[Fis] _ Re: _ Re: Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
Dear Pedro and All, coming back to my earlier suggestion from this weekend to explore the particular case of using self-organised criticality and cancer, I suggest to read and comment on this arXiv paper by J.C. Phillips: *Self-Organized Criticality: A Prophetic Path to Curing Cancer* https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.0048.pdf. I look forward to your opinion, in particular those of Alex, Lou and Maxine (with respect to making the turn towards phenomenology). With best wishes for a fruitful week, Plamen On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pedro and All, > > I was not quite correct im my earlier email of today when I said that that > there is not much novelty to be reported in the studying the phenomenology > of dying and death in the West. What should be noticed is definitely the > research of such pioneers as Elisabeth Kübler-Ross ( > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Kübler-Ross_model) and Lawrence LeShan ( > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lawrence_LeShan) and many others whose line > can be traced back to Newton’s alchemic experiments, incl. those of the > circle of prominent scientists and humanists who founded the British > Society for Psychical Research in 1882, in an era when the Eiffel Tower and > the Manhattan Building were ascending on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean > and the first direct current lightning began its path around the globe from > the New York”s Pearl Street power station, in the dawn of the birth of two > great physical theories that would reshape the world as no knowledge ever > before. We appear to be a little bit lost and helpless with playing “Bits & > Bolts" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuUxLplR_TI) in our era. > > Best, > > Plamen > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < > plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Pedro and Colleagues, >> >> thank you for your comments and insightful suggestions where see there is >> a need to focus research in the field. We know well that a good physician >> is usually less successful than a good car mechanic, but also that cars >> cannot self-repair (yet). It is true that the matter is complex and tough, >> but also well-studied: healing methods that worked has been applied before >> science as such has emerged. Yet in the past, stress has been given to the >> importance of the bond healer - patient, whereas in the last century with >> the “industrialisation" of medicine and more applied research, the patient >> became impersonalised with attention slowly shifting from a bilateral >> relation to a trilateral (physician - drug - patient), or even >> a quadrilateral (physician - computer - drug - patient) one. Great >> discoveries of how we are structured and how we operate were made, before >> realising (again) that all these formations and processes in the human body >> are very individual and have their own history and future, despite knowing >> and classifying every single detail. And yet, we still hope with the >> collection of more and more data and putting more resolution, skill and >> intelligence in our exploration devices to find patters of emergence that >> will allow us to detect and understand regress/illness to repair and >> re-engineer the ill parts of our virtual bodies, and from there the >> physical ones. Is modern medicine a science or an engineering discipline, >> or both perhaps, because it is so important to us? Things are complex and >> tough in medicine not because of much detail and chaos/messiness, but >> because we keep an eye-in-eye contact at the phenomenology of death, which >> have been largely ignored for a long time in our modern Western >> society: without understanding it much from our objective, even if shared, >> viewpoint in science. Dying is a very personal experience, but quite well >> documented, even if not that extensively like love and hate in human >> literature. I am not aware of much (phenomenological) detail provided by >> contemporary science in the process of dying beyond what is known about the >> six transitional states described by Tibetian Buddhism ( >> http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Bardo), perhaps because shared evidence and >> reproducibility of scientific results is the common guideline for science. >> Yet, is therefore everything else simply "non-science"? Is not our entire >> research in life science and medicine targeting life and youth perpetuation >> (and commercialisation) for ever? >> >> >> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 8:02 PM, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: >> >>> Dear Plamen and FIS Colleagues, >>> >>> Discussing on integrative attempts in medicine is really challenging. >>> >> >> In the course of these medicine studies, I realised that integration has >> many different interpretations here. It is not easy to place a term for >> making clear what one has in mind and avoid misunderstanding. Therefore I >> made this first note in my open
[Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
Dear Colleagues, the link to the PDF version of my thesis has changed: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39020576/Towards%20a%203%CF%86%20integrative%20medicine.pdf For most browsers also the link to the text version at FIS should be readable with small exceptions: http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2016-May/000955.html. It is called "*[Fis] _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine*" and began on Saturday, May 14th. Best wuishes, Plamen 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 process
[Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
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. If
