my prospective research topic

[Integrated MCAT Course]

Though it feels like I live in alongside half of the CDC, Ga Tech, and Emory scientists in my neighborhood of Atlanta called Oak Grove, I'd sure like opinions in a forum of some of my research ideas. This thread was pointed out when I posted the concepts at MCAT Question Q and A because there are a lot of folks with good scientific understanding over there who make a hobby of helping out with science problems. Lots of fun if you like explaining science.

Through common interest it occurred to me it might be fun to post research ideas and far out ideas for inventions in this thread and I encourage others in the spirit to WORK, SCIENCE and EDUCATION to make this thread more fun than just career advice, however extremely helpful that is in navigating difficult questions like the MD PhD versus the PhD Postdoc tracks for research.

I'll start the lunacy to encourage others maybe to share the abstracts of the latest publications. If we could build a custom of cross-posting a concise introduction to a research topic of interest to you, such as the abstract of a current publication, not only here in the research thread, but also over at MCAT Question Q and A http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=134 with a group invitation and a bit of attention there, there may be collaborative self-generated educational value as well as interested discussion subsequent to the post depending on if a group custom could occur. It could not but be a good for premeds in MCAT prep to read a few paragraphs of dense scientific language, such as abstract length, put forth by the actual author, which could be embellished with edits and a few figures and made into an MCAT passage. It definitely might lead to good discussions both over there and over here. This is an idea subject to the demands and interest of the groups, but I think that if the two threads worked together just by cross posting and sharing attention, the SDN research thread could deal with real science, and the MCAT Q and A subthread could self generate a nice collection MCAT passages for SDN. I think folks here would have to be self consciously blithe about others making simple derivations under fair use as a collaborative SDN project of their ideas and original expressions. It's just a thought.

So I originally posted over at MCAT Q and A because many folks with good science background hang around over there to help with questions. It's fun.

So I have a difficult struggle to articulate a research topic in mathematical logic where computational science, biostatistics, and number theory intersect and there are dangers of magical thinking. I cannot settle this question in my mind, so it has become advanced in my thoughts over the past few years. I know enough through discussion with knowledgeable others to know that the questions aren't trivial. Any MCAT passage with these questions would be impossible. Maybe there are some biostatistics or computational sciences experts around here who will have an opinion. Phenomenologists please share your opinion.

Although my research ideas are really too advanced for MCAT discussion, given the motivating points I tried to make about the educational mission of SDN, I feel it's incumbent on me to share of an idea with greater MCAT prep potential. Here's an invention I think will fly. The target internal pressure by internal vacuum established by a pump method would be 0.5 atm. Could the Buckminsterfullership be built given current material technology?

For my own invention ideas where there is no time or interest I'm putting out as simple sharealike images, not going to go looking for capital and the research idea, really just posting here dreamily for my own particular and others enjoyment. Though I am not cross posting this particular post, out of this thread's prerogative, I am really interested in thoughtful discussion to advance things mentally. I worked for ten years doing the marketing for a long standing biotech company and miss the time every day I would hang out with the laboratory director or the fellows at the benchtop.

I seem to be on a path to finding myself integrated with an academic position out of this and other work, so I have been working on in my theoretical work is about investigating the mathematical logic underlying a functional logic gate approach to recurrence of microstate ensembles in complex phenemona such as RNA replication or memory templating. There is analogy in algorithmic methods of computer approximations of transcendental numbers pi and e or algebraic methods to describe all other numbers. How are complex biological microstate ensembles expressible in light of template recurrence and exponential growth in fraction expression. How to distinguish physical chemistry from biochemistry which has a trajectory of returning to the same point in space as with a circle in macromolecular assemblages. Are there Turing logic gates in the recurrent and evolving statistical mechanics of complex biological ensembles within open dynamic nonhomogeneous systematics. How does recurrence in the statistical mechanics of the primordial soup arise in relation to the traditional statistical mechanics of the entropy function which predominates in determining the microstate ensemble array of physical chemistry systems.

The model system for the question is whether an artificial abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would be a Turing machine.

I am thinking a lot about profusion and Euler's constant and recurrence and pi in the question of what the microarray data from an artificially created abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would constitute. If Archimedes method is a a computational analog to the fundamental computational logic the problem would be unprovable which would be interesting in itself.

A abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would convert abiotic precursors such as amino acids, urea, cyanide into an evolving RNA field over time. The RNA field arises naturally through application of pyrophosphate containing volcanic gasses across a temperature and pH gradient especially within a bentonite containing catalytic chamber it seems.

If a scientific institution were to successfully build an abiogenetic chamber and developed the data stream through techniques which are like continuous microarray, would the device become a Turing machine? It feels like a fruitful way to approach biostatistics from computational logic. I think the fundamental question is the same for complex biological ensembles whether it is nucleic acids or memory templating in neural performance. I really need to read a lot of math and get much stronger in fixing the context and proper formulation of the questions without any magical thinking or talk, so reading list suggestions would be greatly appreciated. All the best.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[StIGMA]

Though it feels like I live in alongside half of the CDC, Ga Tech, and Emory scientists in my neighborhood of Atlanta called Oak Grove, I'd sure like opinions in a forum of some of my research ideas. This thread was pointed out when I posted the concepts at MCAT Question Q and A because there are a lot of folks with good scientific understanding over there who make a hobby of helping out with science problems. Lots of fun if you like explaining science.

Through common interest it occurred to me it might be fun to post research ideas and far out ideas for inventions in this thread and I encourage others in the spirit to WORK, SCIENCE and EDUCATION to make this thread more fun than just career advice, however extremely helpful that is in navigating difficult questions like the MD PhD versus the PhD Postdoc tracks for research.

I'll start the lunacy to encourage others maybe to share the abstracts of the latest publications. If we could build a custom of cross-posting a concise introduction to a research topic of interest to you, such as the abstract of a current publication, not only here in the research thread, but also over at MCAT Question Q and A http://forums.studentdoctor.net/forumdisplay.php?f=134 with a group invitation and a bit of attention there, there may be collaborative self-generated educational value as well as interested discussion subsequent to the post depending on if a group custom could occur. It could not but be a good for premeds in MCAT prep to read a few paragraphs of dense scientific language, such as abstract length, put forth by the actual author, which could be embellished with edits and a few figures and made into an MCAT passage. It definitely might lead to good discussions both over there and over here. This is an idea subject to the demands and interest of the groups, but I think that if the two threads worked together just by cross posting and sharing attention, the SDN research thread could deal with real science, and the MCAT Q and A subthread could self generate a nice collection MCAT passages for SDN. I think folks here would have to be self consciously blithe about others making simple derivations under fair use as a collaborative SDN project of their ideas and original expressions. It's just a thought.

So I originally posted over at MCAT Q and A because many folks with good science background hang around over there to help with questions. It's fun.

So I have a difficult struggle to articulate a research topic in mathematical logic where computational science, biostatistics, and number theory intersect and there are dangers of magical thinking. I cannot settle this question in my mind, so it has become advanced in my thoughts over the past few years. I know enough through discussion with knowledgeable others to know that the questions aren't trivial. Any MCAT passage with these questions would be impossible. Maybe there are some biostatistics or computational sciences experts around here who will have an opinion. Phenomenologists please share your opinion.

Although my research ideas are really too advanced for MCAT discussion, given the motivating points I tried to make about the educational mission of SDN, I feel it's incumbent on me to share of an idea with greater MCAT prep potential. Here's an invention I think will fly. The target internal pressure by internal vacuum established by a pump method would be 0.5 atm. Could the Buckminsterfullership be built given current material technology?

For my own invention ideas where there is no time or interest I'm putting out as simple sharealike images, not going to go looking for capital and the research idea, really just posting here dreamily for my own particular and others enjoyment. Though I am not cross posting this particular post, out of this thread's prerogative, I am really interested in thoughtful discussion to advance things mentally. I worked for ten years doing the marketing for a long standing biotech company and miss the time every day I would hang out with the laboratory director or the fellows at the benchtop.

