Dear All, I do not agree with this characterization, not to say caricature of my position by Steven. To say that a problem is a language or cultural 'issue' is to fail to give value to what Chuan's position offers that is unique. If Steven wants precise differentiation, certainty, exact relations and exact this or that, then he has already missed the point and he can go elsewhere to find them. Professor Zhong says, in relation to Chuan's work: Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Instead both intelligence science and information science need new methodology featured by the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, and the view of interaction between subject and object. This is also the methodology that fits the needs for the multidisciplinary science, or complex science. It may be worth of stressing on that methodology shift is critically important for both intelligence and information science studies. This approach, for me, means starting by making some very big allowances for what some of Chuan's offerings are, which at first sight appear as 'unscientific'. It would be a big mistake, as she would be the first to admit, to say that they are the whole story, but we may learn from the way in which they are a part of it. Best regards, Joseph ----Message d'origine---- De : ste...@iase.us Date : 06/03/2015 - 19:36 (PST) À : z...@bupt.edu.cn Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan I agree with Jerry and Joe - and I agree that, in part, this may be a language or cultural issue/challenge. I would like to see a few basic statements about the scientific epistemology involved in the approach. I want to see a separation of concerns. Right now I see a not entirely exhaustive bunch of topics (how would I or they know?) simply thrown into a bag labeled "Intelligence Science." While these topics may have a common basis (although this is not stated) together their relationships are uncertain. I am also concerned with the use of adjectives. For example, what, exactly, is the distinction between AI and "Advanced" AI? I do not understand this distinction. I encourage our Chinese friends to precisely differentiate their various topics and illustrate how they are related, stating the type of inquiry they propose and the nature of it (formal or experimental, for example). If there is a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, exactly what is it and how are the two related? If emotion plays a role, is it critical, where does it fit, what difference does it make and how, exactly, does it occur? In short I feel that we need to agree on practices, exchange scientific glossaries and agree on terms. Regards, Steven On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn> wrote: Dear Pedro, Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think it very much valuable that Ms. ZHAO put forward to us the great challenge of methodology shift. The attached file expressed some of my understanding on this iuuse that I would like to share with FIS friends. Best regards, Yixin ZHONG ----- 回复邮件 ----- 发信人:Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 收信人:fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> 时间:2015年03月04日 19时58分15秒 主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan Dear Chuan and FIS colleagues, The scientific study of intelligence is quite paradoxical. One is reminded about the problems of psychology and ethology to create adequate categories and frameworks about animal and human intelligence. The approaches started in Artificial Intelligence were quite glamorous three or four decades ago, but the limitations were crystal clear at the end of the 80's. It marked the beginning of Artificial Life and quite many other views at the different frontiers of the theme (complexity theory, biocybernetics, biocomputing, etc.) Also an enlarged Information Science was vindicated as the best option to clear the air (Stonier, Scarrott... and FIS itself too). In that line, Advanced Artificial Intelligence, as proposed by Yixin Zhong and others, has represented in my view a bridge to connect with our own works in information science. That connection between information "processing" and intelligence is essential. But in our occasional discussions on the theme we have always been centered in, say, the scientific quasi-mechanistic perspectives. It was time to enter the humanistic dimensions and the connection with the arts. Then, this discussion revolves around the central pillar to fill in the gap between sciences and humanities, the "two cultures" of CP Snow. The global human intelligence, when projected to the world, creates different "disciplinary" realms that are more an historical result that a true, genuine necessity. We are caught, necessarily given our limitations, in a perspectivistic game, but we have the capacity to play and mix the perspectives... multidisciplinarity is today the buzzword, though perhaps not well addressed and explained yet. So, your reflections Chao are quite welcome. best--Pedro -- ------------------------------------------------- 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.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
