Author Archives: Ion Arrieta

Talk by Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza: “The Morality of Head Transplant”.Ponencia de Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza: “La moralidad del trasplante de cabeza”.Talk by Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza: “The Morality of Head Transplant”.

Posted on by

Date and Time: September 28th, Monday, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza (independent researcher)

Title: The Morality of Head Transplant

Abstract:

In 1970 Robert J. White tried to transplant the head of a monkey to the body of another monkey. He was inspired by the work of another scientist, a truly pioneer in organ transplantation: Vladimir Demikhov (1916-1998). Both White and Demikhov were ahead of their time. They devised to transplant heads, firstly in dogs (Demikhov´s milestone), then in monkeys (White´s achievement). In 2013 Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group (TANG) in Italy, spoke of his plans to carry out the first human head transplantation (Canavero 2015). Thirty years after the first attempts to transplant heads in non-human animals, scientists contemplate now the first human head transplant. Spinal linkage offers now the possibility of transplanting the head and, by doing so, circunventing  many of the somatic diseases afflicting human beings. In this talk we explore the feasibility of human head transplants and highlight the ethical problems associated to.

Día y hora: 28 de septiembre, lunes, 11.30 am.

Lugar: Centro Carlos Santamaría, Sala B14

Ponente: Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza (investigador independiente)

Título: La moralidad del trasplante de cabeza

Resumen:

En 1970 Robert White intentó traspantar la cabeza de un mono al cuerpo de otro mono. Se inspiró en el trabajo de otro científico, un verdadero pionero en trasplante de órganos: Vladimir Demikhov (1916-1998). Ambos, White y Demikhov fueron adelantados a su tiempo. Ellos idearon trasplantar cabezas, en primer lugar en perros (hito de Demikhov), y luego en monos (logro de White). En 2013 Sergio Canavero del Turing Advanced Neuromodulation Group (TANG) en Italia, habló de sus planes de llevar a cabo el primer trasplante de cabeza humano (Canavero 2015). Treinta años despues de los primeros intentos de trasplante de cabeza en animales no-humanos, los científicos contemplan ahora el trasplante de cabeza en seres humanos. La fusión de la médula espinal ofrece ahora la posibilidad de trasplantar la cabeza y de este modo, superar muchas de las enfermedades somáticas que afligen a miles de personas en todo el mundo. En esta charla exploramos la viabilidad del trasplante de cabeza en seres humanos y subrayamos los problemas éticos que se derivan.

Date and Time: September 28th, Monday, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Aníbal Monasterio Astobiza (independent researcher)

Title: The Morality of Head Transplant

Abstract:

In 1970 Robert J. White tried to transplant the head of a monkey to the body of another monkey. He was inspired by the work of another scientist, a truly pioneer in organ transplantation: Vladimir Demikhov (1916-1998). Both White and Demikhov were ahead of their time. They devised to transplant heads, firstly in dogs (Demikhov´s milestone), then in monkeys (White´s achievement). In 2013 Sergio Canavero of the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group (TANG) in Italy, spoke of his plans to carry out the first human head transplantation (Canavero 2015). Thirty years after the first attempts to transplant heads in non-human animals, scientists contemplate now the first human head transplant. Spinal linkage offers now the possibility of transplanting the head and, by doing so, circunventing  many of the somatic diseases afflicting human beings. In this talk we explore the feasibility of human head transplants and highlight the ethical problems associated to.

