[Fis] Response to Jerry LR Chandler

[tozziarturo at libero.it]

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android -------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Da:  tozziarturo at libero.it A:  pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es Data: mercoledì, 30 novembre 2016, 09:52AM +01:00
Oggetto: Response to Jerry LR Chandler

>
>>Dear Pedro, 
>>here you are!
>>I tried 4 times to submit this comment.  
>>Ciao, and thanks!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dear Jerry,
>>>>>Thanks for
the intriguing questions!
>>>>>I thank our guest,
Pedro Marijuan, for giving us the
opportunity to talk with such high-ranked scientists.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let’s start!
>>>>>The questions raised in this post are highly
provocative.  From the perspective of physical phenomenology, it is
necessary to identify corresponding illations between the electric fields of
brain dynamics (such as EEG patterns) and the mathematics of electric fields /
electro-magnetism.  It goes without
saying that such correspondences must associate the measured quantities with
the theoretical quantities.  In other words, the units of measurements of
“brain activity" should be associated with Maxwell’s equations.
>>>>> 
>>>>>Are we
really sure that this proposition is true?  How does
central nervous system process information? Current theories are based on two
tenets: (a) information is transmitted by action potentials, the language by
which neurons communicate with each other—and (b) homogeneous neuronal
assemblies of cortical circuits operate on these neuronal messages where the
operations are characterized by the intrinsic connectivity among neuronal
populations. In this view, the size and time course of any spike is stereotypic
and the information is restricted to the temporal sequence of the spikes;
namely, the “neural code”. However, an increasing amount of novel data point
towards an alternative hypothesis: (a) the role of neural code in information
processing is overemphasized. Instead of simply passing messages, action potentials
play a role in dynamic coordination at multiple spatial and temporal scales,
establishing network interactions across several levels of a hierarchical
modular architecture, modulating and regulating the propagation of neuronal
messages. (b) Information is processed at all levels of neuronal infrastructure
from macromolecules to population dynamics. For example, intra-neuronal
(changes in protein conformation, concentration and synthesis) and
extra-neuronal factors (extracellular proteolysis, substrate patterning, myelin
plasticity, microbes, metabolic status) can have a profound effect on neuronal
computations. This means molecular message passing may have cognitive
connotations. This essay introduces the concept of “supramolecular chemistry”,
involving the storage of information at the molecular level and its retrieval,
transfer and processing at the supramolecular level, through transitory
non-covalent molecular processes that are self-organized, self-assembled and
dynamic. Finally, we note that the cortex comprises extremely heterogeneous
cells, with distinct regional variations, macromolecular assembly, receptor
repertoire and intrinsic microcircuitry. This suggests that every neuron (or
group of neurons) embodies different molecular information that hands an
operational effect on neuronal computation.
>>>>>For further
details, see: 
>>>>>http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11571-015-9337-1
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the philosophy of science, this is the basic
distinction between traditional mathematical narratives as pure abstractions
and APPLIED mathematical theories of explanations of scientific facts.  
>>>>> 
>>>>>Pursuing Quine’s
naturalized epistemology, we are aware that we need to make testable
previsions, in order to “link” mathematical theories with explanations of
scientific facts.  This is exactly what
we (try to) do. 
>>>>>The best
example is the following, that shows how a novel approach might lead to
unpredictable testable results: 
>>>>>Current
advances in neurosciences deal with the functional architecture of the central
nervous system, paving the way for general theories that improve our
understanding of brain activity. From topology, a strong concept comes into
play in understanding brain functions, namely, the 4D space of a “hypersphere’s
torus”, undetectable by observers living in a 3D world. The torus may be compared
with a video game with biplanes in aerial combat: when a biplane flies off one
edge of gaming display, it does not crash but rather it comes back from the
opposite edge of the screen. Our thoughts exhibit similar behaviour, i.e. the
unique ability to connect past, present and future events in a single, coherent
picture as if we were allowed to watch the three screens of past-present-future
“glued” together in a mental kaleidoscope. Here we hypothesize that brain
functions are embedded in a imperceptible fourth spatial dimension and propose
a method to empirically assess its presence. Neuroimaging fMRI series can be
evaluated, looking for the topological hallmark of the presence of a fourth
dimension. Indeed, there is a typical feature which reveal the existence of a
functional hypersphere: the simultaneous activation of areas opposite each
other on the 3D cortical surface. Our suggestion—substantiated by recent
findings—that brain activity takes place on a closed, donut-like trajectory
helps to solve long-standing mysteries concerning our psychological activities,
such as mind-wandering, memory retrieval, consciousness and dreaming state.
