Dear All, one last thing before closing this session on phenomemnology in medicine today. All FIS fellows intending to contribute to the 2017 special issue on integral biomathics and East-West scientific exchange should send me a note with the paper title until the end of June 2016. I will need this information to begin my talks with Elsevier. The abstract deadline remains the same as earlier announced: 31. August 2016.
Have a nice weekend. With best wishes, Plamen ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) 2013 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Can Biology Create a Profoundly New Mathematics and Computation? <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/113/1> 2012 Integral Biomathics: Tracing the Road to Reality <http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5> 2011 INtegral BIOmathics Support Action (INBIOSA) <http://www.inbiosa.eu> ____________________________________________________________ On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 11:07 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > we are indeed approaching the end of this series of sessions on life > science, phenomenology and mathematics. Your note sent 2 weeks ago with the > reference to your new book did not remain unnoticed, Francesco. Therefore I > will try to respond to it and make some final comments on what we have done > so far and what remains for the future. We can hardly become exhaustive on > all these issues raised with relation the central problems in science. It > is clear to most of us that some of them, in particular the antagonistic > ones, are due to the increased specialisation in the disciplines which > makes the establishment of a multi-rogue (to cite Bateson) difficult. The > last example was the one of George Mutter with the results of the medical > expert consultation on cancer heterogeneity with the result of an > additional split of cancers into precancels and cancers. Such domain > differentiations happen all the time. Without clear definitions and focused > problems science cannot advance. And at the same time we are criticising > reductionism as dominating modern science. In a follow-up posting I told > George that we are actually interested in both types of heterogeneity, the > (histological) one of precancels in groups of patients and in the > microbiological-genetical one of cancers of individual patients both on > temporal and spacial scale. But can we embrace all the different aspects of > studying and understanding cancer within a single methodologically sound > theoretical and experimental framework? Based on the discussions I had with > many of you in the past 7 years, I believe that we have such a > predisposition. > > My summary from Francesco’s note is that we cannot ignore the stimulating > role of other, at first sight remote disciplines, when trying to understand > life. In particular the metaphors about its “currency” and good/bad > “economy” are very powerful means to address matter, energy and information > transfer and transformation at all their levels of organisation. The > self-organised criticality (SOC) theme we continued this last session on > 3-phi integrative medicine after the one on physics looks like an enhanced > model of Varela's and Maturana’s autopoiesis. We can improve and recombine > (as Pedroo suggested) in the same manner Robert Rosen’s reaction-diffusion > systems, Allan Turing’s biochemical morphogenesis and oracle machines, von > Neuman’s cellular automata and even Penrose-Hameroff’s Orchestrated OR > theory. All of them and many others represent some valid aspect of life. > > Our effort here in the past 4 months was to try investigating the role > which philosophical phenomenology could play in enriching these models of > life and how mathematics and computation can formalise them in an adequate > manner, although we know that not everything in life is formalisable. We > touched upon some exciting questions and puzzles, even on not so well > defined concepts such as the one about wether the understanding that > quantum properties of matter do emerge from geometry can be mistakenly > interpreted as a relation between potentiality and actuality, an issue by > Joe Brenner in a personal correspondence. I hope that most of you remain > satisfied with the scope and deepness of this online discussion intended as > continuation and feedback to the authors of the selected field > contributions of our > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016) > > and successor of > > 2013 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Can Biology Create a > Profoundly New Mathematics and Computation? > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/113/1> > > It is time to announce our *third special issue on Integral Biomathics > planned for 2017 *and *dedicated to the scientific and philosophical > exchange between East and Wes*t. I’ll be pleased if some of you decide to > contribute to it with an original article or a sequel of a previous one > from the earlier publications of this row. *Abstracts are due by August > 31st 2016. * > Official announcements with detailed CFP will be disseminated by the end > of June. > > Finally, please allow me to place an announcement by Don Favareau, who > would be pleased to obtain your feedback on one of the topics in this > online discussion: *biosemiotics*. > > With my best wishes for a spectacular UEFA soccer championship in France > (starting tomorrow), summer Olympics in Brazil, and of course a > (re-)creative and inspiring research summer. > > Yours, > > Plamen > > _______________________________ > > Hi Plamen! > > > > Thanks for giving me the opportunity to draw upon the collective insight > and expertise of this group! > > > > By way of explanation: One concern that joins the FIS with the > Biosemiotics group is the need to come up with a biological but not > anthropomorphic understanding of the notion of *intentionality* – or, as > Terrence Deacon suggests replacing