Re: [Fis] I Dataism

[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Dear Plamen,
I fully agree with your assessment of the downside of dataism. The necessary 
counterbalance, though, cannot in my opinion come through using binary 
operators (in the sense of Burgin/Brenner) such as capital and currency, where 
the movement of ideas is involved. There is an implied reduction of their 
properties which could vitiate your project. Transaction is in principle a good 
word, but it, also, must not be reduced to its lowest common economic 
denominator. 
The problem of the entire concept of "data-driven" research can be illustrated 
by referring to almost any recent copy of SCIENCE, which I am sure you all do 
from time to time. There are articles in my original field, chemistry, which 
describe incredibly complex multiply-sequenced reactions which were 
unimaginable when I was in university. They cannot be followed or their 
products exploited without the latest concepts in data handling. But there is a 
usually a little phrase "in fine print" to the effect that the system works 
"provided the reactions lend themselves to sequencing". As long as there is 
possibility of studying the chemistry of some molecular systems, literally, as 
individuals, it will be hypotheses about their reality that drive the research, 
not the data. 
Best wishes,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com
Date : 10/03/2018 - 16:40 (PST)
À : ajime...@iisaragon.es
Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Is Dataism the end of classical hypothesis-driven research 
and the beginning of data-correlation-driven research?
Dear Alberto, Pedro, and FIS Colleagues,
I think you got the message. All in all, an effort to organize 
scientific/intellectual potential in this forum and others of that kind into a 
kind of currency of a much higher value than money and other material and 
virtual resources on Earth deserves to be made. For me, the term "blockchain" 
is a bad word match for what this vision may really become in future.  [Maybe 
this is because of my past history from Eastern Europe, which made me feel 
"blocked" and "chained" for a long time of my life.] I would rather prefer a 
term that means unblocking and unchaining instead. But it should be certainly 
one thing: trusted information of a high value like patents, articles, 
discoveries, and discussions like those we have here can be ranked on, 
especially in the era of "fake news" and spam surrounding us. What we are 
talking about is not new. It only has a new "fashion" name. We can regard it as 
an extension of the internet, beyond the semantic one, an intelligent and 
active, but also trusted and self-organized network of humans, animals, plants, 
and technical devices, a welcome tool extending our senses to feel an entire 
ecosystem of evolving things. 
I have not read an article discussing "blockchain" in the above sense, maybe 
because like most phenomena in "dataism"  the term is currently only 
unilaterally exploited by the majority, held under the umbrella of finances, 
trade, insurances, contracts, encryption, etc. trivial "high-impact" fields, 
similarly to the unilateral understanding of AI, machine learning, and even 
quantum computing. They all are still understood (by the majority of our 
contemporaries) as means to maintain the status quo of science, economy, and 
society. But they can be also used to change the paradigm. If we stay in the 
loop accepting data-driven hypothesis and machine-generated theory only because 
we have sunk in the self-created ocean of data, this would mean to betray human 
mind at the end. On the other hand, we could use all these tools to empower and 
perpetuate human mind activities like those in this forum. Therefore, I wish to 
ask you if you would eventually support a future experiment for creating a 
"human mind capital" currency based on the trustfulness of the idea 
transactions in this forum. I think we can get even funding for this 
experiment. 
All the best.
Plamen
___ ___ ___
Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov 
simeio.org |  ibiomath.org | inbiosa.eu
___
2017 Towards a First Implementation of the WLIMES Approach in Living System 
Studies Advancing the Diagnostics and Therapy in Personalized Medicine
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 

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?

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 FIS Colleagues,

I think you got the message. All in all, an effort to
organize scientific/intellectual potential in this forum and others of that
kind into a kind of currency of a much higher value than money and other
material and virtual resources on Earth deserves to be made. For me, the
term "blockchain" is a bad word match for what this vision may really
become in future.  [Maybe this is because of my past history from Eastern
Europe, which made me feel "blocked" and "chained" for a long time of my
life.] I would rather prefer a term that means unblocking and unchaining
instead. But it should be certainly one thing: trusted information of a
high value like patents, articles, discoveries, and discussions like those
we have here can be ranked on, especially in the era of "fake news" and
spam surrounding us. What we are talking about is not new. It only has a
new "fashion" name. We can regard it as an extension of the internet,
beyond the semantic one, an intelligent and active, but also trusted and
self-organized network of humans, animals, plants, and technical devices, a
welcome tool extending our senses to feel an entire ecosystem of evolving
things.

