Dynamical Neuroscience


by Pythagorean
Tags: dynamical, neuroscience
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#19
Jul31-10, 05:39 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Your focus still seems to be just on the cellular level, so it is not "neuroscience". That is one big source of confusion here. And there is already a wiki on biological neurons that you link to which is about a dynamical sub-discipline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model


And to call it dynamical, I would expect a justification. Is is dynamical that ignores the emergence of computational features (which it sounds as though you are saying)? Is it dynamical as the way to explain emergent computational features (which is what people would expect)?
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#20
Jul31-10, 06:27 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
Your focus still seems to be just on the cellular level, so it is not "neuroscience". That is one big source of confusion here. And there is already a wiki on biological neurons that you link to which is about a dynamical sub-discipline.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_neuron_model
This is a matter of personal availability, not focus. See "attractor networks" in my article and "cognitive neuroscience" with "hopfield networks". This is where I need input from people (that's why I noted that i need more for the cognitive neuroscience section) but remember that it has to have a dynamical basis (it has to have a nonlinear mathematical formulation that exhibits rich dynamics) and it has to be based on empirical observation (to be science, of course).

Remember that I take a reductionist approach (and also remember that I do not think our approaches are mutually exclusive, and in fact think they're beneficial in terms of synergy) so I'm already spent on what I can offer the page. I've had to do a lot of research to expand it as much as I have, and it will take more research to expand it more, but this is why I'm asking for input, because I'm not completely sure where to look.

Note also, that I'm still reviewing old discussions from you. I just came across Scott Kelso, which I'm going to look into to add.

And to call it dynamical, I would expect a justification. Is is dynamical that ignores the emergence of computational features (which it sounds as though you are saying)? Is it dynamical as the way to explain emergent computational features (which is what people would expect)?
I'm not sure those are directly relevant. Dynamical refers to the mathematics. This is mathematical biology, but more specified. Dynamics is a subject of math, neuroscience as a subject of biology. Of course, nowadays, (neuroscience is interdisciplinary).

It doesn't directly make a judgments about computationalism, emergence, etc. It does the actual analysis on the models and looks for realistic regimes that explain observed behavior. The problem is that the nature of the equations is not simple, there are thousands of regimes to look in (depending on how many dimensions and parameters your model has).
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#21
Jul31-10, 06:36 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
also note the text book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kVj...page&q&f=false
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#22
Jul31-10, 07:05 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
I'm not sure those are directly relevant. Dynamical refers to the mathematics. This is mathematical biology, but more specified. Dynamics is a subject of math, neuroscience as a subject of biology. Of course, nowadays, (neuroscience is interdisciplinary).
OK, I understand. But my point is that it is a fundamental mistake (arguably) to believe that it is possible to create a "proper" dynamical description, and from that derive the computational (or rather informational) aspects of the system in question.

This is a huge issue, widely discussed, most especially in mathematical biology (Rosen, Patttee, Salthe, Brier, etc). And also in developmental systems theory (Oyama, etc) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develop...systems_theory

So to put up a page that is "just dynamics" needs justification to make sense. Otherwise it sounds like you are taking a regressive step.

Again, to repeat, it has been argued as a no-go theorem that "just dynamics" can't give us a full story in neuroscience. Robert Rosen and Howard Pattee are the best sources here.

If you just want to highlight a class of nonlinear mathematical modelling, then that's great. I'm merely saying that from my perspective, it sounds really odd not to acknowledge the wider context of debate.

The cutting edge of modelling would be about how dynamical processes (which are well-modelled in terms of attractors, metastability, etc) are harnessed by informational ones (which is where semiosis, symbol-grounding, the epistemic cut, etc, come in).
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#23
Jul31-10, 07:25 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
OK, I understand. But my point is that it is a fundamental mistake (arguably) to believe that it is possible to create a "proper" dynamical description, and from that derive the computational (or rather informational) aspects of the system in question.
I don't believe that. I believe in an interdisciplinary approach. What you call a "systems approach" (btw, 'systems neuroscience' academically is a synthesis class, it's a lot like a 'final lesson', you integrate all the subdisciplines for research, you collaborate across the fields, so most actively researching neuroscientist are "systems" neuroscientists by default.

For instance, follow the Dynamical Neuroscience conferences which I cite:
http://neuro.dgimeetings.com/Home.aspx
to see the broad spectrum of contributing fields.

Anyway, with respect the viewpoint you keep projecting on me, I believe that all fields follow from each other in a... well, a dynamical way. It's not like all of psychology is going to be discovered from neurons or all off neurons will be understood solely from psychology; it's that development of both fields will provide insights to each other.

Dynamical sciences been successful in employing "reductionist" (that's a relative term) modeling to describe emergent cognitive proerties (again, see attractor networks in the article).

