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

Thu May 19 11:39:05 CEST 2016

Caro John e Cari Tutti,
se tenessimo conto - come spesso ho ripetuto - che la semiotica o la
semiologia è basata sulla triade semantica, sintassi e pragmatica e
finalizzassimo tutte le scienze dell'uomo e/o della natura a questa terna
capiremmo che spesso tutto ciò che dichiariamo nuovo è un ritorno
all'antico paradigma dopo averlo distrutto, frantumato e specializzato.
Forse da questa "corruzione" epistemologico-scientifica si salva la mia
"Nuova economia" che è in-centrata sulle tre neg-entropie o sui tre surplus
termodinamici, eco-biologici e semiotico-ermeneutico e quindi al servizio
di tutte le scienze. Infatti la mia non è una scienza dell'economia, ma
un'economia della scienza.
Grazie. Chiudo per non essere lungo e noioso. Beninteso, con la
consapevolezza che sembrerò apodittico o schematico, ma con la
disponibilità a rispondere ad eventuali domande in proposito..
Francesco

2016-05-18 19:15 GMT+02:00 John Collier <Collierj at ukzn.ac.za>:

> Actually, I think the influence went the other way, from the prior medical
> use to Locke’s usage in philosophy (which I should note went far further
> than language – as he makes clear in Book 4, the whole Essay Concerning
> Human Understanding leads up to the semiotics described in the final book).
> For example, physical observations would be diagnostic of underlying laws.
> Locke and Newton were good friends and influenced each other quite a bit,
> so I think it is fair to say that Locke’s version of semiotics was very
> reductionist, and that he probably took this from his understanding of
> medicine, at least as one influence.
>
>
>
> Stan’s suggestion that semiotics might be useful in understanding medicine
> I would assume is based in Peirce’s non-reductionist approach to semiotics,
> which differs considerably from Locke’s (which in modern usage is closer to
> the Sausserian school that I believe infects Eco’s thought as well).
>
>
>
> I did study some history of medicine in graduate school, but I am afraid I
> have forgotten most of it over the past 35 years. There was a reversal at
> times between the supposed causes of disease, with the more Newtonian
> version of a specific cause winning out, pretty much, over Galen’s ideas
> that disease was caused by the body’s response to the conditions (humorism
> – balance or otherwise of the humours, was a major part of this view – it
> never fully died out – the shifts in medial paradigms I discussed in my
> dissertation on comparing across paradigms were never complete, and there
> was a lot of overlap, compatible with Kuhn’s view that communication was
> partial).
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
>
> University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov [mailto:plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2016 6:27 PM
> *To:* John Collier <Collierj at ukzn.ac.za>
> *Cc:* Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe at binghamton.edu>; fis <fis at listas.unizar.es
> >
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Re: _ Re: _ Towards a 3φ integrative medicine
>
>
>
> 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 <Collierj at ukzn.ac.za> 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
> <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-tic>; (def 4) < Greek *sēmeiōtik**ḗ*
> *, *noun use of feminine of*sēmeiōtikós, *
> adapted by John Locke (on the model of Greek *logik**ḗ* logic
> <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/logic>,etc.; see -ic
> <http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-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*
> <http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/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-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 17 May 2016 4:21 PM
> *To:* Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeonov at gmail.com>; fis <
> fis at 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.simeonov at 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.iacs at 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
> anyone has a better suggestion, I do not mind.
>
>
> It is a long story of looking for responses "where the physical/math light
> is" and not where the biol. problems are.
>
>
>
> I agree. This is the real issue. How can ""3φ",  "4φ",  or "3φ+ 1ψ + µ "
> help us is the question.
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, you appear to be right. I am also not convinced that Big
> Data is blessing rather than a curse.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> The question we could try to answer here is: can we do something to
> disentangle the spaghetti dish of medicine?
>
>
> Sorry if seemingly I have joined the  "Cassandra" club!
>
>
>
> I don't think so. Yours are fair concerns.
>
> Best,
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> Best--Pedro
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 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 processes act as fine-tuning
> catalyzers of substrate ratios and process rates exchanged within the
> living system. Imbalances of these quantities lead to excess/blockage or
> scarcity/draining of essential nourishment and information exchange
> pathways.
>
>
>
> *Regulation at criticality* not only fine-tunes a process, it *optimizes*
> it for survival: with respect to a given generation’s available
> possibilities in the light of the past generations’ possibilities. To
> survive an organism or a species needs to develop optimal
> *response-ability* to environmental distress.
>
>
>
> *New ecological definition of life according to Hankey: self-regulating,
> self-reproducing systems that maximize efficiency of function to maximize
> competitiveness in their chosen environment. *
>
>
>
> *Summary: Elements of self-organized criticality*
>
>
>
>    1. Criticality
>    2. Edge of the chaos
>    3. Self-organized criticality
>    4. 1/f fractal patterns of response
>
>
>
> *… and beyond*
>
>
>
> I wish to add a 5th aspect to this definition from the perspective of
> integral biomathics:
>
>
>
>    1. *Phenomenology*
>
>
>
> The latter is a largely studied matter in contemporary medicine (s. ref.