I have not read an article discussing "blockchain" in the above sense,
maybe because like most phenomena in "dataism"  the term is currently only
unilaterally exploited by the majority, held under the umbrella of
finances, trade, insurances, contracts, encryption, etc. trivial
"high-impact" fields, similarly to the unilateral understanding of AI,
machine learning, and even quantum computing. They all are still understood
(by the majority of our contemporaries) as means to maintain the status quo
of science, economy, and society. But they can be also used to change the
paradigm. If we stay in the loop accepting data-driven hypothesis and
machine-generated theory only because we have sunk in the self-created
ocean of data, this would mean to betray human mind at the end. On the
other hand, we could use all these tools to empower and perpetuate human
mind activities like those in this forum. Therefore, I wish to ask you if
you would eventually support a future experiment for creating a "human mind
capital" currency based on the trustfulness of the idea transactions in
this forum. I think we can get even funding for this experiment.

All the best.

Plamen

___ ___ ___

Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
simeio.org |  ibiomath.org | inbiosa.eu
___

2017 Towards a First Implementation of the WLIMES Approach in Living System
Studies Advancing the Diagnostics and Therapy in Personalized Medicine


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




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 

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

[Alberto J. Schuhmacher]

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 future. I am speaking not about finances or resources like 
> petrol, gold, water, etc. What we are doing all the time with the exchange of 
> ideas online are in fact transactions, often with huge potential. Why do not 
> try to elevate them to the level that they deserve?  
> 
> I am not sure if the FIS forum members can follow me. Can you? 
> 
> All the best. 
> 
> Plamen 
> 
>  
> 
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:15 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < 
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es [1]> wrote: 
> 
> head> 
> 
> Dear Alberto, 
> 
> Many thanks for the kickoff text. I will try to produce a couple of direct 
> comments. 
> 
> You have reminded me of the early 70's, when I first approached science. A 
> few computers had made their entrance in the university halls. During those 
> years, and for some decades to come, a new mantra was to be ensconced: 
> modeling, simulations. Thanks to computers, we had a fascinating new tool; a 
> mathematical machine that was opening a new window to the world of science, 
> equivalent to the telescope or the microscope in the scientific revolution. 
> Now, almost 50 years later, after having provoked their own "information 
> revolution" it seems that computers are more than a new tool. Dataism coupled 
> with artificial intelligence, deep learning and the other techniques, have 
> taken them to the command post, so that they are becoming direct "agents" of 
> the scientific progress. And this is strange. They have already defeated 
> masters of chess, of go and of other contests... are they going to defeat 
> scientists too? Are they the "necessary" new lords of all quarters of 
> techno-social complexity?

> 
> You have depicted very cogently the new panorama of biomedical research, 
> probably the mainstream, and I wonder whether this is the most interesting 
> direction of advancement. In some sense, yes (or no!), as it is where big 
> biomed companies, technological firms, and management establishment are 
> pointing at. It is easy to complain that they are leaving aside the 
> integrative vision, the meaningful synthesis that facilitate our 
> comprehension, the "soul" in 

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

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

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 
future. I am speaking not about finances or resources like petrol, gold, water, 
etc. What we are doing all the time with the exchange of ideas online are in 
fact transactions, often with huge potential. Why do not


try to elevate them to the level that they deserve? 


I am not sure if the FIS forum members can follow me. Can you?

All the best.

Plamen





On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:15 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
 wrote:


head>Dear Alberto,

Many thanks for the kickoff text. I will try to produce acouple of direct 
comments.
You have reminded me of the early70's, when I first approached science. A few 
computers had made theirentrance in the university halls. During those years, 
and for somedecades to come, a new mantra was to be ensconced: 
modeling,simulations. Thanks to computers, we had a fascinating new tool; 
amathematical machine that was opening a new window to the world ofscience, 
equivalent to the telescope or the microscope in thescientific revolution. Now, 
almost 50 years
later, after havingprovoked their own "information revolution" it seems that 
computersare more than a new tool. Dataism coupled with 
artificialintelligence, deep learning and the other techniques, have taken 
themto the command post, so that they are becoming direct "agents" of 
thescientific progress. And this is strange. They have already 
defeatedmasters of chess, of go and of other contests... are they going 
todefeat scientists too? Are they the "necessary" new lords of allquarters 
of techno-social complexity?

You have depicted verycogently the new panorama of biomedical research, 
probably themainstream, and I wonder whether this is the most 
interestingdirection of advancement. In some sense, yes (or no!), as it is 
wherebig biomed companies, technological firms, and managementestablishment are 
pointing at. It is easy to complain that they areleaving aside the integrative 
vision, the
meaningful synthesis thatfacilitate our comprehension, the "soul" in the 
machine... But we havebeen complaining in this way at least during the last 
two decades. SoI really do not know. Fashions in science come and go: maybe 
all ofthis is a temporary illusion. Or a taste of the science of the future.