And as I've also demonstrated in the article (Gluck, in the cognitive neuroscience section) it works in reverse too, but that's not a dynamical example that I know of. I still mentioned hopfield networks though.

And in the intro:

"Information theory draws on thermodynamics in the development of infodynamics which can involve nonlinear systems, especially with regards to the brain."

So please point to specifically where you're confused.
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#24
Jul31-10, 07:38 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
You think you know what you are talking about? Fine.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#25
Jul31-10, 07:51 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Yes, I do know what I'm talking about here: my perspective. Which you are misrepresenting, and which is more aligned with your perspective than you realize.

The wiki is based on scientific contributions, which will take time to research and digest before all major perspectives are represented.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#26
Jul31-10, 08:40 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Here's the agenda for the 18th Dynamical Neuroscience Conference that might help clarify some of the topic of dynamical neurosicence:

http://neuro.dgimeetings.com/Home.aspx
JFGariepy
JFGariepy is offline
#27
Aug5-10, 10:05 PM
P: 9
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
Yes, I do know what I'm talking about here: my perspective. Which you are misrepresenting, and which is more aligned with your perspective than you realize.

The wiki is based on scientific contributions, which will take time to research and digest before all major perspectives are represented.
These statements are so contrary to the Wikipedia spirit that only this quotation is enough to justify a request for deletion of the article. Wikipedia is not a place where perspectives meet like in a debate, it is not a public place to express your views. I proposed the merge to Computational Neuroscience and the deletion of most of the content. Even the text book you provide uses "dynamical systems in neuroscience" rather than "dynamical neuroscience". There is no justification in the litterature referenced to create a separate page for dynamical systems, which have been used throughout the history of what has been called computational neuroscience. The whole discussion here proves that you are trying to introduce your personal views in Wikipedia, which in itself is unnacceptable on top of all the fundamental debate behind it. Most people using non-linear equations in computational neuroscience do not define themselves as "dynamical neuroscientists".

Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
I think it would be a good idea to have a neurophysiologist comment about the article (seriously).
Now you have it :)


You can participate to the merger proposal vote here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...erger_proposal
jackmell
jackmell is offline
#28
Aug6-10, 05:49 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by JFGariepy View Post

Now you have it :)


You can participate to the merger proposal vote here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Co...erger_proposal
Thank you.

I have much faith in mankind one day solving the problem of mind, consciousness, and artificial intelligence and believe non-linear dynamics will play an important role.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#29
Aug9-10, 01:51 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
OK, I've done some research, I found the proper name for my field: Neurodynamics.

Here's a bit about it's history:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...6&size=largest

Here's what people are saying about it now (well, 9 years ago anyway):

Current Opinion in Neurobiology, August 2001, Volume 11, Issue 4. Neurodynamics: nonlinear dynamics and neurobiology: Henry D. I. Abarbanel, a and Michael I. Rabinovich

Quote Quote by Abstract
"The use of methods from contemporary nonlinear dynamics in studying neurobiology has been rather limited.Yet, nonlinear dynamics has become a practical tool for analyzing data and verifying models. This has led to productive coupling of nonlinear dynamics with experiments in neurobiology in which the neural circuits are forced with constant stimuli, with slowly varying stimuli, with periodic stimuli, and with more complex information-bearing stimuli. Analysis of these more complex stimuli of neural circuits goes to the heart of how one is to understand the encoding and transmission of information by nervous systems."
-----

Quote Quote by JFGariepy View Post
These statements are so contrary to the Wikipedia spirit that only this quotation is enough to justify a request for deletion of the article. Wikipedia is not a place where perspectives meet like in a debate, it is not a public place to express your views. I proposed the merge to Computational Neuroscience and the deletion of most of the content. Even the text book you provide uses "dynamical systems in neuroscience" rather than "dynamical neuroscience". There is no justification in the litterature referenced to create a separate page for dynamical systems, which have been used throughout the history of what has been called computational neuroscience. The whole discussion here proves that you are trying to introduce your personal views in Wikipedia, which in itself is unnacceptable on top of all the fundamental debate behind it. Most people using non-linear equations in computational neuroscience do not define themselves as "dynamical neuroscientists".
You took that post out of context. I differentiated between the article and my post. In my POST I was talking about my perspective. The WIKI article is supposed to be about the collective perspective of the members of the field (which I'm still struggling to perfect through my research, admittedly).
JFGariepy
JFGariepy is offline
#30
Aug9-10, 02:02 AM
P: 9
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
OK, I've done some research, I found the proper name for my field: Neurodynamics.

