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 opening session. I began with it, because this was our starting point: what does integral biomathics mean in the context of medicine? We are moving in a domain very close to the humanities, and obtaining a label “exotic” or “esoteric” by the mainstream researchers is not promoting. Hence this effort to differentiate. > I do not think that the marriage proposed by Stan, yoking medicine with > semiotics in films grounds, will have much progeny. > I think 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 [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, >> detecting one source of damage related to the failed organ (heart, kidney, >> liver, etc.) associated with the ailment; so is the therapy, until a second >> or a third failure are detected and medicated sequentially and >> independently from each other. Yet, in most cases, the failures are >> occurring at the same time in multiple organs and systems, but we do not >> have the information about that to act, or the information comes too late >> and on an isolated place, covering the other alarm signals under the >> threshold of detection by the organism. >> >> However, if you go to a TCM practitioner with the complaint of e.g. heart >> palpitations as a symptom of restlessness after examining your pulse and >> tongue, you will obtain three medications (herbs): one for lowering the >> blood pressure, one for detoxifying the kidneys and one for detoxifying the >> liver. In addition to that you may become an acupuncture session for >> regulating the “qi/chi flow" inside the body - a substance which is a >> complete mystery for science - and a prescription of what to eat and how to >> sleep. >> >> So, decrypting the body sign(al)s in their multiplicity as result of the >> interaction of systems and organs is the clue. Regarding human bodies as >> licked buckets that need to be repaired from multiple punches is probably a >> good metaphor. >> >> Best, >> >> Plamen >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Karl Javorszky < >> karl.javors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Just a small detail on the information density of food (air, water, >>> sensory input, etc.) in medicine: >>> >>> The DNA has a high informational value for the organism. Can it be said >>> that poison has also an informational value? >>> >>> Can the de-constructive effect of a substance quantified based on the >>> same semiotic system of references as the constructive effect of a >>> substance can be referred to in that same system of references? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fis mailing list >>> Fis@listas.unizar.es >>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
