[Fis] _ Re: Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

2016-05-22 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
 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

[Fis] _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine

2016-05-17 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear Plamen,

Thanks for the synthetic attempt. You have put together pretty complex 
strands of thought that become too demanding for a general response. I 
will concentrate in a few points.

What is Medicine? In what extent is it amenable to "integration"? Is 
reductionism an anathema in medicine? Can we regularly ascend from 
cellular info flows to organs/systems, and to healthy 

The history of Medicine shows messiness in the highest degree. To note 
that it was not included in the Trivium/Quadrivium medieval scheme of 
knowledge, and was only accepted within the "mechanical arts" after Hugh 
of St. Victor compilation (XIII Century), many decades after the first 
Faculties of Medicine were created in Italy. Why medicine is so messy? 
Just go the wiki pages on the topic: hundreds of subspecialties are 
listed, and under all those terms we imply all the internal and external 
("natural") phenomena that can derail and put out of track the 
advancement of a life cycle. Each one of those specialties has to 
arrange its own world of knowledge, with lots of analytical and 
synthetic avenues not amenable to neat overall schemes and to formal 
approaches except in some reduced pockets. Successful reductionist 
strategies and analytical techniques are piled up with holistic views, 
and reams of tacit knowledge (indeed medicine is a very stratified small 
world of "lords", "masters", "disciples", "servants", and "beginners").

So, like in engineering, one has to be suspicious of far reaching 
implications for the term "integrative". Not necessarily in this case 
with the "3φ" connotation. But the strong reliance on criticality could 
be subject to scrutiny. Quite many cellular / biomolecular phenomena do 
not especially rely on criticality --perhaps the most essential ones, 
related to "codes", genomic maintenance, protein synthesis, protein 
degradation, signaling, apoptosis, etc. Why the integrative strategy 
should rely on a term that notwithstanding strong physical grounds,has 
relatively thin explanatory capability in the biological? It is a long 
story of looking for responses "where the physical/math light is" and 
not where the biol. problems are.

My view, I can be wrong but I have worked considerably on the matter, is 
that cellular signaling, the crisscrossing of info flows that provide 
the singular intelligence and adaptability of organisms, is not well 
articulated yet. Neither in evo-devo, nor in physiology, medicine and 
health. In this regard all the present parlance on information 
processing that accompanies the tremendous technological info-tech 
revolution does not represent a help, maybe the opposite. The deep info 
problems are taken as already solved and articulated synthesis are 
undertaken as mere agglutinations. Maybe the problem is too deeply 
complex, and medicine is as always too messy.

Sorry if seemingly I have joined the  "Cassandra" club!

El 14/05/2016 a las 9:49, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov escribió:

Dear Colleagues,

My contribution will finalize the discussion on phenomenology in the 
domains of biology, mathematics, cyber/biosemiotics and physics by the 
previous speakers (Maxine, Lou, Sœren and Alex) with a “challenging 
topic” in _3φ integrative medicine_. *You may wish to skip the small 
font text notes following each underscored phrase like the one below.*

_Note 1:_Although this term is often used as synonym for holistic 
healing (s. ref. list A), its meaning in this context with the prefix 
3φ goes much “deeper” into the disciplines’ integration leaving no 
room for speculations by mainstream scientists. The concept is a 
linguistic choice of mine for the intended merge of the complexity 
sciences _ph_ysics and _ph_ysiology with _ph_enomenology for 
application in modern medicine along the line of integral biomathics 
(s. ref. list B).

It is rooted in the last presentation of Alex Hankey, since it 
naturally provides the link from physics to physiology and medicine, 
and thus to an anthropocentric domain implying a leading part of 
phenomenological studies. To begin, I compiled a précis of Alex’ 
thesis about self-organized criticality (s. ref. list C) from his 
paper “A New Approach to Biology and Medicine” -- the download link to 
it was distributed in a previous email of him -- and extended it with 
my reflections including some questions I hope you will resonate on.

I am curious of your opinion about how to apply the scientific method, 
and in particular mathematics and information science, to study 
illness and recovery as complex phenomena.

*Alex Hankey: self-organized criticality and regulation in living systems*

*There is a continuous growth and change at the end of a phase 
transition in an organism, i.e. at its critical point, which is the 
end point of phase equilibrium.*


*Both endo and exo, genetics and epigenetics are important for life.*


*Self-organized criticality*is a characteristic state of