Here's a bit about it's history:
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-p...6&size=largest

Here's what people are saying about it now (well, 9 years ago anyway):

Current Opinion in Neurobiology, August 2001, Volume 11, Issue 4. Neurodynamics: nonlinear dynamics and neurobiology: Henry D. I. Abarbanel, a and Michael I. Rabinovich



-----



You took that post out of context. I differentiated between the article and my post. In my POST I was talking about my perspective. The WIKI article is supposed to be about the collective perspective of the members of the field (which I'm still struggling to perfect through my research, admittedly).
Well at least you see that the questions I raised concerning the name of your field and its exact definition was justified and it wasn't bad faith on my part. It's very important to watch for these things on Wikipedia if we don't want the encyclopedia to become a live discussion forum where people define things the way they want. Good luck with your future contributions.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#31
Sep7-10, 05:54 AM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
Here's a paper highlghting the specific advantages of a dynamical view:

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/FreemanWW...s/IC13/90.html
jackmell
jackmell is offline
#32
Sep7-10, 07:24 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by Pythagorean View Post
Here's a paper highlghting the specific advantages of a dynamical view:

http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/FreemanWW...s/IC13/90.html
That was 20 years ago and the other, nine. Can you cite a more recent opinion of neuroscientist on the matter of using non-linear dynamics, chaos theory, strange attractors, emergence, and self-organization as tools for understanding brain function?

Have you seen the brain series on Charlie Rose? I just caught a part of episode 10 yesterday. I'd be interested in what those guys think about neurodynamics. Maybe even you can contact Charlie and ask him if he could create an episode about neurodyanmics. Get Freeman in there maybe. Here's the link:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#33
Sep7-10, 06:35 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
That was 20 years ago and the other, nine. Can you cite a more recent opinion of neuroscientist on the matter of using non-linear dynamics, chaos theory, strange attractors, emergence, and self-organization as tools for understanding brain function?
Freeman actually impressed me the most out of all the "dynamicists" who sprang up in the 80s/90s. But equally, he showed that attractors and other "straight non-linear models" lacked real bite. They are good for making analogies, but not then for producing actual predictive models.

So just as we would say the brain is not a Turing computer, we can also say it is not a straight dynamical system either.
Pythagorean
Pythagorean is offline
#34
Sep8-10, 03:37 PM
PF Gold
Pythagorean's Avatar
P: 4,182
jackmell:

strictly neuron behavior
Here's some more recent papers that make use of nonlinear dynamics to understand neuron behavior itself (generally, drawing no conclusions about cognitive aspects). These have been productive in medical and general physiological understanding.

from the nonlinear dynamics journal:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2567128x6372603/

Izhikevich gives his opinions in the text, "Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience" written in 2007:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item...pe=2&tid=11063

http://www2.gsu.edu/~matals/ashilnikov_cv.pdf - Shilinikov's CV (scroll down to publications. You see a lot of direct medical applications for nonlinear dynamics)


On the more cognitive side:

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/...n.1995.7.4.512
(A Dynamic Systems Approach to the Development of Cognition and Action)

Lewis, Marc D. (2005) Bridging emotion theory and neurobiology through dynamic systems modeling. BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES; 28, 169–245
jackmell
jackmell is offline
#35
Sep8-10, 07:57 PM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by apeiron View Post
Freeman actually impressed me the most out of all the "dynamicists" who sprang up in the 80s/90s. But equally, he showed that attractors and other "straight non-linear models" lacked real bite. They are good for making analogies, but not then for producing actual predictive models.
Apeiron, can you provide the reference where he "showed" this please? I do not recall him taking this position in the paper I studied some time ago, "How the brain makes chaos to make sense of the world."

Even so, I'm skeptical of his appraisal and remain unperturbed in my belief that mind can emerge from equation.

Pythagorean, thank you for posting those references.
apeiron
apeiron is offline
#36
Sep8-10, 08:18 PM
PF Gold
apeiron's Avatar
P: 2,432
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
Apeiron, can you provide the reference where he "showed" this please? I do not recall him taking this position in the paper I studied some time ago, "How the brain makes chaos to make sense of the world."

Even so, I'm skeptical of his appraisal and remain unperturbed in my belief that mind can emerge from equation.

Pythagorean, thank you for posting those references.
I meant he showed me (by his failure). I talked to Freeman and others like Friston and Kelso a lot at the time. They had a well motivated approach. But it did not pan out in my opinion. It did not achieve lift off as hoped.

But "son of dynamical systems" still could. That's why I would keep track of guys like Friston who are trying to get some blend of dynamic and computational principles, as in the bayesian brain model.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
dynamical concentration General Physics 0
dynamical systems Differential Equations 3
GR and Dynamical Systems Special & General Relativity 7
Dynamical Systems Introductory Physics Homework 3
Dynamical Quantization Quantum Physics 1