I seem to be on a path to finding myself integrated with an academic position out of this and other work, so I have been working on in my theoretical work is about investigating the mathematical logic underlying a functional logic gate approach to recurrence of microstate ensembles in complex phenemona such as RNA replication or memory templating. There is analogy in algorithmic methods of computer approximations of transcendental numbers pi and e or algebraic methods to describe all other numbers. How are complex biological microstate ensembles expressible in light of template recurrence and exponential growth in fraction expression. How to distinguish physical chemistry from biochemistry which has a trajectory of returning to the same point in space as with a circle in macromolecular assemblages. Are there Turing logic gates in the recurrent and evolving statistical mechanics of complex biological ensembles within open dynamic nonhomogeneous systematics. How does recurrence in the statistical mechanics of the primordial soup arise in relation to the traditional statistical mechanics of the entropy function which predominates in determining the microstate ensemble array of physical chemistry systems.

The model system for the question is whether an artificial abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would be a Turing machine.

I am thinking a lot about profusion and Euler's constant and recurrence and pi in the question of what the microarray data from an artificially created abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would constitute. If Archimedes method is a a computational analog to the fundamental computational logic the problem would be unprovable which would be interesting in itself.

A abiogenetic hydrothermal mound would convert abiotic precursors such as amino acids, urea, cyanide into an evolving RNA field over time. The RNA field arises naturally through application of pyrophosphate containing volcanic gasses across a temperature and pH gradient especially within a bentonite containing catalytic chamber it seems.

If a scientific institution were to successfully build an abiogenetic chamber and developed the data stream through techniques which are like continuous microarray, would the device become a Turing machine? It feels like a fruitful way to approach biostatistics from computational logic. I think the fundamental question is the same for complex biological ensembles whether it is nucleic acids or memory templating in neural performance. I really need to read a lot of math and get much stronger in fixing the context and proper formulation of the questions without any magical thinking or talk, so reading list suggestions would be greatly appreciated. All the best.

A psychiatrist could give you a few good suggestions.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

A psychiatrist could give you a few good suggestions.

Both the cognitive and behavioral approaches may have insights. My own feeling is that the most plausible theories are those describing consciousness as competitive, complex and mimetic. Whether thought behaviors conform to the Turing machine logic gate model of computation is a very difficult question. Trying to understand complexity in general in molecular biology before looking at neural networks is helpful I think. In Bio 101 everyone learns that DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and mRNA is translated into proteins. This understanding is so important to central dogma, the idea which has evolved to form our modern understanding of gene expression. The genome is the physical code for the performance of the transcriptome (all the mRNA and non-coding RNA in the cytoplasm) and subsequently the proteome (all the proteins). The products of gene expression, the contents of the expressome, regulate ongoing gene expression through complex complex feedback ensembles producing a microstate ensemble state corresponding to the developmental path of the cell (tissue level) and the point it is in the cell cycle within its surroundings.

A question you see sometimes is popular science treatments how evolution could have produced such profoundly different results among organisms using the same genes across the animal kingdom. For example, only 1% of the genes in chordates are fully novel among genes from all other organisms. My feeling is that this question represents a bit of encouragement to maintain an instrumentalist view of processes which are not only mechanistic but also mimetic and complex. To find a way to represent how evolutionary processes could lead to such a wide array of individual phenotypes through natural selection upon the same basic genome, we might be able to shed light through analogy to the processes of neural networks, or we might be able to find insight into neural networks by applying understanding of the evolutionary history of the complexity of cellular contents. I think that the emergent complexity characterizing the neurophysiological systems of cognition, which an individual experiences during day-to-day life, are similar in an essentially fundamental way to the emergent complexity that has evolved through natural selection characterized by the expressome of a given cell in a given tissue.

Some emerging theory of neural networks which psychiatrists are somewhat informed about views thought behaviors as mimetic competitors arising from the memory system within the sensorium under neurophysiological selective process. So what is different about the biochemistry of cellular contents and neural networks from other types of chemical systems is the principle of emergent biological complexity that occurs through mimesis (replication) and competition.

Within a differentiated cell, an array of processes involving biochemical mechanisms respond to transcription factors, co-factors, hormones, signal peptides and other means of regulating gene expression and cellular production such as RNA interference and alternative splicing. A cell is a complex system. 'Complexity' describes a minute probability vector for a given ensemble state. With neural networks, the raw materials are the fundamental building blocks of axon, cell body and dendrites, within their surroundings. At a finer level, the neural network consists of biological polymers, ions, metabolites and water with a highly ordered distribution of charge densities. A thought behavior is an emergent physical form of great complexity that drives from mimetic physical chemistry that has feedback and open state heterogeneous systematis as a living system.

