
for info foundations. Perhaps some of our localized discussions can
highlight the profound interconnection between the different "info
societies": organisms, cells, molecules... But In the future I would answer
"Yes" to your question: there seem to be general info priciples that
neuroscientists could and should apply to their specific problems. For
instance, Scarrott's emphasis on power laws as one of the basic info themes
may be right; they could be a very strategic widespread item, I believe
that in the neurosciences too.

>2. What and how Information Science can benefit from Neuroscience ?
>(Can we distillate new general principles from neurobiological data?)

My bold opinion is that, in spite of all the terrific advancements of the
whole neurosciences, they still lack a central theory of "neuronal
information processing"--the equivalent of Darwinian selection theory for
biology or classical mechanics for physics. With this pivotal element in
proper place, we would contemplate the info realms under quite a different
light... I cannot help but thinking that the absence of such central
neurosci. theory is an scourge of our present system of sciences--at the
bottom of the infamous gap between sciencies and humanities, and of the
sterile "science wars" of today. Deprive the biology of evolution, and the
physics of mechanics, and you will have the neurosciences of today: a field
without any central identity.

>I think I would like to avoid having discussions about consciousness. You
>may remember Otto Roessler's remark (or if it happens that it is not the
>case) you can find it on the fis homapage):
>"This appears like a good point to stop, isn't it?"

I second the advice.

best

Pedro

------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuan. TEL 34 976 761 927, FAX 34 976 762 111
BIOINFORMATION GROUP. Dept. Ingen. Electronica y Comunicaciones,
CPS Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza 50015, SPAIN
email: marijuan@posta.unizar.es
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Apr 10 15:15:50 2000