> list D), at least at the macro, interpersonal *level*.
>
>
>
> *Note 2*: A level refers to the compositional hierarchy defining levels
> by scale.
>
>
>
> *The key question in such a “deep holistic” physically-phenomenological
> physiology (*3φ*)** is how to define or comprehend (self-organized)
> criticality operationally within the unifying framework of biomathematics
> and biocomputation*. Indeed, a single temporary imbalance within a living
> system regarded as disease involves multiple agents, perspectives and
> interpretations at all levels altogether, moreover *simultaneously*.
>
>
>
> *Note 3*: Simultaneously at different levels involves very different
> sized 'moments' at the different scales.
>
>
>
> So, how should we approach and take into account the other levels/scales
> in order to derive a reliable diagnosis and *therapy*?
>
>
>
> *Note 4*: The notion of “subject” becomes plural (“subjects”) as
> superposition of quantum states to survive the integration of the multiple
> first-person subjective descriptions and the standard third-person
> objective one.
>
>
>
> Until now criticality has been *non-phenomenological*.
>
>
>
> *Note 5:* In their 2012 paper “No entailing laws, but enablement in the
> evolution of the biosphere” Longo, Montévil and Kauffman claim that
> biological evolution “marks the end of a physics world view of law entailed
> dynamics” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.2069). They argue that the
> evolutionary phase space or space of possibilities constituted of
> interactions between organisms, biological niches and ecosystems is “ever
> changing, intrinsically indeterminate and even (mathematically)
> unprestatable”.Hence, the authors' claim that it is impossible to know
> “ahead of time the 'niches' which constitute the boundary conditions on
> selection” in order to formulate laws of motion for evolution. They call
> this effect “radical emergence”, from life to life. Yet this applies to
> abiotic dissipative structures like tornadoes as well. Living beings are
> not radically different in this respect. In their study of biological
> evolution, Longo and colleagues carried close comparisons with physics.
> They investigated the mathematical constructions of phase spaces and the
> role of symmetries as invariant preserving transformations, and introduced
> the notion of “enablement” to restrict causal analyses to Batesonian
> differential cases (1972: “the difference that makes a difference”). The
> authors have shown that mutations or other “causal differences” at the core
> of evolution enable the establishment of non-conservation principles, in
> contrast to physical dynamics, which is largely based on conservation
> principles as symmetries. Their new notion of “extended criticality” also
> helps to understand the distinctiveness of the living state of matter when
> compared to the non-animal one. However, their approach to both physics and
> biology is also *non-phenomenological*. The possibility for endo states
> that can trigger the “(genetic/epigenetic) switches of mutation” has not
> been examined in their model. This is intended to be different in 3φ*
> integrative medicine*.
>
> If we split a human body into macro (patient), mezzo (systems) and micro
> levels (cells) three distinct questions regarding phenomenology arise: i)
> *how* these levels pervade into each other with larger scale providing
> context (boundary conditions) and lowest scale providing raw materials for
> middle scale to function, monitor and control vital processes, ii)
> *who/which* are the agents taking care for this to happen spontaneously,
> and iii) *what kind and role* plays information in the context of i) and
> ii). After all what we are concerned about is modeling the agency of the
> systems in the mezzo level.
>
>
>
> Where should we go from here?
>
>
>
> In particular, I am interested to know *what kind of
> scientific-phenomenological methodology can be developed and applied for
> investigating *the following three major groups of ailments:
>
>
>
>    1. *oncological diseases* with a particular focus on spatial and
>    temporal heterogeneity both in terms of flawed histological structures and
>    biochemical reactions;
>
>
>    1. *neuro-degenerative disorders* such as vascular dementia, Parkinson
>    and Alzheimer diseases:
>
>
>    1. *altered organ and physiological system failures* such as the
>    Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS), cardiovascular and autoimmune
>    diseases.
>
>
>
> In the first group, the *extreme diversity of cancer tissue structures
> and circulating tumor cells (CTC) concentrations over both spatial and
> temporal scales* makes the reliable classification, diagnosis,
> model/hypothesis generation, forecast and treatment of individual patients
> very difficult. This is a real challenge for modern pathology. Another
> problem is that pathologists are actually dealing with random tissue and
> blood samples over irregular periods, which hinder the exact 3D
> histological reconstruction of the tumor formations and tracing their
> development over time and space. Using additional means such as diagnostic
> sonography, CT, MRT and PET images do not improve sufficiently the
> hypotheses about the individual cancer morphology and development. All this
> makes tumor classification and diagnosis, even when analyzing
> high-resolution digital images from biopsy slices by means of virtual
> microscopy, very difficult and often a guesswork also for experts. The
> recent advances in high-performance medical scanning and automation
> systems, computerized visualization and graphical modeling tools, as well
> the collection of huge amounts of anonymous patient data in specialized
> medical databases make the impression that the solution of these problems
> is only a question of more automation, performance, investment and time.
