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