Actually Arturo, the whole question of there being a "Code" is an oversimplification forced on neuro-science by people that keep trying to turn the brain into a computer. It is partially a problem with information theory that it depends on the concept of a bit, and it is especially easy to assume that since the axion can only fire in an all or nothing pattern that it represents a binary digit and so we can just assume that information theory which is based on binary digits or "Bits" will transfer without change. This suggests that trains of "bits" must be some sort of "code". Neuroscientists have kept repeating themselves over and over saying that it is not that simple, but information theory works so well for computers that people will try to use it for understanding the brain no matter what the neuroscientists say.

Things were made worse rather than better when scientists developed the theoretical neuron, and proved that it operated in a different manner than computers. However, it was merely a matter of time before people tried to implement logic on neuron analogs and found that they could simulate it. Neural networks became a new approach to finding a way of processing that was more natural. It is because Neural Networks are oriented around spikes that most theories of operation of the mind that look for "codes" are based on the basic Neural Network Model that they look so closely at spikes for the "code". Neuro-Scientists keep saying the same old thing, "IT ISN"T THAT SIMPLE" and being ignored because they are not saying anything different.

Now IBM is trying to recover from the danger of a completely new technology that can create neuro-morphic chips which operate based on the Neural Model and use spiking neurons and the message is still the same. People still look for "Codes" and still find them in the spikes, and research that uses SOM's that are based on Neural Networks can translate the operation of small patches of neurons into the signals necessary to operate robotic arms etc. making it look like it is just a matter of translation between neurons and computers, and it looks again like there must be a code, even if it is individual in scope. But we as neural researchers must stand up again and say IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE again and again.

But in the end it doesn't matter really, if it is that simple or not, because the people who do the research are reaching deeper and deeper into the model, but the work done 50 years ago or more still dominates the thought and while the research keeps proving that work wrong, the net effect is that computers can now read our minds enough to send a signal between two minds. Even if it isn't just that simple anymore.

Actually Arturo, the whole question of there being a "Code" is an oversimplification forced on neuro-science by people that keep trying to turn the brain into a computer. It is partially a problem with information theory that it depends on the concept of a bit, and it is especially easy to assume that since the axion can only fire in an all or nothing pattern that it represents a binary digit and so we can just assume that information theory which is based on binary digits or "Bits" will transfer without change. This suggests that trains of "bits" must be some sort of "code". Neuroscientists have kept repeating themselves over and over saying that it is not that simple, but information theory works so well for computers that people will try to use it for understanding the brain no matter what the neuroscientists say.

Things were made worse rather than better when scientists developed the theoretical neuron, and proved that it operated in a different manner than computers. However, it was merely a matter of time before people tried to implement logic on neuron analogs and found that they could simulate it. Neural networks became a new approach to finding a way of processing that was more natural. It is because Neural Networks are oriented around spikes that most theories of operation of the mind that look for "codes" are based on the basic Neural Network Model that they look so closely at spikes for the "code". Neuro-Scientists keep saying the same old thing, "IT ISN"T THAT SIMPLE" and being ignored because they are not saying anything different.

Now IBM is trying to recover from the danger of a completely new technology that can create neuro-morphic chips which operate based on the Neural Model and use spiking neurons and the message is still the same. People still look for "Codes" and still find them in the spikes, and research that uses SOM's that are based on Neural Networks can translate the operation of small patches of neurons into the signals necessary to operate robotic arms etc. making it look like it is just a matter of translation between neurons and computers, and it looks again like there must be a code, even if it is individual in scope. But we as neural researchers must stand up again and say IT IS NOT THAT SIMPLE again and again.

But in the end it doesn't matter really, if it is that simple or not, because the people who do the research are reaching deeper and deeper into the model, but the work done 50 years ago or more still dominates the thought and while the research keeps proving that work wrong, the net effect is that computers can now read our minds enough to send a signal between two minds. Even if it isn't just that simple anymore.

dear Graeme, your comment is very deep and interesting and I agree.

But... Is there a neural code? If you answer is affirmative, Where is it, if not in spikes? What do you think?

Actually, if the spikes were coded we would know about that by now. I am reminded of Dr. Edelman's comment on neural darwinism, he said that signals are degenerate and redundant. I believe that the spikes are showing uncertainty, not just because neurons fire at random times when there is no input to trigger them, but also because the epigenetic controls that determine which neuron is connected to which other neuron are so weak that each individual has their own unique connection pattern. Worse it changes from moment to moment as dendrites and axions branch and prune.

We might have in general the same signals being sent from major cluster to major cluster but at the neuron level there is no common ground even in individuals of the same species. Think of it as being something like snow flakes no two are alike.

Thus it is only at the gyrus and sulcus level that we can truly map the brain.

As Stated in the paper, I, based on the recent literature, believe that the main function of the spikes is to fasten the communication between different group of neurons. If there were just random walks, it would be impossible to achieve the speed of communication needed to the brain.

Arturo, I said there was uncertainty, not that they were random walks. There is information content in them it just isn't coded into a standard formal code. The meaning of a particular pattern of neural activations is informally sent. Your "code" will not be my "code" and may change from time to time. It makes it much harder to winkle out the meaning, but it is not beyond a SOM's reach to find the signals and translate them into computer code. The "codes" don't change fast enough to be impossible to winkle out the signals.

the problem is that, despite all the studies, we do not understand the brain function at all. I agree with you that the code is not as we might imagine, but it has to be some kind of information stored and transmitted... Indeed, your objection sounds wise: The revisors asked me a better definition of message and message transmission.

I am beginning to understand where you are coming from. Your theory is that the spiking signals are not just coded into one channel, but may have many channels flowing simultaneously through the same medium. So just as the internet has codes that tell us where in the network a particular set of codes is addressed, there is side band data in spiking that includes information about the chemical network needed.

If I thought that, would you agree? Otherwise, according to you, what's going on in our brain? I' m very curious about your opinion, because you seem very involved in such computational problems

I actually don't know enough of what is going on in the brain to disagree with you. Either way we have to accept that there is a limit to what can be known about the brains signalling processes, and that limit implies some uncertainty about what is going on. If you accept the uncertainty without trying to winkle out the exact meaning of each spike, You should be able to approximate what is going on well enough to make a functioning analog. If you worry about the exact meaning you will eventually be able to make an approximation that is a few percent more effective at explaining the results, No one knows how many percent different your answer would be. My question is would it be more accurate enough to make up for the extra effort?

Neurological code is by thought process

What ever you want you can do and code will be generated accordingly

We say where is will there is way