this perhaps already overly-mentalistic > term with, *“ententionality”, *which he defines as: > > > > “a generic adjective to describe all phenomena that are intrinsically > incomplete in the sense of being in relationship to, constituted by, or > *organized > to achieve* something non-intrinsic…[such] *ententional *phenomena > include: *functions* that have satisfaction conditions, *adaptations* > that have environmental correlates, *thoughts* that have contents, > *purposes* that have goals, *subjective experiences* that have a > self/other perspective, and v*alues* that have a ‘self’ that is benefited > or harmed (Deacon 2012:27; italics added). > > > > Such an understanding, again, is one that is needed both in Biology and in > Information Science, and so it seems to me that the current questionnaire > that is now circulating around in Biosemiotics circles concerning how to > best go about conceiving and researching this phenomenon for those purposes > would be very much of interest to those on the FIS list-serve also. > > > > So with your kind permission, I would like to ask you to make the > following two online survey links available to this group for their input > and consideration: > > > > PART 1 of this survey consists of 5 simple short answer QUESTIONS > regarding the notion of *intentionality*, as you think it might be > conceptualized for the purposes of 21st century science, and may be > accessed by clicking here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MKHPT97 > > > > PART 2 of the survey asks its respondants to consider how the term > “intentionality” has been conceptualized in a small number of previously > published QUOTES and to click on the response that best reflects their > opinion of their suitability for use 21st century science. This part of > the survey can be accessed by clicking here: > https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/T66XDMH > > > > Respondents van pick and choose those questions that they wish to respond > to (the system will not require that they respond to them all), and can > also choose to remain anonymous, if they wish, when the results of this > questionnaire are published later in the year in the journal* > Biosemiotics.* > > > > I do hope that the members of the listserve that were involved in the > Special Issue on Integral Biomathematics of the *PBMB* will take the > opportunity to join us in this project, as we work to expand our > understanding of this neglected organizing principle in both Biology and > Information Science. > > > > All best wishes and thanks again! > > > > Don Favareau > > National University of Singapore > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Francesco Rizzo < > 13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Caro Plamen e cari Tutti, >> circa dieci giorni fa ho composto e inviato un messaggio in-centrato sul >> rapporto antagonista tra riduzionismo (specialismo) e armonia (olismo), ma >> non ha riscosso tanto successo, e non solo perché scrivo in lingua >> italiana. Non ripeto quel che ho già comunicato, ma mi limito a confessare >> che andando avanti negli anni la specializzazione professionale o >> settorializzazione del sapere mi attrae e convince sempre di meno. Da >> economista, invece, divento sempre più consapevole dell'armonia >> (dell'equilibrio e del dis-equilibrio) che domina il mondo.Tutto ciò è >> provato anche dall'ultimo mio libro che è uscito il 1 aprile scorso: "Una >> scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,enigmatica, >> nobile, profetica"(Aracne editrice, Roma, 2016). >> Allora in questa circostanza desidero spendere qualche parola sulla >> terna: asimmetria/simmetria, auto-similarità o geometria frattale, legge di >> potenza o sviluppo esponenziale che vale sia per le cellule sane sia per le >> cellule malate. Tuttavia, questa terna vale di più per le cellule malate di >> cancro, il cui sviluppo è molto più intenso ed esponenziale di quello che >> caratterizza le cellule sane. Interessante sarebbe in questa prospettiva >> indagare in modo specifico le cellule staminali, più o meno potenti o >> pluri-potenti, ma non sono un esperto di queste cose. Dico solo che le >> cellule staminali sono una forma di moneta biologica. >> Ragionando per schemi simmetria e asimmetria si alternano e/o convivono >> contemporaneamente e continuamente. La simmetria si ad-dice ai momenti di >> conservazione e stabilità, l'asimmetria invece caratterizza i momenti di >> rottura o discontinuità che si verificano tra uno stato di simmetria e/o di >> equilibrio e l'altro. Tutta l'attività economica, essendo dinamica,non è >> altro che il passare irreversibile da uno stato di dis-equilibrio >> all'altro. La natura della fisica di tutto ciò che è stato creato o si è >> formato ci fa capire o sapere che se immediatamente dopo il Big Bang non si >> fosse rotta la simmetria tra materia e antimateria, creandosi un'asimmetria >> vitale (solo materia perché l'anti-materia pareche sia sparita), noi e il >> resto non saremmo a questo mondo. Anzi, non ci sarebbe nemmeno il mondo >> stesso. La stessa particella di Dio o il Bosone di Higgs senza la rottura >> della simmetria di gauge non avrebbe interagito con se stessa formandosi la >> massa nè con le altre particelle altrettanto bisognose di massa. Il >> discorso potrebbe continuare con i buchi neri, ma mi fermo qui per questo >> punto. >> L'auto-similarità contrassegna la geometria frattale e la rende >> irregolare, discontinua, disordinata e imprevedibile. >> La legge di potenza o esponenziale vale per i sistemi complessi, non >> lineari e lontani dall'equilibrio. >> Ho il sospetto che oggi le parole di un economista non valgano molto. Ma >> bisogna stare attenti a non confondere la teoria economica, con l'attività >> o la pratica economica e, comunque, non è nè teoria o pratica economica la >> professione dei ladri, dei briganti e dei pirati , ad es. della finanza.La >> chiamano economia, ma è solo ruberia o ladrocinio. Beninteso, la finanza >> speculativa. >> In ogni caso, ormai, posso ben dire di avere scoperto una nuova scienza o >> conoscenza economica, come i miei testi dimostrano, proprio aprendomi alla >> conoscenza delle scienze dell'uomo e della natura. >> Non sono un presuntuoso e so quel che affermo. >> Vi saluto con un grazie e un abbraccio affettuoso a Tutti. >> Francesco. >> >> 2016-06-02 18:00 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: >> >>> Dear Plamen, Bob, and FIS Colleagues, >>> >>> I respond to ideas previously expressed on the connection of living >>> cells with physics. SOC may be one of the ways, but there are other >>> instances, eg "constructal law", catastrophe theory, tensegrity (at least, >>> all of these are well related to development), and many others... My own >>> bet regarding the centrality and potential extension of the construct is >>> "molecular recognition". Elevating beyond heterogeneity, its conflation >>> with symmetry makes sense on the polymerization and supramolecular >>> strategies of life. >>> >>> Molecular recognition appears as the key element from which the whole >>> biochemical and evolutionary universe is constructed. Like any other >>> chemical reaction, recognition between molecules is based on the “making >>> and breaking of bonds”. This ––and only this–– is what makes possible the >>> mutual recognition and the formation of complexes between biomolecular >>> partners. The big problem with biomolecular recognition instances is that >>> they involve an amazing variety and combinatorics of almost any type of >>> chemical interaction: hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic / hydrophilic forces, >>> dipole forces, van der Waals forces, ionic Coulombian forces, etc. Dozens >>> or even hundreds of weak bonds participate, for instance, in the formation >>> of a protein-protein specific complex. Quite probably, measuring molecular >>> recognition and establishing its crucial parameters and variables can only >>> be realized biologically on a case-by-case basis. At least this is the >>> current trend in most molecular biological and molecular dynamic >>> approaches. But a few "classic" references have provided some interesting >>> insights about molecular-recognition generalities. First, *W. Meggs* >>> about “biological homing”, mainly from a Coulombian “lock and key” >>> combinatory point of view; then *Shu-Kun Lin* about the changes in >>> thermodynamic entropy of mixing derived from molecular similarity changes; >>> and finally *M. Carlton*, with original proposals for measuring the >>> information content of any complex molecular system. >>> >>> Anyhow, the result of the whole organization of molecular recognition >>> instances would remind our artificial computers--is it interesting to >>> connect them "meaningfully" with physics? Yes, the physics is all around, >>> but it is submerged very deep into the architectural and functional >>> constraints of the living system. No royal road, no "camino real" to >>> explain the entirety, a pleiad of disciplines has to be involved. For >>> cancer, or for biomaterial engineering, recombination of multiple >>> disciplines becomes the basic research enterprise of our times. We have to >>> combine the surfing of many disciplines with the occasional fundamental >>> insights (from physics, maths, symmetry, information science, etc.). But >>> neither reductionism, nor wholism, nor phenomenology, nor perspectivism, >>> nor... are going very far making sense of the whole social intelligence >>> caught into action (blind spots included). We made the "artistic" drawing >>> below. >>> >>> Enough for today. Greetings to all, and congratulations to Xueshan for >>> his Magnus Opus! --Pedro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Disciplines involved in modern biomaterial research. The representation >>> is based on the description made by bioengineer **James Kirkpatrick >>> (2009) and also del Moral et al., (2011).* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> El 02/06/2016 a las 13:20, Pedro C. Marijuan escribió: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 6:54 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz < <u...@umces.edu> >>> u...@umces.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> > Dear Bob, >>>> > >>>> >>>> > thank you for your response. What you said in the core - >>>> heterogeneity - >>>> > resonated with the first suggested example I began this session with: >>>> the >>>> > puzzle of registering the heterogeneity of cancer, both in the >>>> > molecular-biological and histological level, both in space and time. >>>> It >>>> > appears that exactly this elusive property of matter, liveness, from >>>> the >>>> > single cell to entire eco-systems, which implies intelligence >>>> throughout >>>> > all scales (as Brian Ford states) is what we still cannot in system(s) >>>> > biology put on the feet of statistical mechanics and classical >>>> > physics.Aren't tumors such intelligent clusters of heterogeneous cell >>>> > computers interacting within internaly secured invasive networks that >>>> > escape our medical enigma code breakers placed in our synthetic drugs >>>> and >>>> > radiation devices? Also such undesired life is not easy to kill. And >>>> yet >>>> > cancer cannot win the battle unless our own internal systems >>>> surrender and >>>> > become allies of the invador. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------- >>> Pedro C. Marijuán >>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >>> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >>> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) >>> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X >>> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >>> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& >>> 6818)firstname.lastname@example.org://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >>> ------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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