> However, many pathologists begin to realize a third problem, namely that *tumors
> appear to be unique in their histological structure and development*,
> related to the personal history and the overall state of health of the
> individual patients. This argument reveals the need for developing a more
> personalized and differentiated medicine that goes over scales without
> becoming purely symptomatic, causality-driven and reductionistic.
>
>
>
> Recent research in the other two fields leads to the same conclusion.
> Therefore, I think that we may be able to develop and test hypotheses about
> emergence and development of deficiency and illness that will lead to
> individual therapies in *3φ* integrative medicine. Your ideas regarding
> this assumption are very welcome.
>
>
>
> Some interesting questions bridging the previous discussion sessions to
> this one are:
>
>
>
> -        Why does a human embryo repeat the evolutionary history of its
> species when going through its development stages? Is it because it is more
> secure to project and set up the execution of a future life plan by tracing
> and bodily memorizing a series of evolutionary encoded (successful) “locks”
> through equilibrium states at the edge of criticality?
>
>
>
> -        Which is the *vital *role of recursion and repetition of life
> processes including their material and information exchange flows in the
> criticality driven self-regulation for recovery from imbalances and the
> reversibility and healing of diseases? How can we effectively model such
> processes?
>
> -        Do we make difference between a physicist’s time and a
> biologist’s time in complex living systems?
>
>
>
> * I look forward to your feedback and notes on the subject.*
>
>
>
> *References:*
>
> *A.     Integrative Medicine*
>
> Integrative Medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_medicine
> <http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Integrative_medicine>
>
> What Is Integrative Medicine?:
>
>
> http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/alternative-medicine-integrative-medicine
>
>
>
> Integrative Medicine Research:
>
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/integrative-medicine-research/
>
>
>
> Advances in Integrative Medicine
>
> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/advances-in-integrative-medicine
>
>
>
> *B.    Integral Biomathics*
>
> Integral Biomathics:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Biomathics
>
> Integral Biomathics: A Post-Newtonian View into the Logos of Bios
>
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0703/0703002.pdf
>
> On Some Recent Insights in Integral Biomathics:
>
> https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.2843.pdf.
>
> Integral Biomathics Reloaded: 2015 (free access until July 19th 2016):
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610715001509
>
>
>
> *C.    Self-organized criticality**:*
>
>
>
> Self-organized criticality:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organized_criticality
>
>
>
> Self-organized criticality (SOC):
>
> http://www.johnboccio.com/courses/SOC26/15-SOC.pdf
>
>
>
> Self-organized criticality:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/8.334/www/grades/projects/projects12/V.%20A.%20Golyk.pdf
>
>
>
> Self-organized criticality – what it is and what it isn’t
>
>
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.96.8017&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
>
>
>
>
> *D.    Phenomenology in Medicine*
>
>
>
> The meaning of illness: a phenomenological approach to the
> physician/patient relationship:
> https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/baylor-ir/handle/2104/8286 ;
> http://hdl.handle.net/2104/8286.
>
>
>
> Body Matters: A Phenomenology of Sickness, Disease, and Illness:
>
> http://philpapers.org/rec/AHOBMA.
>
>
>
> Suffering Transfigured: Phenomenological Personalism In the Doctor-Patient
> Relationship:
> http://elischolar.library.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=ymtdl
> .
>
> The challenge of neuroscience: Psychiatry and phenomenology today:
> https://www.klinikum.uni-heidelberg.de/fileadmin/zpm/psychatrie/fuchs/Challenge_of_Neuroscience.pdf.
>
>
>
>
> Rediscovering Psychopathology: The Epistemology and Phenomenology of the
> Psychiatric Object:
> http://cfs.ku.dk/staff/zahavi-publications/Rediscovering_Psychopathology.pdf
> .
>
> PHENOMENOLOGY IN PSYCHIATRY:
> http://www.wpanet.org/uploads/Sections/Philosopy_and_Humanities/Phenomenology-in-Psychiatry.pdf.
>
>
>
>
> *Plamen*
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
>
> (note: free access to all articles until July 19th, 2016)
>
>
>
> 2013 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Can Biology Create a
> Profoundly New Mathematics and Computation?
> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/113/1>
>
>
>
> 2012 Integral Biomathics: Tracing the Road to Reality
> <http://www.springer.com/engineering/computational+intelligence+and+complexity/book/978-3-642-28110-5>
>
>
>
> 2011 INtegral BIOmathics Support Action (INBIOSA) <http://www.inbiosa.eu>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Pedro C. Marijuán
>
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
>
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
>
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
>
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
>
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
>
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160519/775a7837/attachment.html>