Search results

Published posthumously, presented in 1965 at the Wiener Memorial Meeting. Concerned with Norbert Wiener who, while rendering great services to engineering, always remained a pure mathematician. Considers that the principal achievement of Wiener is that he establishes the link between statistical phenomena and the arts of communication and control. Provides examples of Wiener’s method of treating random phenomena and considers it to be very characteristic of his approach to physical problems. Outlines much of Wiener’s works relating to communication and discusses what he believes to be even more important, his contribution to the art of communication. Looks at the relationship of Wiener’s work to Shannon’s, as it was then understood, and to their position in the whole vast field of information theory.

Building 20 of MIT was erected hurriedly during World War II to house the Radiation Laboratory which was the main US centre for research on radar. Later it housed the Research Laboratory of Electronics of MIT and was the site of a vast amount of innovative research, including much that laid foundations for cybernetics. The unpretentious building was demolished in recent years, and a bizarre and entirely different structure has replaced it. The new design is meant to encourage innovation by a quite different route. The purpose here is to show the importance in the history of cybernetics of what went on in Building 20, which can hardly be overstated, and to argue that for the new building it has to be a “hard act to follow”.

Prompted by an item in the Boston Globe, the old and new buildings are contrasted, with the part played by the old building illustrated by reminiscences.

The reference to the old building as a “magical incubator” is fully warranted.

An instructive contrast is offered between a highly successful but largely fortuitous research environment, and one that is planned in detail and has yet to prove its worth. One valuable planned feature of the old environment, namely a comprehensive “document room”, is described.

The account should be valuable as a historical record.

Aims to review internet sources relevant to the life and achievements of Jerry Wiesner. He was Director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics of MIT during the birth of cybernetics, and later president of MIT and an international statesman. Also seeks to review another source referring to recent activities in MIT.

The aim is to review developments on the internet, especially those of general cybernetic interest.

Light is shed on the remarkable achievements of Wiesner, and on subsequent activities in MIT.

Much can be learned from Wiesner's example, both from his humanitarian attitudes and from his profound analysis of society. It can also be seen that MIT continues to be innovative.

It is hoped this is a valuable periodic review.

Library managers are becoming increasingly concerned about document delivery systems because the means to identify and locate materials has improved faster than the ability to provide the materials and because a cut‐back in library budgets is forcing libraries to borrow or obtain more material from other sources. A new SPEC kit (no. 82, March 1982) has been produced on document delivery systems in use in the Association of Research Libraries. The September 1981 survey covered two categories of service: internal delivery — disseminating locally‐owned materials to users, and external delivery — acquiring materials from an outside source for local users. Some ninety ARL libraries responded to the survey by providing materials and information describing the methods they employ. These include telefax, requests via electronic mail and OCLC's interlibrary loan subsystem and online ordering from data‐bases. SPEC kit #82 contains twenty‐six documents, (101 pages) and is available for $15 (prepaid) from Systems and Procedures Exchange Center, OMS/ARL, 1527 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington DC 20036, USA.

For half a century, neuroscientists have used Shannon Information Theory to calculate “information transmitted,” a hypothetical measure of how well neurons “discriminate” amongst stimuli. Neuroscientists’ computations, however, fail to meet even the technical requirements for credibility. Ultimately, the reasons must be conceptual. That conclusion is confirmed here, with crucial implications for neuroscience. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Shannon Information Theory depends upon a physical model, Shannon’s “general communication system.” Neuroscientists’ interpretation of that model is scrutinized here.

In Shannon’s system, a recipient receives a message composed of symbols. The symbols received, the symbols sent, and their hypothetical occurrence probabilities altogether allow calculation of “information transmitted.” Significantly, Shannon’s system’s “reception” (decoding) side physically mirrors its “transmission” (encoding) side. However, neurons lack the “reception” side; neuroscientists nonetheless insisted that decoding must happen. They turned to Homunculus, an internal humanoid who infers stimuli from neuronal firing. However, Homunculus must contain a Homunculus, and so on ad infinitum – unless it is super-human. But any need for Homunculi, as in “theories of consciousness,” is obviated if consciousness proves to be “emergent.”

Neuroscientists’ “information transmitted” indicates, at best, how well neuroscientists themselves can use neuronal firing to discriminate amongst the stimuli given to the research animal.

A long-overdue examination unmasks a hidden element in neuroscientists’ use of Shannon Information Theory, namely, Homunculus. Almost 50 years’ worth of computations are recognized as irrelevant, mandating fresh approaches to understanding “discriminability.”

In the last half-century, individual sensory neurons have been bestowed with characteristics of the whole human being, such as behavior and its oft-presumed precursor, consciousness. This anthropomorphization is pervasive in the literature. It is also absurd, given what we know about neurons, and it needs to be abolished. This study aims to first understand how it happened, and hence why it persists.

The peer-reviewed sensory-neurophysiology literature extends to hundreds (perhaps thousands) of papers. Here, more than 90 mainstream papers were scrutinized.

Anthropomorphization arose because single neurons were cast as “observers” who “identify”, “categorize”, “recognize”, “distinguish” or “discriminate” the stimuli, using math-based algorithms that reduce (“decode”) the stimulus-evoked spike trains to the particular stimuli inferred to elicit them. Without “decoding”, there is supposedly no perception. However, “decoding” is both unnecessary and unconfirmed. The neuronal “observer” in fact consists of the laboratory staff and the greater society that supports them. In anthropomorphization, the neuron becomes the collective.

Anthropomorphization underlies the widespread application to neurons Information Theory and Signal Detection Theory, making both approaches incorrect.

A great deal of time, money and effort has been wasted on anthropomorphic Reductionist approaches to understanding perception and consciousness. Those resources should be diverted into more-fruitful approaches.

A long-overdue scrutiny of sensory-neuroscience literature reveals that anthropomorphization, a form of Reductionism that involves the presumption of single-neuron consciousness, has run amok in neuroscience. Consciousness is more likely to be an emergent property of the brain.