Dear FIS colleagues, 
        I guess these issues deserve some more careful attention and
discussion since I can't find any other approach than might address
with better success the "relation Information-Intelligence: from
cells to human organisms" as an evolutionary perspective. 

        Walter Riofrio 
 Researcher IPCEM, University Ricardo Palma. Lima-Perú 
 Chercheur Associé; Complex Systems Institute-Paris (ISC-PIF) 
 Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology 

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Christophe Menant
              Sent: mié 24/11/10 09:47
              Subject: Fwd: [Fis] FW:  Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION
    Resent to the correct address
 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100
   Dear Colleagues,
 Looking at relations between information and intelligence brings in
the need to explicit the agents we are considering, as the
intelligence of a unicellular organism has not much to do with the
intelligence of a human being.
 An evolutionary approach may be a usable path. Begin with simple
organisms and progressively chain on more complex ones.
 In order to begin with simple enough a definition of intelligence,
we can use Gordana’s one where the intelligence of an agent is
«the ability to face the world in a meaningful way», and also use
Stan's linking of this point to a process of interpretation by the
agent relatively to its needs. 
 Putting these two perspectives together can lead to define
intelligence as the «interpretation of a received information to
generate a meaningful information (a meaning) that will be used by
the agent to satisfy its needs thru action implementation ». The
agent can be a simple organism or a human being, with of course
different needs to satisfy. So the evolutionnary perspective, where
intelligence is linked with information (using an already presented
approach: [1]). 
 Needs of a paramecium, like «stay alive» are much simpler to
define than human needs like «increase happyness». But in both
cases we have information (coming from the environment or from the
organism) that is related to the needs in order to generate
meaningful information used to produce an action (physical or mental)
aimed at the satisfaction of the needs (i.e. behave intelligenly by
«facing the world in a meaningful way»). 
 (more on meaning generation vs needs/contraints satisfaction at [2] ).
 But there is an important difference between animals and humans that
brings in heavy concerns. It is human consciousness, be it first
person type (phenomenal consciousness: "what it is like to experience
something") or third person type (self-consciousness: perceiving
oneself as existing in the environment). The problem is that the
nature of human consciousness is today a mystery for science and
philosophy. So the nature of human intelligence (with its relations
with information and knowledge) has to be considered as unknown. Only
its behavioral consequences are understandable to some extend. 
 However, we can work on the relations between information and
intelligence for animals and limit the human case to intelligent
 All the best
 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:52 +0100
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION: A Charicature.
   Dear Loet,   You have opened up what may be an important box, and
we need to see if it is Pandora's or Sophia's! Does not your note
imply the following questions:   1. Intelligence is a well-defined
subject of studies in psychology, but is it a well-defined subject? 
2. If intelligence is a well-defined subject of studies, should not
this be part of the solution, rather than the problem? 3. Are we to
conclude that all we non-psychologists can know is that, with due
respect to your wife, psychologists know better what intelligence
"is"? Is there a process view of intelligence in psychology? 4. Since
we have more or less agreed that consciousness, information and
knowledge are all critical to the understanding of intelligence, do
we conclude that psychologists also have appropriate, adequately
complex notions of these that we can learn from or contribute to? 5.
Thus, are you saying that if "we" are using an inappropriate paradigm
for studying intelligence, psychology is the appropriate one?  6. If
so, that is, if psychology is the most appropriate paradigm, what
support does it have or require from other disciplines that are
relative to point 4 above, especially information?   Shall we see
where this track might lead?   Best wishes,   Joseph                
----- Original Message -----  From: Loet Leydesdorff  To: 'Joseph
Brenner' ; 'fis'  Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:39 PM Subject:
        Dear Joseph,  
        It seems to me that part of the problem is that “intelligence”
is a well-defined subject of studies within psychology. (I happen to
be married with a psychologist.)  
        Perhaps, this is an example of scholars discussing a subject using
an inappropriate paradigm. J 
        Best wishes,  

        Loet Leydesdorff  

        Professor, University of Amsterdam
 Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
 Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
 Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 ;  
[] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
 Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 9:36 PM
 To: fis
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION: A Charicature 
        Dear Colleagues,  
        I have just gone back over the discussion of Intelligence and
Information to try to extract the major new thoughts and my
conclusion is one of frustration. The introduction of the other
thread of the fis digest confused me further, since I could not
follow its intention or objective. I have thus charicatured the
situation as follows:  
        1. Intelligence has something to do with information, but it is not
clear which constitutes the other.  

        2. It might be possible to measure intelligence, but no-one knows
how, or whether it is necessary or desirable.  

        3. Some lower level biological structures could be considered as
displaying intelligence, but the term adds little to the observation
of their behavior.  

        4. Similarly, human beings appear to have multiple capacities that
can be characterized as intelligences, but again the term has no
explanatory power over and above the biological or cognitive
capacities themselves.  
        Perhaps the first conclusion from the above is that all approaches
that tend to reify intelligence, to make it a "thing" rather than a
pattern or process should be thrown out at once. We would then agree
that intelligence is polysemic, and try to explain how the
conceptions differ. For example, a basic question to be answered
before looking for the mechanism for the growth of intelligence is if
and how intelligence or intelligences change, increase or decrease.
Another: what is the relation of intelligence to the process of
acquiring knowledge (rather than to knowledge itself) and then, how
is this to be differentiated from learning?  
        If someone can produce a real synthesis of the discussion that would
completely deconstruct the above I would be the first to applaud it.  
 _______________________________________________ fis mailing list          
  Este mensaje ha sido verificado por el E-mail Protegido.
 Antivirus actualizado en 24/11/2010 / Versión: 0.96.4/12315  
fis mailing list

Reply via email to