Dear colleagues,
Shannon’s information theory can be considered as a calculus because it allows
for the dynamic extension. Theil (1972)—Statistical decomposition analysis
(North Holland)—distinguished between static and dynamic information measures.
In addition to Shannon’s statical H, one can write:
in which can be considered as the a posteriori and the a priori distribution.
This dynamic information measure can be decomposed and aggregated. One can also
develop measures for systemic developments and critical transitions. In other
words, information as a process can also be measured in bits of information. Of
course, one can extend the dimensionality (i) for the multivariate case (ijk…),
and thus use information theory for network analysis (including time).
Best,
Loet
References:
* Leydesdorff, L. (1991). The Static and Dynamic Analysis of Network
Data Using Information Theory. Social Networks, 13(4), 301-345.
* Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/
London: North-Holland.
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of
Sussex;
Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London;
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 10:22 PM
To: Joseph Brenner
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information-as-Process
I am a little mystified by your assertion of "information as process." What,
exactly, is this and how does it differ fro information in general (Shannon).
Is it related to Whitehead's process notions?
In terms of neuroscience it is important to move away from connectionism and
modern computational ideas I believe. It is not clear to me how information
theory can be applied to the operation of the brain at the synaptic level
because the actions and the decisions made are made across the structure and
not at a single location.
Recognition, for example, is not a point event but occurs rather when a
particular shape is formed in the structure (of the CNS, for example) and is
immediately covariant with the "appropriate" response (another shape) which may
be characterized as a hyper-functor (which may or may not include neurons and
astrocytes in the brain).
Regards,
Steven
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
<mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > wrote:
Dear Carolina, Bob L., Bob U., Sören and Krassimir,
First of all thanks to Carolina for having launched a most interesting thread,
of which I have changed the title since the issues are broader than that of
Neuroinformation alone, as Francesco has noted.
My first point is a response to Sören since I feel his book does not address
Information-as-Process as 'physically' as I think necessary. His reference to
the use of this term by Buckland (on p. 77 not 87), (which I had missed when
first reading /Cybersemiotics/), however, is followed by a reference to
information processing. (He later states that a new metatheory is required to
replace the information processing paradigm, and he proposes Peircean
semiotics, whereas I have proposed Logic in Reality.) I also note that Buckland
places Information-as-Process in the 'Intangible' column of his matrix and one
can question the ontological meaning of this.
In the compendium /Philosophers of Process/. 1998. Browning and Myers (eds.).
New York: Fordham University Press, Peirce is represented by four papers: "The
Architecture of Theories", "The Doctrine of Necessity Examined", "The Law of
Mind" and "Man's Glassy Essence". Unfortunately, in none of these is the word
'process' used, let alone described as a concept. 'Process' is not an entry in
the COMMENS Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce, edited by Bergman and Paavola,
so the most one can say is that process was not a common concept in Peirce. If
Information-as-Process is to be developed as a concept, I doubt that Peirce's
semiotics will help.
In the notes of both Bob. L and Bob U., however, one finds workable properties
than can be assigned to Information-as-Process, the verb-noun dialectic and the
concept of real trophic exchange. Krassimir's concept of information being
dynamic (a process) or static depending on what it reflects does not give as
complete a notion as I would like that information is /in-itself/ a process,
even it reflects (refers to) static or abstract objects. Nevertheless,
Krassimir clearly sees the dualism of information as composed of dynamic and
static entities, whose interaction, as in the case of the first two approaches,
can be discussed in the framework of Logic in Reality. The problem is his use
of the term 'reflection' whose nature is not clear as I have remarked to him
before.
I look forward to further discussion.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu
<mailto:u...@umces.edu> >
To: "Carolina Isiegas" <cisie...@gmail.com <mailto:cisie...@gmail.com> >
Cc: <fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> >
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Neuroinformation?
Dear Dr. Isiegas:
I envision neuroinformation as the mutual information of the neuronal
network where synaptic connections are weighted by the frequencies of
discharge between all pairs of neurons. This is directly analogous to a
network of trophic exchanges among an ecosystem, as illustrated in
<http://people.biology.ufl.edu/ulan/pubs/SymmOvhd.PDF>.
Please note that this measure is different from the conventional
sender-channel-receiver format of communications theory. It resembles more
the "structural information" inhering in the neuronal network. John
Collier (also a FISer) calls such information "enformation" to draw
attention to its different nature.
With best wishes for success,
Bob Ulanowicz
Dear list,
I have been reading during the last year all these interesting
exchanges. Some of them terrific discussions! Given my scientific
backgound
(Molecular Neuroscience), I would like to hear your point of view on the
topic of neuroinformation, how information "exists" within the Central
Nervous Systems. My task was experimental; I was interested in
investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory,
specifically, the role of the cAMP-PKA-CREB signaling pathway in such
brain
functions (In Ted Abel´s Lab at the University of Pennsylvania, where I
spent 7 years). I generated several genetically modified mice in which I
could regulate the expression of this pathway in specific brain regions
and
in which I studied the effects of upregulation or downregulation at the
synaptic and behavioral levels. However, I am conscious that the
"information flow" within the mouse Nervous System is far more complex
that
in the "simple" pathway that I was studying...so, my concrete question for
you "Fishers" or "Fisers", how should we contemplate the micro and macro
structures of information within the neural realm? what is
Neuroinformation?
Best wishes,
--
Carolina Isiegas
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto: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
