[FRIAM] Acid epistemology - restarting a previous conversation

[Prof David West]

Steve,

Your experiences suggest that a visualization can prompt insightful thinking and that is very cool. I also note the problems and issues you raise and do not discount them.

I have no reason to believe that my "conception vision" gave me any insights, fundamental or extravagant. I lack the background in cellular biology to "interpret" usefully.

What I am curious about are the discrepancies in what I "saw" and animations I have seen that supposedly demonstrate what is happening when two cells combine to form a third - ala conception. If I was able to transform my vision into a movie, show it to a cellular biologist, would they see the same discrepancies? Would they obtain an insights that could lead to a better understanding and perhaps novel approaches to genetic engineering?

The fact that the vision "held together" in some way, is simply a criteria I would use to sort visions that I would be willing to share with someone in an attempt to be helpful, and those that I retain for self-amusement.

The latter reminds me of Bennie Stokes in John Brunner's, Stand on Zanzibar, who is constantly watching the news feeds and muttering to himself, "Christ what an imagination I have."

davew


On Fri, Mar 6, 2020, at 4:59 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Dave -
> 
> > 1) I am fascinated by the field of scientific visualization, using imagery to present complex data sets. Recently I "observed" the precise moment of sperm-egg fertilization. A whole lot was going on inside the egg cell boundary immediately upon contact (not penetration) with the sperm. The visualization was of thousands (millions?) of discrete inter-cellular elements breaking free from existing structures, like DNA strands, proteins, molecules and moving about independently. I could see several "fields" that were a kind of "probability field." These fields constrained both the movement of the various elements and, most importantly, what structures would emerge from their recombination.  "Watching" the DNA strand 'dissolve" and "reform" was particularly interesting because it was totally unlike the "unzip into two strands, the zip-up a strand-half from each donor" visualization I have seen presented in animations explaining the process.  Instead I saw all kinds of "clumps" form and merge into larger/longer "clumps" then engage in an interesting hula/belly/undulation dance to rearrange the structure into a final form.  All of this "guided" by the very visible "probability fields;" more than one and color coded.
> >
> > Now, if I were a cellular biologist could I make use of this vision?
> >
> > Since I am not a cellular biologist and have no understanding of inter-cellular structures/dynamics/chemistry, nor any DNA knowledge, where did the imagery come from and why did it hang together so well?
> >
> > Was this experience just an amusing bit of entertainment" Or, is there an insight of some sort lurking there?
> 
> I have some complementary experiences.   In a lifetime of trying to
> facilitate insight to scientists and engineers by building tools to help
> them visualize (perceptualize) their models of physical (and sometimes
> highly abstract) phenomena I have seen "a thing or two".   What I have
> seen more than anything is those researchers/practitioners increase the
> scope of their intuition when facilitated by
> computer-mediated-representation of their data.  
> 
> I have also seen naive false-positives generated in the process.  In
> fact, the most common experience I have had is when I might present a
> scientist with a novel (to them) visualization, they see anomalies from
> what they *expected to see* and they usually question *my*
> systems/software.   If it is a mature system/tool I am using, it usually
> turns out that these anomalies are exposing errors/bugs in *their*
> systems (data collection, grooming, modeling).  In the most rare (but
> most useful?) case, it turns out to expose errors in their assumptions,
> in the models themselves (not just the expression of them).   In the
> very best case, the scientists came to me with an intuition, a
> hypothesis and a rough model who needed to have those models coupled
> back to there sensoria so that they could reinforce their own intuition
> and/or invite colleagues into their hypothesis LONG before they had
> everything nailed down.  
> 
> On the flip side, another common experience was "false positives".  
> Often, simply applying mostly unmotivated interpolations to their
> discretized data, I "accidentally" added (excess?) meaning to their
> models.   Few sophisticated scientists make those mistakes, but
> sometimes "wishful thinking" trumps "thoughtful awareness".
> 
> On the topic of "visualizing whirled peas"...   I have a lot of lucid
> dreams, many of them about physical systems.   I reported here (and you
> gave me a great Science Fiction reference) having months worth of lucid
> dreams involving orbital mechanics and orbital mining/salvage.   I never
> really imagined that these dreams were going to help me learn anything
> revolutionary about orbital mechanics, at the very best, they either
> provided me with loads of entertainment or perhaps *incremental*
> improvements to *my* understanding of established orbital mechanics that
> I have learned "the hard way" (studying the math).   
> 
> Do you have any reason for believing that your visions of cellular
> fusion/fission are giving you fundamental or extravagant insights (as
> opposed to incremental refinements) than that "they hold together well"?
> 
> - Steve
> 
> 
> 
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>