Talk by Mª José Ferreira Ruiz: “Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources”Seminario a cargo de Mª José Ferreira Ruiz: “Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources”Mª José Ferreira Ruiz-en hitzaldia: “Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources”

Posted on by

Date and Time: September 14th, Monday, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Mª José Ferreira Ruiz (CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires)

Title: Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources

Abstract: 

The relation between biological inheritance and biological information
is close but tricky and unclear, and has not been directly explored.
Since the rise of molecular biology, genes have been thought of not
only as heritable units, but also as informational units. The
traditional focus put almost exclusively on genetic inheritance, and
the early introduction of the term ‘information’ to refer to genes,
may have given the impression that both properties come in a package,
as if every heritable unit were an informational one, and vice versa.
At present, we recognize other, non-genetical, inheritance systems,
but this only redoubles the confusion. A second issue concerning the
concept of information is posed by the notion of “developmental
resource” discussed by Developmental Systems theorists, among which we
count many different biological agents. Some authors have claimed that
if we admit genes -developmental resources- to be information
carriers, then the same must be said of the rest of the developmental
resources. Thus, they suggest an “informational parity” among genes
and non-genetic factors. My aim in this presentation is to addresss
the problematic aspects of these two relationships, that is, the one
between information and inheritance and the one between information
and causation. In both cases, I will argue that there are conceptual
confusions implied.

Fecha y hora: 14 de Septiembre, Lunes, 11.30 am.

Lugar: Centro Carlos Santamaría, Aula B14

Ponente: Mª José Ferreira Ruiz (CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires)

Título: Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources

Abstract: 

The relation between biological inheritance and biological information

is close but tricky and unclear, and has not been directly explored.

Since the rise of molecular biology, genes have been thought of not

only as heritable units, but also as informational units. The

traditional focus put almost exclusively on genetic inheritance, and

the early introduction of the term ‘information’ to refer to genes,

may have given the impression that both properties come in a package,

as if every heritable unit were an informational one, and vice versa.

At present, we recognize other, non-genetical, inheritance systems,

but this only redoubles the confusion. A second issue concerning the

concept of information is posed by the notion of “developmental

resource” discussed by Developmental Systems theorists, among which we

count many different biological agents. Some authors have claimed that

if we admit genes -developmental resources- to be information

carriers, then the same must be said of the rest of the developmental

resources. Thus, they suggest an “informational parity” among genes

and non-genetic factors. My aim in this presentation is to addresss

the problematic aspects of these two relationships, that is, the one

between information and inheritance and the one between information

and causation. In both cases, I will argue that there are conceptual

confusions implied.

Eguna eta Ordua: Irailak 14, Astelehena, 11.30tan.

Tokia: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Hizlaria: Mª José Ferreira Ruiz (CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires)

Titulua: Information, inheritance systems and developmental resources

Abstract: 

The relation between biological inheritance and biological information

is close but tricky and unclear, and has not been directly explored.

Since the rise of molecular biology, genes have been thought of not

only as heritable units, but also as informational units. The

traditional focus put almost exclusively on genetic inheritance, and

the early introduction of the term ‘information’ to refer to genes,

may have given the impression that both properties come in a package,

as if every heritable unit were an informational one, and vice versa.

At present, we recognize other, non-genetical, inheritance systems,

but this only redoubles the confusion. A second issue concerning the

concept of information is posed by the notion of “developmental

resource” discussed by Developmental Systems theorists, among which we

count many different biological agents. Some authors have claimed that

if we admit genes -developmental resources- to be information

carriers, then the same must be said of the rest of the developmental

resources. Thus, they suggest an “informational parity” among genes

and non-genetic factors. My aim in this presentation is to addresss

the problematic aspects of these two relationships, that is, the one

between information and inheritance and the one between information

and causation. In both cases, I will argue that there are conceptual

confusions implied.

Talk by Laura Nuño de la Rosa: “Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front”Talk by Laura Nuño de la Rosa: “Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front”Talk by Laura Nuño de la Rosa: “Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front”

Posted on by

Date and time: July 2, Thursday,11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Laura Nuño de la Rosa

Title: Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front

Abstract: Although evolutionary developmental biology is widely seen as a well established discipline, there is still no agreement on the impact of the introduction of development into the general structure of evolutionary theory. It has recently been argued that philosophy of biology should shift the emphasis from theories to epistemic goals in evolutionary biology, and particularly in evo-devo (Brigandt 2010; Love 2010). In this view, the identity of evo-devo as a discipline does not lay in being a theory, but derives from the pursuit of specific epistemic goals, such as the explanation of evolvability, evolutionary novelty or homology. On the other hand, the development of big data–based approaches and computational analytical methods is revolutionizing the field of the history  of science (Laubichler, Maienschein, and Renn 2013).  In this paper, I will apply these two new approaches to the history and philosophy of science to the study of evolvability, a research topic which is usually taken to be a cornerstone of evo-devo and, more generally, of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (Pigliucci 2008).

