Evidence for Information Processing in the Brain

Many cognitive and neuroscientists attempt to assign biological functions to brain structures. To achieve this end, scientists perform experiments that relate the physical properties of brain structures to organism-level abilities, behaviors, and environmental stimuli. Researchers make use of various measuring instruments and methodological techniques to obtain this kind of relational evidence, ranging from single-unit electrophysiology and optogenetics to whole brain functional MRI. Each experiment is intended to identify brain function. However, seemingly independent of experimental evidence, many cognitive scientists, neuroscientists, and philosophers of science assume that the brain processes information as a scientific fact. In this work we analyze categories of relational evidence and find that although physical features of specific brain areas selectively covary with external stimuli and abilities, and that the brain shows reliable causal organization, there is no direct evidence supporting the claim that information processing is a natural function of the brain. We conclude that the belief in brain information processing adds little to the science of cognitive science and functions primarily as a metaphor for efficient communication of neuroscientific data

A distributed framework for semi-automatically developing architectures of brain and mind

Developing comprehensive theories of low-level neuronal brain processes and high-level cognitive behaviours, as well as integrating them, is an ambitious challenge that requires new conceptual, computational, and empirical tools. Given the complexities of these theories, they will almost certainly be expressed as computational systems. Here, we propose to use recent developments in grid technology to develop a system of evolutionary scientific discovery, which will (a) enable empirical researchers to make their data widely available for use in developing and testing theories, and (b) enable theorists to semi-automatically develop computational theories. We illustrate these ideas with a case study taken from the domain of categorisation

Mapping Big Data into Knowledge Space with Cognitive Cyber-Infrastructure

Big data research has attracted great attention in science, technology, industry and society. It is developing with the evolving scientific paradigm, the fourth industrial revolution, and the transformational innovation of technologies. However, its nature and fundamental challenge have not been recognized, and its own methodology has not been formed. This paper explores and answers the following questions: What is big data? What are the basic methods for representing, managing and analyzing big data? What is the relationship between big data and knowledge? Can we find a mapping from big data into knowledge space? What kind of infrastructure is required to support not only big data management and analysis but also knowledge discovery, sharing and management? What is the relationship between big data and science paradigm? What is the nature and fundamental challenge of big data computing? A multi-dimensional perspective is presented toward a methodology of big data computing.Comment: 59 page

Technology assessment of advanced automation for space missions

Six general classes of technology requirements derived during the mission definition phase of the study were identified as having maximum importance and urgency, including autonomous world model based information systems, learning and hypothesis formation, natural language and other man-machine communication, space manufacturing, teleoperators and robot systems, and computer science and technology

When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties

The present study addresses the ongoing debate concerning academic scientific productivity. Specifically, given the increasing number of collaborations in academia and the crucial role networks play in knowledge creation, we investigate the extent to which building social capital within the academic community represents a valuable resource for a scientist's knowledge-creation process. We measure the social capital in terms of structural position within the academic collaborative network. Furthermore, we analyse the extent to which an academic scientist's research specialization and ties that cross-community boundaries act as moderators of the aforementioned relationship. Empirical results derived from an analysis of an Italian academic community from 2001 to 2008 suggest academic scientists that build social capital by occupying central positions in the community outperform their more isolated colleagues. However, scientific productivity declines beyond a certain threshold value of centrality, hence revealing the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship. This relationship is negatively moderated by the extent to which an academic focuses research activities in few scientific knowledge domains, whereas it is positively moderated by the number of cross-community ties established

Overcoming the Newtonian Paradigm: The Unfinished Project of Theoretical Biology from a Schellingian Perspective

Defending Robert Rosen’s claim that in every confrontation between physics and biology it is physics that has always had to give ground, it is shown that many of the most important advances in mathematics and physics over the last two centuries have followed from Schelling’s demand for a new physics that could make the emergence of life intelligible. Consequently, while reductionism prevails in biology, many biophysicists are resolutely anti-reductionist. This history is used to identify and defend a fragmented but progressive tradition of anti-reductionist biomathematics. It is shown that the mathematicoephysico echemical morphology research program, the biosemiotics movement, and the relational biology of Rosen, although they have developed independently of each other, are built on and advance this antireductionist tradition of thought. It is suggested that understanding this history and its relationship to the broader history of post-Newtonian science could provide guidance for and justify both the integration of these strands and radically new work in post-reductionist biomathematics