Past and current forms of thought pattern future performances. In memory recall, for example, feedback mechanisms enable the electrical and chemical state of the neural network to be mirrored through the memory system, through recall and recognition, to produce a new thought, a recalled memory, a cognitive performance, which is an evolved copy with similarity and differences from other performances reflecting the new context and cues triggering generation. This seems to be currently evolving perspective, but I may be projecting.

Every thought is unique and individually tied to a body. The performance of a thought is a process of evolution taking place within the physical brain in which neural network performances are selected for fitness by neurophysiological regulation, such as by the dopamine system commanding a smoker to keep smoking. Fitness cues favor those thoughts and behaviors satisfying these feedback criteria which may change in development, experience or illness.

Both within the nervous system of a higher chordate, where consciousness exists, and the collected phenotypes of natural history, the complexity of the biosphere itself, demonstrate the capability of biological mimesis to allow complexity to establish an island in time on a physical substrate and change and grow through evolution. The sun powers this island of proliferating complexity on the DNA, over eons of geological time. The substrate of biological mimesis has led to speciation in natural history. The complexity of a neural network is more easily visualized than the complexity of the expressome or the genome protein system as a whole, because of the spatial arrangement of neural networks, you can count the number of neurons and dendrites and work out the number of possible combinations, which are profound, but understanding the complexity underlying proteomics and genomics, a large scientific vocabulary is necessary simply to fix the field of reference and evolve the understanding. With neural networks, you can point to the number of individual connections within the human brain, which compares to the number of stars in the universe, and understand that this isn't an engineering project, at least one where you know what you're going to make when you begin trying to get a computer to grow consciousness.

What I am interested in is to derive a formal modern statistical mechanical description of the difference between abiotic and biological systems using a question of basic logic in computational science to elucidate the problem. Because of my background I am able to describe the problem to mathematics and biostatistics professors, especially those who are both, but the implications for number theory seem to be opaque to anyone outside of mathematics or computational theory. Because this involves theory that can overlap with some kinds of philosophical thinking, such as Hegel's phenomenology, or the modern philosophy of Renee Girard, which both though claimed are disputably scientific, I have to be careful with verbal representations of the ideas so I am particular interested in survey literature folks may have come across bearing on these ideas.


If your comment means I should consult a psychiatrist as a subject, maybe I should, though I have no diagnosed mental illnesses, which would be their specialty. Maybe this is a problem for the Chudnovsky brothers' psychiatrist. I'm building an abiogenetic chamber in our house, though my wife is not happy. Just kidding. Thanks for sharing.

 

[StIGMA]

You are clearly intelligent and have put a lot of thought into what you are discussing. However, to bring so many different ideas and disciplines together into one discussion is to lack a discussion altogether. While I am sure you can talk at length and in much more detail about these ideas than you have here, the level of detail that would be substantial to compose a real research proposal would focus in more detail on less ideas rather than flippantly connecting numerous different ideas, fields, and areas of knowledge. If this is your hobby- that being studying and thinking about these areas of knowledge and proposing ideas- that is great. If you expect that someone with clout will collaborate on these ideas- or if you believe that these ideas are significant to the scientific community- then I would again repeat my first suggestion.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

You are clearly intelligent and have put a lot of thought into what you are discussing. However, to bring so many different ideas and disciplines together into one discussion is to lack a discussion altogether. While I am sure you can talk at length and in much more detail about these ideas than you have here, the level of detail that would be substantial to compose a real research proposal would focus in more detail on less ideas rather than flippantly connecting numerous different ideas, fields, and areas of knowledge. If this is your hobby- that being studying and thinking about these areas of knowledge and proposing ideas- that is great. If you expect that someone with clout will collaborate on these ideas- or if you believe that these ideas are significant to the scientific community- then I would again repeat my first suggestion.

