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:
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
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,
----Message d'origine----
De :
Date : 06/03/2015 - 19:36 (PST)
À :
Cc :
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 
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.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 <> 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 <>
收信人:fis <>
时间:2015年03月04日 19时58分15秒
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. 
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)
Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to