[Comp-neuro] Re: Attractors, variability and noise
bower at uthscsa.edu
Fri Aug 22 00:49:33 CEST 2008
One thing that has always struck me about the difference between
biology and physics, is that in physics department seminars, the
resident Dons of the field would stand up and walk out within several
milliseconds of a speaker making a statement violating some well
established physical principle (conservation law or something), while
in biology, one finds oneself listening intently through most seminars
to determine whether the story teller does or doesn't know what they
are doing. There are little signs (smiling gels, action potentials
that don't overshoot, etc), but really one is often at sea.
So, there is clearly something different about the freedom to tell
stories in both disciplines.
In biology, when you work on a new paper, the first thing you do is
organize the figures (the story). In math you organize the equations.
In biology the traces you pick for your figures are the best ones you
can find (and photoshop can help) whereas physics and mathematics look
for general solutions.
This is my problem with all for one and one for all -- somewhere,
somehow, someway, neuroscience has to find a mechanism to better
discriminate between efforts -- let alone force the development of
some set of common definitions with which and on which to tell stories
(and judge stories). Otherwise, they are just stories and subject to
all the politics, trends, fads, and social pressures that apply to all
story tellers. So a core part of this debate, I think, is how we
advance the 'art' of storytelling in biology.
I would also be a little careful of the analogy to VISTA :-) -
which, at least, is based on some formal system for coding its
structure. As far as I can tell, the only thing predictable about
vista, is that it isn't.
On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:51 PM, Walter Read wrote:
> Just a couple notes in response to Jim's comment.
>> Obviously, the question of what we can and can't understand as
>> individuals, or groups of individuals is somewhere near the core of
>> this discussion. Many would claim, as Brad does here, that of
>> necessity our descriptions of things (brains) can not exceed the
>> ability of humans to communicate what they understand.
> First, the issue of "communicability" isn't the same as the
> issue of "complexity". We
> constantly deal with systems that are too complex to allow any micro
> description to reliably
> predict global behavior - the Roman Empire, crop forecasts, choosing
> American Idol. For
> perhaps a more familiar example than Mirage jets, Windows XP ran to
> about 40 million lines
> of code and Vista goes closer to 65 million. (I mentioned these
> numbers in a class once and
> afterwards a student came up, apparently genuinely disturbed.
> "Really?" "Yes." "Gee, then I
> guess Bill Gates *doesn't* read every line before software is
> released!") But this doesn't mean
> we can't generally make policy or predictions based on our
> collective, imperfect
> understandings. And any particular failure can usually be traced
> back to a particular place.
> Second, communicability is cultural and historical. At one time,
> notions like gravity or
> unbounded space or limitations on the speed of light would have been
> "paradoxical". We still refer metaphorically to "the fixed stars"
> and "sunrise" but most people
> have a basic idea of the later ideas and can imagine and think about
> a heliocentric world. Our
> ability to form new ways of thinking grows much more slowly than our
> ability to generate
> data but it does grow, in response to the efforts of those who
> explain the ideas or show their
> everyday usefulness, those who might be called storytellers. (Cf
> Galileo's popular writings
> and John Donne's early poetry.)
> The information systems people distinguish "data" and
> "information". The data is
> fundamental but it has to get translated into news we can use.
> Walt Read
> Computer Science, MS ST 109
> CSU, Fresno
> Fresno, CA 93740
> Email: read at csufresno.edu
> Tel: 559 278 4307
> 559 278 4373 (dept)
> Fax: 559 278 4197
Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.
Professor of Computational Neuroscience
Research Imaging Center
University of Texas Health Science Center -
- San Antonio
8403 Floyd Curl Drive
San Antonio Texas 78284-6240
Main Number: 210- 567-8100
Fax: 210 567-8152
The contents of this email and any attachments to it may be privileged
contain privileged and confidential information. This information is
for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you have received
e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of
action in reliance upon, any of the information contained in this e-
any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that
e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be
immediately returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case,
e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted
your computer without making any copies hereof and any and all hard
made must be destroyed. If you have received this e-mail in error,
notify the sender by e-mail immediately.
More information about the Comp-neuro