>>>>>For further
details, see: 
>>>>>http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11571-016-9379-z
>>>>> 
>>>>>We puzzled
the neuroscientific community, giving rise to a hot debate: 
>>>>>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/06/11/the-four-dimensional-brain/#.WDvjihrhCUm
>>>>> 
>>>>>Until we
found the smoking gun: 
>>>>>We introduce a novel method for the
measurement of information in fMRI neuroimages, i.e., nucleus clustering's
Renyi entropy derived from strong proximities in feature-based Voronoi
tessellations, e.g., maximal nucleus clustering (MNC). We show how MNC is a
novel, fast and inexpensive image-analysis technique, independent from the
standard blood-oxygen-level dependent signals, which facilitates the objective
detection of hidden temporal patterns of entropy/information in zones of fMRI
images generally not taken into account by the subjective standpoint of the
observer. In order to evaluate the potential applications of MNC, we looked for
the presence of a fourth dimension's distinctive hallmarks in a temporal
sequence of 2D images taken during spontaneous brain activity. Indeed, recent
findings suggest that several brain activities, such as mind-wandering and
memory retrieval, might take place in the functional space of a four
dimensional hypersphere, which is a double donut-like structure undetectable in
the usual three dimensions. We found that the Renyi entropy is higher in MNC
areas than in the surrounding ones, and that these temporal patterns closely
resemble the trajectories predicted by the possible presence of a hypersphere
in the brain.
>>>>>For further
details, see (this manuscript is not yet published, but it is in advanced
review): 
>>>>>http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/08/30/072397
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>Concernig your answers to our
questions, I may summarize our response in this way: 
>>>>>A s we stated above, the bipolarity of
electrical particles is just one one the countless functional phenomena
occurring in the brain.  See, for
example, our still unpublished manuscript, where we  assess cortical activity in terms of McKean-Vlasov
equations, derived from the classical Vlasov equations for plasma :  
>>>>>http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0014
>>>>> 
>>>>>From a
philosophical point of view, we pursue the William Bechtel’s approach of a
mechanistic explanation in psychology, that goes from reduction back to higher
levels.  
>>>>>http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09515080903238948
>>>>>Becthel
states that  the components of a mechanism interact in complex ways
involving positive and negative feedback and that the organization often
exhibits highly interactive local networks linked by a few long-range
connections (small-worlds organization) and power law distributions of
connections.   This means that, when
looking down is combined with looking around and up, mechanistic research
results in an integrated, multi-level perspective. 
>>>>>But the main question here is:  w hat does a topologic reformulation add in the  evaluation of the nervous processes? 
BUT and its extensions provide a methodological approach which makes it
possible for us to study experience in terms of projections from real to
abstract phase spaces.   The importance of projections between environmental
spaces, where objects lie, and brain phase spaces, where mental operations take
place, is also suggested by a recent paper, which provides a rigorous way of
measuring distance on concave neural manifolds ( http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002400 ).  The  real, measurable
nervous activity can be described in terms of paths occurring on n-spheres.  It leads  to a consideration
of affinities among nervous signals, characterized as antipodal points on
multi-dimensional spheres embedded in abstract spaces.  To provide an example, embedding brain
activities in n-spheres allows the quantification of geometric parameters, such
as angles, lengths, and so on, that  could be useful in neuroimaging data optimization. BUT
and its  ingredients
can be modified in different guises, in order to assess a wide range of  nervous functions.  Although this field is nearly novel and still
in progress, with several unpublished findings, we may provide some examples .  Such a methodological approach
has been proved useful in the evaluation of brain symmetries, which allow us to
perform coarse- or fine-grained evaluation of fMRI images and to assess the
relationships, affinities, shape-deformations and closeness among BOLD activated
areas ( http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/abstract ).  
>>>>>Further, BUT
has been proved useful in the evaluation of cortical histological images previoulsy
treated with Voronoi tessellation ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304394016301999 ).
>>>>>A wide range of brain dynamics, ranging from neuronal membrane activity
to spikes, from seizures to spreading depression, lie along a continuum of the
repertoire of the neuronal nonlinear activities which may be of substantial
importance in enabling our understanding of central nervous system function and
in the control of pathological neurological states.  Nonlinear dynamics are frequently studied
through logistic maps equipped with Hopf bifurcations, where intervals are
dictated by Feigenbaum constants.  Tozzi
and Peters (2016, quoted above) introduced an approach that offers an
explanation of  nervous  nonlinearity and  Hopf bifurcations in terms of algebraic topology.   Hopf bifurcation  transformations
(the antipodal points)  can be described as paths or trajectories on abstract
spheres embedded in n-spheres where n stands for  the Feigenbaum constant’s irrational number . Although the paper takes into account just  Hopf
bifurcations among the brain nonlinear dynamics, this is however a starting
point towards the “linearization” of other nonlinear dynamics in the
brain.   In sum, BUT makes it possible for us to evaluate nonlinear brain
dynamics, which occur during knowledge acquisition and processing, through much
simpler linear techniques.  
