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

2016-05-23 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
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,
>>>> detec

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

2016-05-18 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
Dear Colleagues,

the link to the PDF version of my thesis has changed:

For most browsers also the link to the text version at FIS should be
readable with small exceptions:

It is called "*[Fis] _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine*" and began on
Saturday, May 14th.

Best wuishes,


On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 7:03 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> for those whose email systems do not support special characters like Greek
> letters (s. first concept explained in note 1), I have placed a PDF version
> of my opening on the cloud:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39020576/Plamen-Intro.pdf.
> Please let me know if you register other problems in the communication.
> Best,
> Plamen
> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 a system at
>> its critical point generated by self-organization during a long transient
>> period at the complexity edge between order/stability/predictability and
>> disorder/chaos/unpredictability.
>> *Regulation of growth, form and function as a balance between health and
>> illness.* The role of regulation and homeostasis in maintaining the
>> structure and function of living systems is critical. Every deviation from
>> a regulated state of being leads to imbalances, failures and subsystem
>> dysfunction that is usually transitory, but could also become
>> life-threatening, if the organism cannot find a way to restore quickly to a
>> balanced, healthy state. Living beings are robust and fault-tolerant with
>> respect to hazards; they possess multiple alternative pathways for
>> supplying and maintaining their existential functions. However, some state
>> transitions in response to severe harms can become practically
>> irreversible, because of the deep evolutionary interlocking between the
>> participating entities and processes. Sometimes the normal functioning of
>> the organism cannot be easily restored by its natural repair processes,
>> especially when adversities reoccur frequently, and the organism fails ill.
>> *Synchronicity of action and information between the building blocks of a
>> living system.* There is a need for every physiological function to be
>> correctly coordinated with all other “peer” functions. Information flows
>> within a living system interconnect all physiological functions and organs
>> at multiple levels into a single mesh of regulatory interconnections.
>> Multiple feedback-control loops enable the cross-functional interlocking of
>> both healthy and ill state changes of the organism.
>> Adjacent/peripheral/secondary homeostasis 

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

2016-05-17 Thread Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov
Daer Pedro,

thank you for your entertaining way of presenting my Sisyphus theme about
medicine in a nutshell, which was mostly enjoyable to read. Actually, you
are right, medicine is "messy", which qualifies it more like a liberal art
discipline rather than science, full of workshop type of hustle and bustle,
ad hoc insights of mystic adepts followed by faithful scholars and mixed
with cutting edge technology wherever possible (in the Western world). It
appears that every effort to organize it in the manner we know in
mathematics and physics is doomed to failure.  I realise that the subject's
depth reflected in my presentation is indeed overwhelming. Yet, it was not
my intention to put a Sisyphus rock upon this forum. Thank you for your and
Koichiro's simplified pedestrian analysis of the theme. We can go with thes
rephrased set of questions further.

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:

> 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 individuals/environments?
These are good general questions, but I'd rather wish to focus on one
specific problem, e.g. the one of the metastatic melanoma that Koichiro
addressed in his example and try to "dissect" it as in the article in his
example. It is clear to me that I cannot focus on one single thing and
brainstorm on it all the time. But the idea behind this concluding workshop
was to be less philosophical and more practical in trying to investigate if
we can reshape medicine as an extension of biology. After all, huge amounts
of money are given for research here, more than in any other field, as far
as I know. Are these investments justifyable in the way this "engineering
science" is performing today? Is there anything that could make this
discipline more predictable, at least at the curruculum level?

> 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").

This is all true. But it is also true that medicine has been always very
important for us human beings.

> 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.

Indeed, there coud be a "3φ", a "4φ",  or a "3φ+ 1ψ", ... etc. Greek
alphabet built polynomial connotations encoded in this prefix. The question
is wether we can use such kind of combination from the known natural
science disciplines and extend them by some humanitarian fields in order to
address key issues in an organised and diligent manner in medicine. We know
well that there are both serios conflicts between some branches and efforts
to reconcile them. The prefix I used was to make clear that we are asking
for a novel kind of integration, if possible. Yet this prefix definition
should not be considered "fixed" once for ever.

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?

Criticality is a phenomenon that holds both for living and non-living
matter. This is something that "matters". Of course, one could take
"autopoiesis" instead, which is also a good choice. I am not sure how far
we can go with this this "criticality" bus. I had to start somewhere my
talk, and I made this choice to facilitate the transition to medicine.