[Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[Gyorgy Darvas]

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.iacs at aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161124/a7187139/attachment.html>