The plan of the paper is as follows. First, I introduce the methods used to map the research front of evolvability. I have used CiteSpace, an application for visualizing and analyzing trends and patterns in scientific literature which applies co-citation analysis to identify scientific specialities (Chen 2006). Second, I depict the general dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front and analyse each of the clusters the network is divided in with the aim of answering to the following questions: What is the conceptual structure of the research front of evolvability? Which are the interdisciplinary relationships structuring this research front? How did the research front on evolvability get started? What are the main intellectual turning points along its evolution, and what are the most active areas of research? Finally, I examine the main conceptual tensions among the existing definitions of evolvability. I argue that evolvability sets up ‘trading zones’ (Galison 1999) in scientific research that make possible interdisciplinary exchanges.

References

Brigandt, I. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295–311.

Chen, C. 2006. “CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3): 359–77.

Galison, P. 1999. “Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief.” The Science Studies Reader, 137–60.

Laubichler, M. D., J. Maienschein, and J. Renn. 2013. “Computational Perspectives in the History of Science: To the Memory of Peter Damerow.” Isis 104 (1): 119–30.

Love, A. C. 2010. “Rethinking the Structure of Evolutionary Theory for an Extended Synthesis.” In Evolution – the Extended Synthesis, edited by M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, 403–41. The MIT Press.

Pigliucci, M. 2008. “Opinion – Is Evolvability Evolvable?” NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS 9 (1): 75–82.

Date and time: July 2, Thursday,11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Laura Nuño de la Rosa

Title: Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front

Abstract: Although evolutionary developmental biology is widely seen as a well established discipline, there is still no agreement on the impact of the introduction of development into the general structure of evolutionary theory. It has recently been argued that philosophy of biology should shift the emphasis from theories to epistemic goals in evolutionary biology, and particularly in evo-devo (Brigandt 2010; Love 2010). In this view, the identity of evo-devo as a discipline does not lay in being a theory, but derives from the pursuit of specific epistemic goals, such as the explanation of evolvability, evolutionary novelty or homology. On the other hand, the development of big data–based approaches and computational analytical methods is revolutionizing the field of the history  of science (Laubichler, Maienschein, and Renn 2013).  In this paper, I will apply these two new approaches to the history and philosophy of science to the study of evolvability, a research topic which is usually taken to be a cornerstone of evo-devo and, more generally, of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (Pigliucci 2008).

The plan of the paper is as follows. First, I introduce the methods used to map the research front of evolvability. I have used CiteSpace, an application for visualizing and analyzing trends and patterns in scientific literature which applies co-citation analysis to identify scientific specialities (Chen 2006). Second, I depict the general dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front and analyse each of the clusters the network is divided in with the aim of answering to the following questions: What is the conceptual structure of the research front of evolvability? Which are the interdisciplinary relationships structuring this research front? How did the research front on evolvability get started? What are the main intellectual turning points along its evolution, and what are the most active areas of research? Finally, I examine the main conceptual tensions among the existing definitions of evolvability. I argue that evolvability sets up ‘trading zones’ (Galison 1999) in scientific research that make possible interdisciplinary exchanges.

References

Brigandt, I. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295–311.

Chen, C. 2006. “CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3): 359–77.

Galison, P. 1999. “Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief.” The Science Studies Reader, 137–60.

