Posted by Paul Sheldon-2 on May 10, 2007; 6:08pm
URL: https://forum.world.st/idea-topology-and-distancing-tp128282.html

I poked around . In wikipedia article, Aristotle and categories got me
off to find wikipedia category theory was newer. Googling, I found
Poincare called father of algebraic topology for which category theory
gave a more vital meaning. I like Poincare from his "Science and
Hypothesis". I wish I could fathom the depths of my childhood
inspiration into science with mere echos of this master .

I have been trying to find nerve to check out what category theory is
but faltered in my nerve in my pokings .

I fell back :

I wanted the mutual information algorithm by Fraser I studied that had
relation to kd tree metrics to surface . I knew they were related to
what google does. Googling, I fell on something in genetics :

This abstract speaks of an article about comparing mutual information in
a pair of genes to find them expressing mostly the same thing . They
"hypothesize" the two genes to be "related biologically". I felt that a
very covered statement, almost tautologous, merely apologizing for a
vast amount of systematic work to get a pattern in a so called relevance
network. The periodic exposition of the article ended, however, with a
"zowie" : "The biological significance of each Relevance Network is
explained."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10902190

The use of the non-cynacure term "zowie" may inspire me to cover myself .

;-)

The early days of phylum class order family genus species weren't a
science, merely a systematic organization of living things. Somewhere in
high school someone said that, nonetheless, this was an initial first
step to a science (perhaps the introduction to chemistry with a periodic
table). This systematic form of abstraction may be my weakness, this
first step . My mother helped me long ago with systematics which
inspired an tumult of experiment/theory (symbiotic relationships
sometimes work) .

On national public radio in the states, the human genome project was
more recently stated, as a dictionary looking for an encyclopedia. The
systematic presentation of definitions in graduate level mathematics
scared me, probably because of my weakness . This weakness is Piaget
stuff; is there, instead, interfering brain patches as in the google
video "Doing with Images makes Symbols"?

Systematic definitions...

But, what is a dictionary looking for an encyclopedia?

What if genetic algorithms did the looking? Its a topic to focus and
maybe, then, a hope .

I think the science of the genome project may be mirroring what it is
studying in some way .

But, from "Dragons of Eden" by Paul Davies, I thought the mind was a
step beyond genetic encoding of information . Could it not be that it
also recapitulates some sort of pattern, this biological significance of
a relevance network ? What do this folks mean by relevance network .
GA's are proposed, at times, as competitive, I suppose with other sorts
of algorithms or old ways of thinking about thinking .

There is no flesh, perhaps, on my composition here because I fear to put
flesh on it .

I googled google and genetic algorithm and came up with flesh (it's
alive, it's alive) :
http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=477072

I had no idea google had an API that could be mixed up with genetics .

It is good you all are mumbling about these things too so the air won't
be thin on top of this mountain .

I try to make an inspirational summary of my mumblings :
How do you subtly connect things for meaning and scientific mindfulness
. That's, according to Godel Esher Bach, one of the metaphors fighting
for dominance at Stanford in meaningful understanding of "vision".