Dear Friends and Colleagues, Distinguished careers in understanding intelligence confront me, a latecomer, in this new project. So the following are just a few comments on the logical-philosophical questions that I see on reading Yi-Xin Zhong's document. First of all, I will be talking only about natural intelligence:
1. Regarding the "nature" of intelligence. I see intelligence as primarily a potential, a term for the capacity of humans (and some animals) for action rather than an entity that can somehow be "produced" by brains. This potential nevertheless has a dynamic process structure. My justification for a process view is again the Latin roots: "inter-legere" = between + collect, gather = choose, understand. I am sure we would all be most interested in learning the corresponding derivation in Chinese! 2. The axis of movement, from Information -> Knowledge -> Intelligence (as potential or structure) seems to me to abstract from all three terms a) their process aspects (knowing vs. knowledge) and b) recursive aspects that are certainly implied, but I would like to see explicitly referred to. I see nothing wrong in saying, not to eliminate the given axis but to complement it, that Intelligence is a Potential (Capability) for Knowing that enables Informational Processes (Activities or Thinking in the sense of Wu Kun). All this would do is emphasize what the three concepts have in common rather than how they differ, in other words, the interactions between the reference processes. 3. My suggestion of a process view of intelligence is also an attempt to avoid its reification that may lead to reductionist notions of intelligence "measurement". We are all aware, I am sure, of the weaknesses of the "Intelligence Quotient (IQ)" approach. 4. These thoughts are just suggestions for further study of the relationship between information science and intelligence science that Yi-Xin outlines, especially, the strong concept of Comprehensive Information as a complex of form, content and value factors, and, presumably, their interactions. Best wishes, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 6:55 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong) Dear Yixin and FIS colleagues, (at fis discussions the costume is to use first names!) Many thanks for your scholarly text. At first glance one can think that you have multiplied the problems: we barely cope with the information science discussion and now you ask us adding the scientific constructions around another "unfathomable" term, intelligence. By the way, it is interesting that in the origins of both terms for the Western world (in Latin), there is a confluence in the same person: both were coined by Cicero (Marcus Tullius, 1st century BC). So here we are, following his very footsteps! "Since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and formulates them in our minds, honorable actions are ascribed by us to virtue, and dishonorable actions to vice; and only a madman would conclude that these judgments are matters of opinion, and not fixed by nature." The connection with nature is an essential point in the intelligence discussion. I do not quite agree with the conventional sense of the term "natural intelligence" as applied mainly to human thinking, as this creates a barrier to properly ascertaining both the nature of intelligence and intelligence in nature. On a personal basis, this very topic (natural intelligence) is very dear to me: it became in early 80's my leitmotiv to abandon professional engineering work and start a scientific research confronting the arch-dominance of artificial intelligence views. After the inevitable upheavals when you do not conform to the rule, in 1989 I could present a PhD thesis entitled "Natural Intelligence: on the Evolution of Biological Information Processing" (in Spanish). To make a long story short, there appear fascinating aspects when discussing the fundamentals of intelligence not in machines or in people, but in living cells (and in primitive nervous systems), with remarkable differences between the prokaryote and the eukaryote ways of "intelligently" staying in the world. Advanced nervous systems will come later on... and human social institutions become not too far from the scope of this enlarged conception of intelligence. I do not want to produce a longish message, so let me conclude this first approximation to Yixin's text by fully endorsing his views, and particularly his proposal on the fundamental axis information-knowledge-intelligence, of course with quite many details and nuances to introduce along the future exchanges. I am not sure about the philosophical easiness of the discussion, but scientifically this means a more coherent and more interconnected pathway: paradoxically, a simplifying complexification. In next messages I will try to contribute to the discussion with ideas from the cellular realm, and from the perspective of nervous system evolution. all the best Pedro PS. Let me welcome to our list and to the current discussion-session to prof. Krassimir Markov from the ITHEA Institute (International Journal & International Society). This important scientific-technological initiative is centered around "INFORMATION THEORIES AND APPLICATIONS". See their web at: http://www.foibg.com/ You are welcome, Krassimir! -- ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