Alfred North Whitehead in Science in the Modern World would probably agree with you, but that was during an exhausted modernism. Since the 1920s there has been a countervailing integration of ideas throughout because of advanced understanding in biochemistry and molecular biology that counters the requirement of intense specialization in research. This work does fit within an informed framework of current research and theory within the fields of abiogenesis and biostatistics at least such as within last year's articles in Cell Biophysics or of the Journal Cosmology. Please do not impose a limit to the authority of my arguments based on a field of reference outside the discussion itself.

There are some who will be studied in the relevant areas and some who are not. Please don't assume I miss how science exists as a practice in the world. In these posts, I think I have been careful to delimit the frame of reference for my potential research questions within current established discursive practices of scholarship. If an interdisciplinary, very theoretical area of inquiry is not your area of interest, that's okay!

I am sending a message out to scientist minded folks who may have encountered deep biostatistics discussions from a pure math, computational science perspective, who can help me with establishing the current view of theoretical terms of complex microstate ensembles in open state living systems. For me, personally, I'm not interested in validating things I already know, so to say, gosh you're smart, or what does this have to do with today's world of scientific research. All the institutions that persistently welcome someone like me have little to say about a lot of things. Maybe there is nothing being said there now related to what I have conceived, but I can envision that changing because of the ideas themselves which I conceptually do imagine within the context of current scientific and mathematical knowledge, so I pursue. I am not offended because I'm not all that attached to the fruits of the labor. I already have an offer of an office, research and teaching responsibilities at a surprisingly highly regarded institution to carry out this and other work, and I don't want to let them down. I am trying to establish the proper framework for the inquiries to be effective and nontrivial.

If there are echos that folks may have come across in their reading on the issue of computational science approaches from a logic based, pure mathematics and hard physical science approach to biostatistics. I know I can write this paper, and I would really appreciate any assistance. New theory is really hard. If what I wrote strikes a chord and what I have written is coherent to you, please pass on any threads of insight or articles. I would love to get a message or feedback here.

 

[PfNO22]

Both the cognitive and behavioral approaches may have insights. My own feeling is that the most plausible theories are those describing consciousness as competitive, complex and mimetic. Whether thought behaviors conform to the Turing machine logic gate model of computation is a very difficult question. Trying to understand complexity in general in molecular biology before looking at neural networks is helpful I think. In Bio 101 everyone learns that DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and mRNA is translated into proteins. This understanding is so important to central dogma, the idea which has evolved to form our modern understanding of gene expression. The genome is the physical code for the performance of the transcriptome (all the mRNA and non-coding RNA in the cytoplasm) and subsequently the proteome (all the proteins). The products of gene expression, the contents of the expressome, regulate ongoing gene expression through complex complex feedback ensembles producing a microstate ensemble state corresponding to the developmental path of the cell (tissue level) and the point it is in the cell cycle within its surroundings.

This reminds me of when I took shrooms.

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

This reminds me of when I took shrooms.

Interesting post modern moment. I'm not at all sure that the Turing machine or cellular automata model can provide a rule based approach to complexity because I don't understand how transcendental numbers could exist in a universe assumed to be digital, as Stephen Wolfram does assume. However I do think one of the biggest challenges in modern science is to explain complexity in a meaningful way, and the study of computational systems I think is a productive path. Science is its own iterative process, though, making fundamental questions too painful for scientists to conceptualize, so a person brings up ideas like this at the risk of shame.

 

[a532]

Hey guys have some respect here! JohnWetzel is the WikiPreMed founder. Great resource for MCAT studying.

 

[delirium81]

Hey guys have some respect here! JohnWetzel is the WikiPreMed founder. Great resource for MCAT studying.

Is he also the founder of the postmodernism generator? Because that site is pretty amazing.

 

[PfNO22]

Is he also the founder of the postmodernism generator? Because that site is pretty amazing.

Nice!

 

[Integrated MCAT Course]

Repression of the subtext, or individual de-sire vis-a-vis mimetic rivalry of scientific world(view) through authoritarian scapegoating mechanisms has been the distinctive flavor of Anglo-American bourgeoisie scientific institutions in the atomic age. Veridically, though not verifiably, post-modern science underminess traditional 'wise man' authority through the mythopoeitic ascension of Oppenheimer as anti-hero, a praxis of epistomological simulacra within authority as bureacratic anti-ego.

 

[soundnin]

alright. i guess i'll say it.

tl;dr