Dear Pedro and All, coming back to my earlier suggestion from this weekend to explore the particular case of using self-organised criticality and cancer, I suggest to read and comment on this arXiv paper by J.C. Phillips: *Self-Organized Criticality: A Prophetic Path to Curing Cancer* https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.0048.pdf.
I look forward to your opinion, in particular those of Alex, Lou and Maxine (with respect to making the turn towards phenomenology). With best wishes for a fruitful week, Plamen On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pedro and All, > > I was not quite correct im my earlier email of today when I said that that > there is not much novelty to be reported in the studying the phenomenology > of dying and death in the West. What should be noticed is definitely the > research of such pioneers as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross ( > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kübler-Ross_model) and Lawrence LeShan ( > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lawrence_LeShan) and many others whose line > can be traced back to Newton’s alchemic experiments, incl. those of the > circle of prominent scientists and humanists who founded the British > Society for Psychical Research in 1882, in an era when the Eiffel Tower and > the Manhattan Building were ascending on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean > and the first direct current lightning began its path around the globe from > the New York”s Pearl Street power station, in the dawn of the birth of two > great physical theories that would reshape the world as no knowledge ever > before. We appear to be a little bit lost and helpless with playing “Bits & > Bolts" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUxLplR_TI) in our era. > > Best, > > Plamen > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < > plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Pedro and Colleagues, >> >> thank you for your comments and insightful suggestions where see there is >> a need to focus research in the field. We know well that a good physician >> is usually less successful than a good car mechanic, but also that cars >> cannot self-repair (yet). It is true that the matter is complex and tough, >> but also well-studied: healing methods that worked has been applied before >> science as such has emerged. Yet in the past, stress has been given to the >> importance of the bond healer - patient, whereas in the last century with >> the “industrialisation" of medicine and more applied research, the patient >> became impersonalised with attention slowly shifting from a bilateral >> relation to a trilateral (physician - drug - patient), or even >> a quadrilateral (physician - computer - drug - patient) one. Great >> discoveries of how we are structured and how we operate were made, before >> realising (again) that all these formations and processes in the human body >> are very individual and have their own history and future, despite knowing >> and classifying every single detail. And yet, we still hope with the >> collection of more and more data and putting more resolution, skill and >> intelligence in our exploration devices to find patters of emergence that >> will allow us to detect and understand regress/illness to repair and >> re-engineer the ill parts of our virtual bodies, and from there the >> physical ones. Is modern medicine a science or an engineering discipline, >> or both perhaps, because it is so important to us? Things are complex and >> tough in medicine not because of much detail and chaos/messiness, but >> because we keep an eye-in-eye contact at the phenomenology of death, which >> have been largely ignored for a long time in our modern Western >> society: without understanding it much from our objective, even if shared, >> viewpoint in science. Dying is a very personal experience, but quite well >> documented, even if not that extensively like love and hate in human >> literature. I am not aware of much (phenomenological) detail provided by >> contemporary science in the process of dying beyond what is known about the >> six transitional states described by Tibetian Buddhism ( >> http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bardo), perhaps because shared evidence and >> reproducibility of scientific results is the common guideline for science. >> Yet, is therefore everything else simply "non-science"? Is not our entire >> research in life science and medicine targeting life and youth perpetuation >> (and commercialisation) for ever? >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: >> >>> Dear Plamen and FIS Colleagues, >>> >>> Discussing on integrative attempts in medicine is really challenging. >>> >> >> In the course of these medicine studies, I realised that integration has >> many different interpretations here. It is not easy to place a term for >> making clear what one has in mind and avoid misunderstanding. Therefore I >> made this first note in my opening session. I began with it, because this >> was our starting point: what does integral biomathics mean in the context >> of medicine? We