>>>>> 
>>>>>BUT and its variants are not just a  methodological approach, but also display a  physical ,
quantifiable counterpart.  To make an
example, although anatomical and functional relationships among cortical
structures are fruitfully studied,  e.g. ,
in terms of dynamic causal modelling, pairwise entropies and temporal-matching
oscillations, nevertheless  proximity among brain signals adds information that has the potential to be
operationalized. For example, based on the ubiquitous presence of antipodal cortical
zones with co-occuring BOLD activation, it has been recently suggested that
spontaneous brain activity might display donut-like trajectories (Tozzi and
Peters 2016, see above).
>>>>>BUT allows the evaluation of energetic nervous requirements
too.   There exists a physical link between
the  two spheres  S n and  S n-1  and  their energetic features.  When  two
antipodal functions  a n-sphere  S n , standing for symmetries, project to a n -Euclidean manifold (where  S n-1 lies), a
single function is achieved and a symmetry break occurs (Tozzi and Peters 2016,
see above). It is known that a decrease in symmetry goes together with a
decrease in entropy.  It means that the
single mapping function on  S n-1  displays energy parameters lower than the sum of two
corresponding antipodal functions on  S n .  Therefore, in
the system  S n and  S n-1 , a decrease
in dimensions gives rise to a decrease in energy.  We achieve a system in which the energetic
changes do not depend anymore on thermodynamic parameters, but rather on affine
connections, homotopies and continuous functions.   A preliminary example is provided by a
recent paper, where BUT allows the  detection of Bayesian Kullback-Leibler divergence  during unsure perception  (Tozzi and Peters, 2016, see above) .  Therefore, paraphrasing what you
stated, t he meaning specified by the mathematical symbol IS the
meaning specified by a physical symbol,  at least in our BUT case.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>Concerning the a priori Kantian notions (not just of space and time!),
the most successful current neuroscientific approaches are framed exactly on…
Kantian a priori!  See: 
>>>>>http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00079/full
>>>>>The paper says: “ Predictive processing
(PP) is a paradigm in computational and cognitive neuroscience that has
recently attracted significant attention across domains, including psychology,
robotics, artificial intelligence and philosophy. It is often regarded as a
fresh and possibly revolutionary paradigm shift, yet a handful of authors have
remarked that aspects of PP seem reminiscent of the work of 18th century
philosopher Immanuel Kant. ”
>>>>> 
>>>>>In such a context, a phrase of yours is very important: “ Perhaps this premise rests on the a priori Kantian
notions of space and time rather than the systematic categories of Aristotelian
causality”.   Therefore,
your premise (e.g.,  the systematic
categories of Aristotelian causality) is as questionable as a Kantian
approach, or every other… All of us are just playing Wittgenstein’s linguistic
jokes.  
>>>>> 
>>>>>Another
example: “Given the theory of quantum
mechanics and the critical role that angular momenta play in the organization
of brain dynamics, I would conjecture that it is conceivable that
electro-dynamic equations akin to Feynman diagrams are needed to quantify brain
phenomenon”.  
>>>>> 
>>>>>This is another
linguistic joke.  Nobody ever demonstrated
that the brain works with quantum mechanics and that angular momenta play a
role in the organization of brain dynamics!  To be honest, we published on BUT and quantum
mechanics ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-016-2998-7 ),
therefore we were tempted to use such kind approaches for our brain models.  However, in this case, a quantistic brain it
is not a falsifiable theory at all.  And
despite Lakatos’ disruption of Popper’s falsifiability, I still think, in
another linguistic joke, that a theory needs to be falsifiable… 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>Thanks a
lot!
>>>>>Ciao!
