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

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

Dear Colleagues,

I’d like to share a possible sensation as of today if true:

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-complex-life-billion-years-earlier.html

What would this mean in terms of our discussion about life and medicine?

Best.

Plamen





On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a very interesting note for me, John!
> So, the modern symptomatic medicine, the collection of data about illness
> characteristics has its roots in philosophy?
>
> Best,
>
> Plamen
>
>
> 
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:16 PM, John Collier  wrote:
>
>> Ironically, “semiotic” originally was a medical term referring to signs
>> (symptoms) of disease. John Locke (my favourite modern philosopher)
>> introduced the term as we use it today, and may have derived it from the
>> Greek *seme*.  But he also knew a lot about medicine (and just about
>> everything else at the time, but he apparently lacked a sense of humour).
>>
>>
>>
>> From an online dictionary (the other I found had the first known use in
>> 1880. Which is clearly wrong. So beware!):
>>
>> 1615-20; (def 3) < Greek *sēmeiōtikós* significant, equivalent to
>> *sēmeiō-,*verbid stem of *sēmeioûn* to interpret as a sign (derivative of
>>  Greek *sēmeîon*sign) + *-tikos* -tic
>> ; (def 4) < Greek *sēmeiōtik**ḗ*
>> *,* noun use of feminine of*sēmeiōtikós,* adapted by John Locke (on the
>> model of Greek *logik**ḗ* logic ,
>> etc.; see -ic  ) to mean “the
>> doctrine of signs”; (defs 1, 2) based on Locke'scoinage or a reanalysis
>> of the Gk word
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, from a medical dictionary:
>>
>> semiotic
>>
>>  /se·mi·ot·ic/ (se″me-ot´ik)
>>
>> *1. **pertaining* to signs or symptoms.
>>
>> *2. **pathognomonic*
>> .
>>
>> Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an
>> imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>
>>
>>
>> For which, if like me, you may further need:
>>
>> pathognomonic
>>
>>  [path″og-no-mon´ik]
>>
>> specifically *distinctive*
>>  or characteristic of a disease or pathologic condition; denoting a sign or 
>> symptom on which adiagnosis can be made.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> John Collier
>>
>> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>>
>> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>>
>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
>> N Salthe
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2016 4:21 PM
>> *To:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov ; fis <
>> fis@listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
>>
>>
>>
>> Plamen, Pedro --
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems to me that perhaps Medicine should not look to mathematics for
>> support or underpinning so much as to SEMIOTICS (that is, Peircean
>> semiotics, being worked today as biosemiotics).  Biosemiotics is, in the
>> verbal conceptual realm, almost as complex and messy as medicine, and so
>> the two might be matched up fruitfully!
>>
>>
>>
>> STAN
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
>> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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

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

[Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov]

This is a very interesting note for me, John!
So, the modern symptomatic medicine, the collection of data about illness
characteristics has its roots in philosophy?

Best,

Plamen





On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:16 PM, John Collier  wrote:

> Ironically, “semiotic” originally was a medical term referring to signs
> (symptoms) of disease. John Locke (my favourite modern philosopher)
> introduced the term as we use it today, and may have derived it from the
> Greek *seme*.  But he also knew a lot about medicine (and just about
> everything else at the time, but he apparently lacked a sense of humour).
>
>
>
> From an online dictionary (the other I found had the first known use in
> 1880. Which is clearly wrong. So beware!):
>
> 1615-20; (def 3) < Greek *sēmeiōtikós* significant, equivalent to
> *sēmeiō-,*verbid stem of *sēmeioûn* to interpret as a sign (derivative of
> Greek *sēmeîon*sign) + *-tikos* -tic
> ; (def 4) < Greek *sēmeiōtik**ḗ**,*
>  noun use of feminine of*sēmeiōtikós,* adapted by John Locke (on the model
>  of Greek *logik**ḗ* logic ,etc.;
> see -ic  ) to mean “the doctrine of
> signs”; (defs 1, 2) based on Locke'scoinage or a reanalysis of the Gk word
>
>
>
> Also, from a medical dictionary:
>
> semiotic
>
>  /se·mi·ot·ic/ (se″me-ot´ik)
>
> *1. **pertaining* to signs or symptoms.
>
> *2. **pathognomonic*
> .
>
> Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an
> imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
> For which, if like me, you may further need:
>
> pathognomonic
>
>  [path″og-no-mon´ik]
>
> specifically *distinctive*
>  or characteristic of a disease or pathologic condition; denoting a sign or 
> symptom on which adiagnosis can be made.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2016 4:21 PM
> *To:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov ; fis <
> fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
>
>
>
> Plamen, Pedro --
>
>
>
> It seems to me that perhaps Medicine should not look to mathematics for
> support or underpinning so much as to SEMIOTICS (that is, Peircean
> semiotics, being worked today as biosemiotics).  Biosemiotics is, in the
> verbal conceptual realm, almost as complex and messy as medicine, and so
> the two might be matched up fruitfully!
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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 an