are moving in a domain very close to the humanities, and >> obtaining a label “exotic” or “esoteric” by the mainstream researchers is >> not promoting. Hence this effort to differentiate. >> >> >>> I do not think that the marriage proposed by Stan, yoking medicine with >>> semiotics in films grounds, will have much progeny. >>> >> >> I think that there is still something that can be used in general terms >> such as developing methodology for treatment. The (bio)semiotics of Peirce >> and Uexkühl may provide a sound base for developing therapies. In my >> reference list is given some account of the neuroscience and psychiatry >> papers related to phenomenology. >> >> >>> Rather, if we disentangle medical practice from biomedical research we >>> have at least a little less confusing panorama. >>> >> >> >>> Actually I think most of Plamen's views on 3φ are mostly in the >>> research direction. >>> >> >> That’s right. Practice and research are currently two different pairs of >> shoes and all I was referring to is related to finding a way to “practicing >> research”, but this results in only “doing research” at the moment. >> >> >>> Given that we are playing with the "3" I will make just another three >>> suggestions. >>> >> >>> 1. In foundation matters, rather than caring about criticality or >>> autopoiesis, I would demand and search for a new CELL THEORY. The present >>> state of that venerable theory is just awful, even more with the updating >>> of the "Central Dogma" proposed by Francis Crick decades ago. It has caused >>> some furore that Templeton Foundation has just financed a big project >>> devoted to that purpose: updating that venerable theory a little beyond >>> Darwinian classical strictures. (Not "anti" Darwinian but somehow "post"). >>> If informational views were properly incorporated... (big If). We tried to >>> do something in that style for a European Project, but we did not pass the >>> 2nd cut. >>> >>> 2. In physiological matters, there is much to say from criticality, >>> balancing, symmetry, symmetry breaking and restoration, network science, >>> etc. Some time ago there was a "Physiome" European Project, "From Molecules >>> to HumanKind" trying to capture the whole map of physiological regulation. >>> But in my impression it is a bioengineering repository of models and >>> resources. It could be done differently. The emphasis by Alex, Plamen on >>> criticality and of mine on signaling would not be too bad complementary >>> directions. >>> >>> 3. Finally, on integration, I would propose "knowledge recombination" >>> instead. The usual way to understand integration is unbounded, without >>> space-time limits, like the processing of a Turing Machine. Rather the >>> human practice of knowledge, and paradigmatically medicine, >>> is characterized by a growing difficulty in integration matters within >>> dozens and dozens of disciplines. Heterogeneous fields of knowledge can >>> hardly be integrated at all. What living beings have had to rely upon is >>> "recombination"--either genetically, neuronal, or socially. It is the >>> unending combination of fragments of heterogeneous pieces of knowledge >>> brought into action not randomly but in space-temporal frameworks that >>> allow the mutual cross-fertilization. The idea, developed specifically for >>> the biomedical arena can be discussed at length in [Information 2011, 2, >>> 651-671; doi:10.3390/info2040651] and in [*Scientomics*: An Emergent >>> Perspective in Knowledge. Organization. Knowledge Organization. 39(3), >>> 153-164. 2012]. In philosophical terms it is sort of a realization of >>> Ortega y Gasset's perspectivism... the peculiar phenomenology of the >>> great Spanish philosopher. >>> >>> Better if I stop here. Greetings to all--Pedro >>> >> >> >> These are very good points which I thankfully adopt in the "IB 4 >> medicine" scheme. In particular, the last one of “recombination", extended >> by "creative inclusion and adaptation”, just in the way as mitochondria >> were adopted by the cell in the process of its evolution, is a very >> powerful principle of life which we experience in our macro societal >> structures now. And this is a point that Ortega y Gasset was well aware >> many years ago.... >> >> How about trying to come back again to criticality and try to trace >> jointly at least one complete possible investigative path to the puzzle of >> illness and recovery for one of the 3 examples I mentioned earlier in kind >> of a 3φ or 4φ (or even "powers of φ”) "recombinant solution” from the >> standpoint of contemporary science and phenomenology? I vote for cancer, >> but we can take any of the other two if there are sufficient votes. >> >> Have a great last week of May! >> >> Plamen >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *De:* Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de Dr. Plamen L. >>> Simeonov [plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com] >>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 18 de mayo de 2016 11:39 >>> *Para:* Karl Javorszky >>> *Cc:* fis >>> *Asunto:* Re: [Fis] Towards a 3φ integrative medicine >>> >>> One more thing on the example with