>>>>> 
>>>>>Arturo Tozzi
>>>>>AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>>>>Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>>>>Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>>>>http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/  
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>----Messaggio originale----
>>>>>>Da: "Jerry LR Chandler" < jerry_lr_chandler at mac.com >
>>>>>>Data: 28/11/2016 5.35
>>>>>>A: "FIS Webinar"< fis at listas.unizar.es >
>>>>>>Cc: < tozziarturo at libero.it >
>>>>>>Ogg: Physical Phenomenology and Forms of Information Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FIS Colleagues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The questions raised in this post are highly provocative.  From the perspective of physical phenomenology, it is necessary to identify corresponding illations between the electric fields of brain dynamics (such as EEG patterns) and the mathematics of electric fields / electro-magnetism.  It goes without saying that such correspondences must associate the measured quantities with the theoretical quantities.  In other words, the units of measurements of “brain activity" should be associated with Maxwell’s equations. In the philosophy of science, this is the basic distinction between traditional mathematical narratives as pure abstractions and APPLIED mathematical theories of explanations of scientific facts.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My responds to these questions are based on the propositional functions and the formation operators of applied (organic) mathematics. 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>TOPOLOGY AND BRAIN FUNCTION
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Arturo Tozzi  
>>>>>>>>>>Center for Nonlinear Science, University of North Texas
>>>>>>>>>>1155 Union Circle, #311427
>>>>>>>>>>Denton, TX 76203-5017, USA, and
>>>>>>>>>>tozziarturo at libero.it
>>>>>>>>>>James F. Peters
>>>>>>>>>>Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba
>>>>>>>>>>75A Chancellor ’ s Circle, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6
>>>>>>>>>>james.peters3 at umanitoba.ca
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Questions.
>>>>>>>>>>1)          Could we use projections and mappings, in order to describe brain activity?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC            A propositional function is needed to associate the logic of the theorem with the physical phenomenology of brain activity.  The bi-polarity of electrical particles that generate brain function make this task extra-ordinarily unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>>>>2)          Is such a topological approach linked with previous claims of old “epistemologists” of recent “neuro-philosophers”?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC          This question is not scientifically meaningful to me. But, see my comment on physical Kantianism below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>3)          Is such a topological approach linked with current neuroscientific models?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC No.  present-day neuroscientific models are all based on electrical particles and organized collections of electrical particles. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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?
>>>>>>JLRC I do not find a propositional function in this interrogative, so I respond in the negative.  Physical phenomenology associated with brain dynamics are discrete physical events, such as ion transport and neuronal firings.  But, of course, if anyone can find a way to associate continuous topological spaces with quantum electro-dynamics of angular momentum necessary for brain activity, then I would retract my opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>5)          How to operationalize the procedures?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC:  Current theories of neuronal activity consists of several logical forms of physical sublations from the electrical particles to the mereological propositional functions of the whole.  Which physical phenomena is the theory seeking to “operationalize”?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>6)          Is it possible to build a general topological theory of the brain?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC    Of course it is.  It is just mathematics. One such general mathematical model was published and it appears to be mathematically sound.  The [FIS] informational challenge is find correspondence relations between mathematical symbols and physical symbols such that the mathematical theory can be tested. The scientific challenge is to find causal pathways for physical phenomena, whatever the mathematical structure of the theory is. 
>>>>>>>>>>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?  
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>JLRC:  Perhaps the term “consciousness” should be substituted for the word “brain”?  Extensive biological knowledge of information processing in brains from organisms with only a few neurons to very large organisms with upward of ten to the ninth neurons  exists. This information is generated from physical measurements. This information on the physical phenomenology associated with the physical methodology for measuring brain function (activity) is published in the open literature and available to any scientist who is interested in analysis of physical phenomenology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>From my perspective, the deep premise underlying the hypothesis presented here is inadequate to describe the physical phenomenology of brain activity.  Perhaps this premise rests on the a priori Kantian notions of space and time rather than the systematic categories of Aristotelian causality. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At it’s root, my view is simple.  Any abstract mathematical theorem has meaning only within the mathematical symbol system.  Any model of physical phenomenology requires symbolic quantities of physical units of measure be associated with the symbolic mathematics. The meaning specified by the mathematical symbol is not the meaning specified by a physical symbol.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Given the theory of quantum mechanics and the critical role that angular momenta play in the organization of brain dynamics, I would conjecture that it is conceivable that electro-dynamic equations akin to Feynman diagrams are needed to quantify brain phenomenon.  Conceptually, one can speculate that such a hypothetical diagram for changes in angular momentum might take a conceptual form such as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A + B  —>  [ACB —> A’CB’]  —> A’ + B’.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>where the alphabet symbols represent different collections of electrical particles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jerry LR Chandler
>>>>>>Research Professor
>>>>>>George Mason University
>>>>>>Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>NOTE: A simple explanation of BUT and its novel variants
>>>>>>>>>> (with the proper bibliography) can be found in this short movie on Youtube:  
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxfqraR1bIg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Best wishes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Arturo Tozzi
>>>>>>>>>>AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>>>>>>>>>Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>>>>>>>>>Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>>>>>>>>>http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/  
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>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/20161130/a93c762c/attachment.html>