Talk:Biological networks: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Interesting topic: responding to Howard)
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
Line 24: Line 24:


:I also wrote about bionets in [[Life]] and further in m[[Life/Draft]]. Seemed like biological networks merited its own article.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
:I also wrote about bionets in [[Life]] and further in m[[Life/Draft]]. Seemed like biological networks merited its own article.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
===The line blurs===
As man-machine interfaces get more intuitive, as well as machine-machine, it gets interesting in drawing the line. If one looks, for example, of [[mobile ad hoc networking]], I'm at least vaguely reminded of a local inflammatory/immune response, with automatic failover of dead or migrated cells. It's one thing to think of telescopes, radars, and other sensors that increase range, but the soldier-level local area network, as in the [[intra-squad radio]], is what I might call "connectionist" evolution.
To turn it around, it's easier to turn off an electronic network than a biological one. I can see evolutionary reasons for the autonomic response to pain that causes prostaglandin release and stiffness, but I'm not sure if that's as adaptive as when we were in caves. A lot of modern electronic networking is filtering, removing artifacts, and eventually majority vendor logic.
Again this may be getting too far afield, but consider the analogies between brain fusion of multiple sources, [[Blue Force Tracker]], and the [[common operational picture]]. There are classes of instrumentation such as network intrusion detection systems which, arguably, send somewhat processed antigens for amplification. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:22, 13 January 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Networks having no human designer, having emerged from nature by organic evolutionary processes, its foundational system a biological cell, the cell a computationally-enabled information-processing bio-computer, designed basically to live and reproduce itself, self-assembling and self-organizing, autonomous, capable of cooperating with other cells to generate multicellular structures that can intelligently design other networks. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Biology and Chemistry [Please add or review categories]
 Subgroup category:  Physiology
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Create start of new article on biological networks

Create start of new article: Biological networks. Anthony.Sebastian 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting topic

You've actually touched on one of my areas of interest. As you know, I've spent many years working with computers in medicine, but, especially in security and reliability, I've had personal interests in applying biomedical concepts to computer networks.

When the first Internet worm propagated in (umm) 1987?, I watched a lot of very smart people running around reinventing a number of concepts of epidemiology. At one point, I asked one of the best security people around if he had considered the work of John Snow, and got the response of "who?"

If you look at Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol, one familiar with both can imagine the backup router acting as an AV node backing up the SA node. I've applied epidemiological contact tracing principles to try to look for the patterns characteristic of secondary infection, of multiple infection sources, etc., but gotten relatively little interest. A few network security engineers think of "quarantine", most commonly citing SARS, but don't go into anything like the hierarchy of immunologic responses. Yet, I see parallels in the way we deal initially with distributed denial of service and a nonspecific macrophage response, while we divert the suspicious flow to analysis and start to develop the equivalent of immunoglobulins (e.g., blackhole routes). Too bad I can't find anyone interested in sponsoring an interdisciplinary team in this area. --Howard C. Berkowitz 05:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! "...applying biomedical concepts to computer networks..." If you could give every computer on the network a sophisticated effective immune system, with Darwinian evolution built in, you'd get a ticket to Stockholm.
I started Biological networks while reading Dennis Bray's Wetware: A Computer in Every Cell. I'd played with bionets in working on Systems biology. There I cited:
Barabási AL (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks. Cambridge, Mass: Perseus Pub. ISBN 0-7382-0667-9
Watts DJ (2007) A twenty-first century science. Nature 445:489
Alon U (2003) Biological networks: the tinkerer as an engineer. Science 301:1866-7 PMID 14512615
Alon U (2007) Simplicity in biology. Nature 446:497
Prill RJ et al.(2004) Dynamic properties of network motifs contribute to biological network organization. PLoS Biol 3: e343
Sporns O, Kotter R (2004) Motifs in brain networks. PLoS Biol 2: e369
Alon U (2007) An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC
I also wrote about bionets in Life and further in mLife/Draft. Seemed like biological networks merited its own article. Anthony.Sebastian 03:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The line blurs

As man-machine interfaces get more intuitive, as well as machine-machine, it gets interesting in drawing the line. If one looks, for example, of mobile ad hoc networking, I'm at least vaguely reminded of a local inflammatory/immune response, with automatic failover of dead or migrated cells. It's one thing to think of telescopes, radars, and other sensors that increase range, but the soldier-level local area network, as in the intra-squad radio, is what I might call "connectionist" evolution.

To turn it around, it's easier to turn off an electronic network than a biological one. I can see evolutionary reasons for the autonomic response to pain that causes prostaglandin release and stiffness, but I'm not sure if that's as adaptive as when we were in caves. A lot of modern electronic networking is filtering, removing artifacts, and eventually majority vendor logic.

Again this may be getting too far afield, but consider the analogies between brain fusion of multiple sources, Blue Force Tracker, and the common operational picture. There are classes of instrumentation such as network intrusion detection systems which, arguably, send somewhat processed antigens for amplification. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)