[FRIAM] signal and noise

[Marcus Daniels]

A genome wide association study (GWAS) using a set of full human genome sequences, or a set of exome sequences is the same, it is just a question of which DNA is used.   Some nucleotides code for proteins and some code for things like how much of the protein to make, under what circumstances.   It's like arbitrarily choosing to extract some chapters of a book as relevant and others as not relevant.   Same goes for microbiome or other omics sources.  Thus, why consider one book when there is a whole library to consider?    For one thing the bar to get over for statistically interesting signals gets higher and higher as more tests are done -- the things that happen by chance DO happen in a sea of possibility.   The combinatorics of everything to everything is computationally impossible with 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome alone.   Choices must be made about what is relevant.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of thompnickson2 at gmail.com
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 10:23 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] signal and noise

David,  

I was with you until "signal is the noise".  Great Koan, but otherwise useless for thought. 

When you say, however, that there is a signal in what others take to be noise, of course I have to prick up my ears.  A great example of this was that "junk" DNA which turned out to be, at least, structural.  It also turned out to be a mind of memory.  Junk Schmunk.  

N

Nick Thompson
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:12 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] signal and noise

It seems, to me, that several conversations here—AI, hallucinogens, consciousness, participant observation, and epistemology—have a common aspect: a body of "data" and disagreement over which subset should be attended to (Signal) and that which is irrelevant (Noise).

Arguments for sorting/categorization would include: lack of a Peircian convergence/consensus; inability to propose proper experiments; anecdotal versus systematic collection; an absolute conviction that everything is algorithmic and, even if the algorithm has yet to be discerned, it, ultimately, must be; etc..

I often feel as if my positions on these various topics reduces, in some sense, to a conviction that there is overlooked Signal in everyone else's Noise; even to the point of believing the Noise IS the Signal.

Is this in any way a "fair' or "reasonable" analysis?

davew

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/


-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/