Re: neuro: and what else

>In 1988 I did a search on Biological Abstracts for information, entropy,
>and information and entropy. I got several hundred for the first, about 70
>for the second, and 40 or so for the combination. I looked at the abstracts,
>and in all but two cases the use of "information" or "entropy" was gratuitous,
>i.e., the abstract would not have lost any content had they been deleted.

I find your search quite an interesting practical case. Did you prepare any
type of publication about this?

>
>Things may have changed in more than 10 years, but I somehow doubt
>it. The restriction of information to information processing, especially
>by machines suggest use of the machines, but not in the theory. If it
>is theoretical, I agree the tendency is disturbing. It tends towards mechanical
>models.

Maybe this is the inevitable unidimensional thought that accompanies most
of specialized research (decades ago, the philosopher Ortega y Gasset wrote
a pretty nice essay about "the barbarism of specialization"). However,
reminding the discussion on INFO PHYLA, in the past June (it is in the fis
web pages), I venture the following coment:

The "mechanical" point of view may be partially correct, at least for
capturing the CONSTITUTIVE aspects of info phenomena (say, the abstract
"pattern"); but it completely disregards the GENERATIVE aspects (how that
pattern is intertwined into a vast net of other interacting bodily
processes, including hormones, peptides, emotions, time-rythms, etc.), and
also it completely disregards the COMMUNICATIONAL aspects (that, for
instance, Peter has cogently discussed in his "hermeneutical brain")...

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 Thu Apr 13 19:44:07 2000