Laubichler, M. D., J. Maienschein, and J. Renn. 2013. “Computational Perspectives in the History of Science: To the Memory of Peter Damerow.” Isis 104 (1): 119–30.

Love, A. C. 2010. “Rethinking the Structure of Evolutionary Theory for an Extended Synthesis.” In Evolution – the Extended Synthesis, edited by M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, 403–41. The MIT Press.

Pigliucci, M. 2008. “Opinion – Is Evolvability Evolvable?” NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS 9 (1): 75–82.

Date and time: July 2, Thursday,11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Laura Nuño de la Rosa

Title: Computing evo-devo. Mapping the dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front

Abstract: Although evolutionary developmental biology is widely seen as a well established discipline, there is still no agreement on the impact of the introduction of development into the general structure of evolutionary theory. It has recently been argued that philosophy of biology should shift the emphasis from theories to epistemic goals in evolutionary biology, and particularly in evo-devo (Brigandt 2010; Love 2010). In this view, the identity of evo-devo as a discipline does not lay in being a theory, but derives from the pursuit of specific epistemic goals, such as the explanation of evolvability, evolutionary novelty or homology. On the other hand, the development of big data–based approaches and computational analytical methods is revolutionizing the field of the history  of science (Laubichler, Maienschein, and Renn 2013).  In this paper, I will apply these two new approaches to the history and philosophy of science to the study of evolvability, a research topic which is usually taken to be a cornerstone of evo-devo and, more generally, of an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (Pigliucci 2008).

The plan of the paper is as follows. First, I introduce the methods used to map the research front of evolvability. I have used CiteSpace, an application for visualizing and analyzing trends and patterns in scientific literature which applies co-citation analysis to identify scientific specialities (Chen 2006). Second, I depict the general dynamics and conceptual structure of the evolvability research front and analyse each of the clusters the network is divided in with the aim of answering to the following questions: What is the conceptual structure of the research front of evolvability? Which are the interdisciplinary relationships structuring this research front? How did the research front on evolvability get started? What are the main intellectual turning points along its evolution, and what are the most active areas of research? Finally, I examine the main conceptual tensions among the existing definitions of evolvability. I argue that evolvability sets up ‘trading zones’ (Galison 1999) in scientific research that make possible interdisciplinary exchanges.

References

Brigandt, I. 2010. “Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology.” Erkenntnis 73 (3): 295–311.

Chen, C. 2006. “CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57 (3): 359–77.

Galison, P. 1999. “Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief.” The Science Studies Reader, 137–60.

Laubichler, M. D., J. Maienschein, and J. Renn. 2013. “Computational Perspectives in the History of Science: To the Memory of Peter Damerow.” Isis 104 (1): 119–30.

Love, A. C. 2010. “Rethinking the Structure of Evolutionary Theory for an Extended Synthesis.” In Evolution – the Extended Synthesis, edited by M. Pigliucci and G. B. Müller, 403–41. The MIT Press.

Pigliucci, M. 2008. “Opinion – Is Evolvability Evolvable?” NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS 9 (1): 75–82.

Talk by James diFrisco: “Individuality and the Limits of Biological Functionalism”Talk by James diFrisco: “Individuality and the Limits of Biological Functionalism”Talk by James diFrisco: “Individuality and the Limits of Biological Functionalism”

Posted on by

Date and time: Monday, June 8, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: James diFrisco (KU Leuven / Universidad Católica de Lovaina)

Title: Individuality and the Limits of Biological Functionalism

Abstract: According to ordinary intuition, living individuals and organisms are the same thing. Many of our moral and legal practices are connected to organism-based conceptions of individuality. For example, we grant rights to animal organisms rather than to their cells conceived as individuals, and assign moral responsibility to persons in a group rather than to the group as an individual—usually. Developments in biology, however, have indicated that familiar organisms are just one case of individuality among others, such as genes, cells, colonies, groups, species, and even ecosystems. It has therefore become a genuine problem to explain what it is in general that makes something a biological individual.