the heart failure. If you go to a >>> cardiologist with the same problem, s/he will prescribe a series of >>> exampinations related to your heart only (checking your blood pressure, EEG >>> & EMG tests incl. 24h recording and physical performance tests, etc.). >>> Rarely you can expect a blood sample analysis related to some kidney or >>> liver failure, or a cervical examination because of a possible supply >>> shortage of the vertebral artery (in case you have reported accompanying >>> headaches) because of a grown bone spur with the first examination. >>> Finally, depending on all these tests you will usually obtain a pill >>> prescription to keep yopur blood pressure low for the rest of your life and >>> some advise to avoid salty and spicy food. Period. If you at some point in >>> time give up to find out and fix the real cause(s) for this "simple" heart >>> failure, it is your problem, and not the one of the physician or the >>> insurance company. >>> >>> Now let's turn to the giraffe and the okapi and see how they have >>> managed to develop a strong heart with the evolution: >>> http://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2016-news/Cavener5-2016 >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/genes-reveal-clues-to-giraffes-long-neck/. >>> >>> http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160517/ncomms11519/full/ncomms11519.html >>> >>> Thus, science can still give important clues to solving problems, incl. >>> what is a bonus or threat, but it is not the only source. The central issue >>> is the integration of knowledge and sign(al)s about the operation and >>> interaction of whole body systems, I think. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Plamen >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 8:56 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < >>> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> This is an interesting question, Karl. Without giving a full account, I >>>> think there can be said the following. >>>> It is usually not the (chemical) nature of a substrate or the >>>> availability of an external source that makes it a poison, but its ratio. >>>> Small amounts are harmless, larger amounts are dangerous. But there is >>>> no general recipe to detect harms. >>>> If you stay for 15 minutes on the sun (UV light) this will stimulate >>>> the production of vitamin D in your body which in turn will stimulate the >>>> strengthening of your bones. But if you stay longer, there is a danger of a >>>> sunstroke or melanoma. Our brains simply do not obtain all these alarming >>>> signals from damaging the (skin) cells to the production and cumulation of >>>> toxic substances. We have specific organs to sense color, smell and taste, >>>> but not radiation. >>>> >>>> The problem with contemporary (allopathic) medicine is that it is >>>> basically symptomatic and the diagnosis is usually reductionistic, >>>> detecting one source of damage related to the failed organ (heart, kidney, >>>> liver, etc.) associated with the ailment; so is the therapy, until a second >>>> or a third failure are detected and medicated sequentially and >>>> independently from each other. Yet, in most cases, the failures are >>>> occurring at the same time in multiple organs and systems, but we do not >>>> have the information about that to act, or the information comes too late >>>> and on an isolated place, covering the other alarm signals under the >>>> threshold of detection by the organism. >>>> >>>> However, if you go to a TCM practitioner with the complaint of e.g. >>>> heart palpitations as a symptom of restlessness after examining your pulse >>>> and tongue, you will obtain three medications (herbs): one for lowering the >>>> blood pressure, one for detoxifying the kidneys and one for detoxifying the >>>> liver. In addition to that you may become an acupuncture session for >>>> regulating the “qi/chi flow" inside the body - a substance which is a >>>> complete mystery for science - and a prescription of what to eat and how to >>>> sleep. >>>> >>>> So, decrypting the body sign(al)s in their multiplicity as result of >>>> the interaction of systems and organs is the clue. Regarding human bodies >>>> as licked buckets that need to be repaired from multiple punches is >>>> probably a good metaphor. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Plamen >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Karl Javorszky < >>>> karl.javors...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Just a small detail on the information density of food (air, water, >>>>> sensory input, etc.) in medicine: >>>>> >>>>> The DNA has a high informational value for the organism. Can it be >>>>> said that poison has also an informational value? >>>>> >>>>> Can the de-constructive effect of a substance quantified based on the >>>>> same semiotic system of references as the constructive effect of a >>>>> substance can be referred to in that same system of references? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Fis mailing list >>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es >>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
