Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Thanks Plamen, very interesting references and comments. There are many 
new avenues opening around data, from nasty ones (recent politics) to 
the economic, biomedical and scientific in general. It is a very 
important "information" theme of our time. Perhaps I disagree that deep 
learning could not develop similar processes to what we call intuition 
and analogy. If we situate ourselves within one particular neuron of our 
nervous system, those intuitions and analogies passing by are but more 
of the same: electro-molecular mechanisms and topology. Plus "something" 
else, of course... Let us continue the discussion after Easter vacations.

Best--Pedro

El 27/03/2018 a las 14:25, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov escribió:


Dear Alberto, Pedro and All,

I could not follow this discussion in the past 3 weeks since I was 
engaged in other activities, but again ß with respect to my other 
question regarding the value of the FIS exchange as a forum and 
virtual currency, please find below two articles (December 2017) that 
could inspire your imagination:



https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08589-4 



http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/581948/EPRS_IDA(2017)581948_EN.pdf 




I believe that data-driven research is just a fashion and that new 
commercial trends like cryptocurrency technology will be driven by 
regulation to a different direction, namely the one that is the 
discussed in the articles above. Indeed, the whole idea is not new at 
all. I actually found myself as the inventor of a precursor solution 
to blockchain back in 1999. And this idea alone stems from analogies I 
have driven from active networks and attributed graph grammars back in 
the 1980ies..., long before there was an Internet Protocol at all. So, 
honestly, I do not believe that data will be the top of the knowledge 
pyramid, and to have data we create the models and invent theories 
also by analogy and intuition, the methods that folks like Poincare 
and Einstein were working with pen and paper on. Computers and AI/ML 
will remain just tools, but they will never become wise as people or 
even animals. By the way, we are planning another special issue on 
Integral Biomathics in 2019 in the footsteps of the previous ones in 
2013, 2015 and 2017 --


2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary 
Conjunction of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring 
the Nature of Mind and Life 
 *


* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 
20th, 2018


and devoted to animal and natural intelligence. I just wish to inform 
you earlier about this. An official call will be distributed in this 
forum later this year.


I wish you a Happy Easter!

All the best.

Plamen





On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Alberto J. Schuhmacher 
> wrote:


Dear Plamen, Pedro and Collegues,

I am enjoying a lot this forum.

I absolutely foresee Scientific Blockchain as a continuously
growing list of scientific records and contributions (blocks)
linked and secured using cryptography, somehow a kind of peer
reviewed process. Would you be able to publish it in a journal
based on their scientific value?

Dataist-machines won chess players but still are learning Science,
they are completing their “Bachelor”. Their use for biomedical
applications is growing everyday. For example, their accuracy for
in biomedical imaging diagnosis will be similar to humans soon.
For other applications, such as genetic predisposition and health
prediction/prognosis the conversion to a fanatic dataism may abuse
of “predictivity” and forget the relevance of the
organism-environment. It will take some time for machines to
complete their “Philosophical Doctorate”. Technology could be
ready soon for data driven hypothesis but our knowledge of
fundamental aspects of life are still weak.

All the best,
AJ

El 10-03-2018 21:05, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ escribió:


Dear Plamen and Colleagues,

If it can be feasible, I would very much welcome what you
propose. Yes, it would be great developing a general articulation
amongst all our exchanges. Roughly, I feel that a fundamental
nucleous of neatly conceptualized information is still evading
us, but outside that nucleous, and somehow emanating from it,
there are different branches and sub-branches in quite different
elaboration degrees and massively crisscrossing and intermingling
their contents. A six-pointed star, for instance, radiating from
its inner fusion the computational, physical, biological,
neuronal, social, and economic. 

Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Dear Alberto, Pedro and All,

I could not follow this discussion in the past 3 weeks since I was engaged
in other activities, but again ß with respect to my other question
regarding the value of the FIS exchange as a forum and virtual currency,
please find below two articles (December 2017) that could inspire your
imagination:


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-08589-4

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/
581948/EPRS_IDA(2017)581948_EN.pdf


I believe that data-driven research is just a fashion and that new
commercial trends like cryptocurrency technology will be driven by
regulation to a different direction, namely the one that is the discussed
in the articles above. Indeed, the whole idea is not new at all. I actually
found myself as the inventor of a precursor solution to blockchain back in
1999. And this idea alone stems from analogies I have driven from active
networks and attributed graph grammars back in the 1980ies..., long before
there was an Internet Protocol at all. So, honestly, I do not believe that
data will be the top of the knowledge pyramid, and to have data we create
the models and invent theories also by analogy and intuition, the methods
that folks like Poincare and Einstein were working with pen and paper on.
Computers and AI/ML will remain just tools, but they will never become wise
as people or even animals. By the way, we are planning another special
issue on Integral Biomathics in 2019 in the footsteps of the previous ones
in 2013, 2015 and 2017 --

2017 JPBMB Focused Issue on Integral Biomathics: The Necessary Conjunction
of Western and Eastern Thought Traditions for Exploring the Nature of Mind
and Life   *

* free promotional access to all focused issue articles until June 20th,
2018
and devoted to animal and natural intelligence. I just wish to inform you
earlier about this. An official call will be distributed in this forum
later this year.

I wish you a Happy Easter!

All the best.

Plamen





On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:46 PM, Alberto J. Schuhmacher <
ajime...@iisaragon.es> wrote:

> Dear Plamen, Pedro and Collegues,
>
> I am enjoying a lot this forum.
>
> I absolutely foresee Scientific Blockchain as a continuously growing list
> of scientific records and contributions (blocks) linked and secured using
> cryptography, somehow a kind of peer reviewed process. Would you be able to
> publish it in a journal based on their scientific value?
>
> Dataist-machines won chess players but still are learning Science, they
> are completing their “Bachelor”. Their use for biomedical applications is
> growing everyday. For example, their accuracy for in biomedical imaging
> diagnosis will be similar to humans soon. For other applications, such as
> genetic predisposition and health prediction/prognosis the conversion to a
> fanatic dataism may abuse of “predictivity” and forget the relevance of the
> organism-environment. It will take some time for machines to complete their
> “Philosophical Doctorate”. Technology could be ready soon for data driven
> hypothesis but our knowledge of fundamental aspects of life are still weak.
> All the best,
> AJ
>
>
>
> El 10-03-2018 21:05, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ escribió:
>
> Dear Plamen and Colleagues,
>
> If it can be feasible, I would very much welcome what you propose. Yes, it
> would be great developing a general articulation amongst all our exchanges.
> Roughly, I feel that a fundamental nucleous of neatly conceptualized
> information is still evading us, but outside that nucleous, and somehow
> emanating from it, there are different branches and sub-branches in quite
> different elaboration degrees and massively crisscrossing and intermingling
> their contents. A six-pointed star, for instance, radiating from its inner
> fusion the computational, physical, biological, neuronal, social, and
> economic. The six big branches in perfect periferic colussion and
> confusion. Could a blockchain, along its full develpment in time, represent
> a fundamental cartography of the originating fusion nucleous?
>
> About dataism enchantment, well, too many times we have been said "look,
> finally this is the great, definitive scientific approach"--behaviorism,
> artificial intelleigence, artifficial catastrophe & complexity theory, and
> so on. Let us wait and see. Welcome in the extent to which it really
> responds to unanswered questions. And let us be aware of the technocratic
> lore it seems to drag.
>
> This was my second cent for the week.
>
> best--Pedro
>
>
>
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:30:01 +0100 "Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov" wrote:
>
> These are wise words, Pedro.
> What I was meaning with my previous posting on FIS was that there is a
> foundational emerging technology - blockchain - that could give us,
> scientists organized in fora like FIS, IB, IS4IS etc. to become a valuable
> currency of the