My project takes its point of departure from the inadequacy of the evolutionary explanation currently on offer, in which being an individual just means being a unit of selection. Instead of opposing this by recourse to more physiological explanations of individuality, however, I suggest it will be more illuminating to place both within a more general framework. I propose to do this by introducing two new elements to the debate: a (1) process-based and (2) hierarchical view of individuality. The first ensures that individuality receives a deeper explanation as a product of fundamental biological processes; the second, that different individuals are explained in terms of processes at different levels—whether they be physiological, evolutionary, or otherwise.

International Workshop on Levels of organization, causality & top-down relationsInternational Workshop on Levels of organization, causality & top-down relationsInternational Workshop on Levels of organization, causality & top-down relations

Posted on by

International Workshop on Levels of organization, causality & top-down relations
June 4th, 2015
with
William Bechtel (U. California, San Diego): 
Top-down causation without levels 
and
  • Nicole Perret (IEA Nantes): Biological circularity and causality from a Kantian perspective
  • María Cerezo (U. Murcia): Causal dispositionalism in gene expression: the case of alternative splicing
  • Jon Umerez (UPV/EHU): A defense of inter-level causation
  • Leonardo Bich (UPV/EHU): Biological regulation: a theoretical model and its implications
  • Arantza Etxeberria (UPV/EHU): Biological organization & medical normativity

Venue: Faculty of Philosophy, Room 2.6

Time: 9.30 – 18.00

(download full program here)

PROGRAM

9:30: Alvaro Moreno: Brief Presentation

9:40-11:00: William Bechtel: Top-down causation without levels

11:00-11:30 Coffee break (at the cafeteria)

11:30- 12:15: Nicole Perret: Biological circularity and causality from a Kantian perspective

12:15 – 13:00: María Cerezo: Causal dispositionalism in gene expression: the case of alternative splicing

13:00-14:45 Lunch

14:45-15:30: Jon Umerez: A defense of inter-level causation

15:30-16:15: Leonardo Bich: Biological regulation: a theoretical model and its implications

16:15-16-30 Break

16:30-17:15: Arantza Etxeberria: Biological organization & medical normativity

IAS-Research Seminar by Nei de Freitas Nunes-Neto: “Functionality and regulation in ecological and social-ecological systems” IAS-Research Seminar by Nei de Freitas Nunes-Neto: “Functionality and regulation in ecological and social-ecological systems”IAS-Research Seminar by Nei de Freitas Nunes-Neto: “Functionality and regulation in ecological and social-ecological systems”

Posted on by

Date and time: Monday, May 11, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Nei de Freitas Nunes-Neto (Federal University of Bahia, Brazil)

Title: Functionality and regulation in ecological and social-ecological systems 

Abstract: In this talk, I will focus on functionality and regulation of ecological and social-ecological systems, presenting an overview of the work I’m developing along this year at IAS-Research Group. The talk will be composed of two main parts. First of all, I’ll present the organizational approach of ecological functions developed in a previous work, and a possible reformulation of it, pointing to some relevant issues, such as the distinction between primary and non-primary functions and the complex relationships between different closures of constraints associated to a given ecosystem. And, second, based on the previous discussion, I’ll discuss the topic of regulation in ecological and social-ecological systems. Along the presentation, I’ll use examples of ecological or social-ecological systems (based on the following keystone species: a bromeliad, a wild bee and a dung beetle) to illustrate the general ideas.

Talk by Sara Diani: “Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?”Talk by Sara Diani: “Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?”Talk by Sara Diani: “Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?”

Posted on by

Date and time: Friday, May 8, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Sara Diani (Lahnhöhe Zentrum, Lahnstein, Germany)

Title: Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?

Abstract: In the clinical practice we approach diseases with a linear logic, not a complex one, focusing us on a little part of the organism, ignoring what happens in the other compartments. Anytime we try to treat a disease, we make several attempts because we don’t have a unifying and logical model that can help us to define a rational method. Our empiricism would need a consequent rational analysis of it, in order to properly analyze the results.

