
#19
Jul3110, 05:39 PM

PF Gold
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 subdiscipline.
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)? 



#20
Jul3110, 06:27 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,182

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. 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). 



#21
Jul3110, 06:36 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,182

also note the text book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kVj...page&q&f=false 



#22
Jul3110, 07:05 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

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 nogo 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 wellmodelled in terms of attractors, metastability, etc) are harnessed by informational ones (which is where semiosis, symbolgrounding, the epistemic cut, etc, come in). 



#23
Jul3110, 07:25 PM

PF Gold
P: 4,182

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. 



#25
Jul3110, 07:51 PM

PF Gold
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. 



#26
Jul3110, 08:40 PM

PF Gold
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 



#27
Aug510, 10:05 PM

P: 9

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



#28
Aug610, 05:49 AM

P: 1,666

I have much faith in mankind one day solving the problem of mind, consciousness, and artificial intelligence and believe nonlinear dynamics will play an important role. 



#29
Aug910, 01:51 AM

PF Gold
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/pdfp...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 



#30
Aug910, 02:02 AM

P: 9





#31
Sep710, 05:54 AM

PF Gold
P: 4,182

Here's a paper highlghting the specific advantages of a dynamical view:
http://sulcus.berkeley.edu/FreemanWW...s/IC13/90.html 



#32
Sep710, 07:24 AM

P: 1,666

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 



#33
Sep710, 06:35 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

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. 



#34
Sep810, 03:37 PM

PF Gold
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 



#35
Sep810, 07:57 PM

P: 1,666

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. 



#36
Sep810, 08:18 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

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 