In any case, it was nice hearing from a biomedical researcher inthe wet lab.
Best wishes--Pedro

On Tue, 06Mar 2018 21:23:01 +0100 "Alberto J. Schuhmacher"  wrote:
blockquote>Dear FIS Colleagues,
I very much appreciate thisopportunity to discuss with all of you.
My mentors and scienceteachers taught me that Science had a method, rules and 
proceduresthat should be followed and pursued rigorously and with 
perseverance.The scientific research needed to be preceded by one or 
severalhypotheses that should be subjected to validation or refutationthrough 
experiments designed and
carried out in a laboratory. TheOxford Dictionaries Online defines the 
scientific method as "a methodor procedure that has characterized natural 
science since the 17thcentury, consisting in systematic observation, 
measurement, andexperiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification 
ofhypotheses". Experiments are a procedure designed to test 
hypotheses.Experiments are an important tool of the scientific method.

Inour case, molecular, personalized and precision medicine aims 

Re: [Fis] Meta-observer?

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Bruno,

In the Vedic Religion - still practiced today - there are many names that
can invoke God,
or different Aspects of Him/Her associated with different Functions of the
Divine.

In India, I constantly (almost weekly) meet people who can attest to that
in different ways,
and tell me stories indicating that they live in almost constant contact
with the 'Divine Principle'.
They seem to be constantly showered by Grace.

It is not an overtly 'mechanical process' - but it does seem to obey
definite laws.
It requires acknowledging to keep that Grace flowing.

All best wishes,

Alex


On 10 March 2018 at 00:16, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> Plamen, Loet, Pedro,
>
>
> On 2 Mar 2018, at 10:36, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I know him: his name is God, the meta-observer + meta-actor at the same
> time.
> Correct, Bruno?
>
>
> God has no name that can be invoked … in the antic greek scientific
> approach of theology. So it is only a subject of inquiry and never an
> answer. The God of plato was arguably the notion of truth, with the
> understanding that it transcend us, or is “beyond” us, or bigger than us.
> But then who are “us”?
> The use of “God” was as a form of pointer to the question of what is real,
> with the doubt about the natural criterion: what we see is what is real,
> that Aristotle will yet come back on, and which please our sense and
> intuition.
>
> Now, if we start from some theological assumption like Mechanism (the
> believe that we can survive some digital transformation), then, the
> constraints of digitalness are enough big and counterintuitive to be able
> to refute Aristotle theology (where God is the physical reality) and to
> force the rationalist to envisage a coming back of the God of the
> Pythagoreans: the Numbers, or the arithmetical reality.
>
> Indeed, it is a proven fact that the elementary arithmetic reality
> emulates (executes, run, …, in the precise mathematical sense of Church,
> Turing, Kleene, …) *all* computations, and it is a fact that a universal
> machine cannot distinguish by introspection if it is run by an arithmetical
> relation or any Turing universal machinery. It is also a fact that such
> computations are implemented in arithmetic in a highly distributed way, and
> that observation provides information coming from a self-localization in an
> infinite distribution, and highly structured, complex net of computations.
> The structure is imposed by the mathematics of computability versus
> provability versus knowability versus observability, all modes of the
> universal machine ability to refers to itself.
>
> So when Pedro asks “The impending agenda is on something general universal
> as an object, and yet concrete particular enough in process. The richness
> resides within the concreteness down to the bottom.”, I would suggest the
> concept of universal machine, or universal word, number, digital program,
> etc. It is something very general, and admitting many very particular
> instances, yet all mimicking each other in arithmetic. But this leads to
> the reversal between physics and number’s psychology/theology. We are
> distributed in infinitely many computations, making any attempt to predict
> anything into a statistics on all computations, again structured by the
> universal machine ability to refer to itself. That makes mechanism
> testable, and indeed, this leads to quantum logic for the logic of the
> observable of (any) universal machine/number. Yet, that means that there is
> no physical bottom, or that the physical bottom is not really a bottom, but
> a statistical sum on infinities of computations, something rather confirmed
> by quantum mechanics or quantum filed theory.
>
> And that put even constraints on what “God” can be. Unlike a common idea
> about God, there will be a trade-off between science and potence.
> Quasi-omniscience leads to quasi-impotence, and the price of potence
> (ability to act on the reality) leads to loss of science: it looks we
> cannot have both at once. The finite creature, being participating to the
> building of the realities, can act by lacking knowledge, and can awaken in
> the infinite by loosing acting powers.
>
> If Mechanism is true, from inside, the arithmetical truth is made
> equivalent (yet in a necessarily non provable way) with the semi-computable
> universality, and god is the universal subject associated with the
> universal machine. It is a not a creator, more like a terrible child, and
> rarely if ever satisfied despite the range of its distribution.
>
> The “correct” machine avoids the contradictory blasphemy by adding an
> interrogation mark for the propositions corresponding to their true but
> unjustifiable, and the logic of Gödel-Löb-Solovay, accessible to the
> machine itself provided a very small amount of inductive abilities,
>  provides the way to handle them with the needed caution.
>
> On the propositions which are semi-computable truth