In other words, except for the studies done by the philosophers of medicine, we do not use a clear model of what is health and what is disease. To this aim the connection between philosophical and theoretical systemic approach to our body and its reactions, the science of complex systems, the study about networks and the “field discipline” in physics, and finally the clinical practice has been here explored.

A new model of interaction between body, environment and disease, by using the latest theories of physics and biology, and the concept of heuristic learning (based on the event and error) is proposed. The disease is triggered by environmental information (except for the genetic ones), and it is an active process, performed through the individual characteristics. Through heuristic learning the system develops its own “best response” to the information in that moment. This will follow the rules of the live organism: to maintain low entropy, the best order possible, and to use the least energy.

This idea has a central role in defining and treating the diseases.

The ratio between medical and biological paradigms with a systemic and holistic perspective could allow us to revolutionize the cures for the patient, to do more effective research to understand deeply the results with the final goal of a new, higher and wider level of medicine.

Date and time: Friday, May 8, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Sara Diani (Lahnhöhe Zentrum, Lahnstein, Germany)

Title: Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?

Abstract: In the clinical practice we approach diseases with a linear logic, not a complex one, focusing us on a little part of the organism, ignoring what happens in the other compartments. Anytime we try to treat a disease, we make several attempts because we don’t have a unifying and logical model that can help us to define a rational method. Our empiricism would need a consequent rational analysis of it, in order to properly analyze the results.

In other words, except for the studies done by the philosophers of medicine, we do not use a clear model of what is health and what is disease. To this aim the connection between philosophical and theoretical systemic approach to our body and its reactions, the science of complex systems, the study about networks and the “field discipline” in physics, and finally the clinical practice has been here explored.

A new model of interaction between body, environment and disease, by using the latest theories of physics and biology, and the concept of heuristic learning (based on the event and error) is proposed. The disease is triggered by environmental information (except for the genetic ones), and it is an active process, performed through the individual characteristics. Through heuristic learning the system develops its own “best response” to the information in that moment. This will follow the rules of the live organism: to maintain low entropy, the best order possible, and to use the least energy.

This idea has a central role in defining and treating the diseases.

The ratio between medical and biological paradigms with a systemic and holistic perspective could allow us to revolutionize the cures for the patient, to do more effective research to understand deeply the results with the final goal of a new, higher and wider level of medicine.

Date and time: Friday, May 8, 11.30 am.

Location: Carlos Santamaría Building, Room B14

Speaker: Sara Diani (Lahnhöhe Zentrum, Lahnstein, Germany)

Title: Complex systems and clinical medicine: do they have fitting points?

Abstract: In the clinical practice we approach diseases with a linear logic, not a complex one, focusing us on a little part of the organism, ignoring what happens in the other compartments. Anytime we try to treat a disease, we make several attempts because we don’t have a unifying and logical model that can help us to define a rational method. Our empiricism would need a consequent rational analysis of it, in order to properly analyze the results.

In other words, except for the studies done by the philosophers of medicine, we do not use a clear model of what is health and what is disease. To this aim the connection between philosophical and theoretical systemic approach to our body and its reactions, the science of complex systems, the study about networks and the “field discipline” in physics, and finally the clinical practice has been here explored.

A new model of interaction between body, environment and disease, by using the latest theories of physics and biology, and the concept of heuristic learning (based on the event and error) is proposed. The disease is triggered by environmental information (except for the genetic ones), and it is an active process, performed through the individual characteristics. Through heuristic learning the system develops its own “best response” to the information in that moment. This will follow the rules of the live organism: to maintain low entropy, the best order possible, and to use the least energy.

This idea has a central role in defining and treating the diseases.

The ratio between medical and biological paradigms with a systemic and holistic perspective could allow us to revolutionize the cures for the patient, to do more effective research to understand deeply the results with the final goal of a new, higher and wider level of medicine.