@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org
2023-09-13 15:33 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@axoaxonic@synapse.cafe 2023-09-13 20:37
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org @pinecone@mastodon.social @knutson_brain@sfba.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online In the spirit of non-reductionism, I was going off on a tangent. There are lots of straightforward papers and books about information theory applied to neuroscience -- I've found about 22 so far and am starting to dig through them -- but understanding the hisorical context and motivations of it and deconstructing the definition of information felt to be of epistemological value. These conversations end up coming down to preferences and biases: do you like thinking through a computational lens or not? Someone who does might point out how neurons are fundamentally universal Turing machines and someone who doesn't might not think that's relevant (i.e., to psychology and behavior, or neurology/medicine). I felt impelled to zoom out a bit
-
@pinecone@mastodon.social 2023-09-14 00:27
@tyrell_turing@fediscience.org @knutson_brain@sfba.social @awaisaftab@mastodon.social @NicoleCRust@neuromatch.social @summerfieldlab@qoto.org @Neurograce@mastodon.online @eikofried@mastodon.online @axoaxonic@synapse.cafe There may be something more required for Shannon information theory to apply to neuroscience. Shannon information only applies to the transmission of messages. Shannon acknowledged it does not address transmission of meaning, semantic information. So, somewhere along the line neuroscience has to explain how meaning is transmitted. A general theory of info would help in that regard.