Dear Dai,

Many thanks for your comments on the topics that I raised March 7 for FIS discussion.

What I wanted to stress in my writing of March 7 is that the intelligence science and the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complex ones and therefore the traditional methodology featured with "divide and conqer" should be no longer suitable for intelligence science studies. At the same time, I also recommended to the intelligence science studies the new methodology, or equivalently the complex science methodology, that may be featured with the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, and the view of interaction between subject and object. In other words, what I would like to emphasized is the methodology shift from reductionism to complex science methodology for the intelligence science studies.

If we have the common understanding on the above points, I will feel satisfied very much.

As for the intelligence science itself and its related concepts like intelligence , artificial intelligence, advanced artificial intelligence, and wisdom, etc., they are too complicated for people to reach the agreement for the time being. We should make much more efforts for achieving better understandings on those complicated subjects.

Best regards,

Yixin ZHONG, 2015-03-11

----- 回复邮件 -----
发信人:Dai Griffiths <>
收信人:fis <>
时间:2015年03月07日 21时53分22秒

Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standing problem.

The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a quality to humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities. That is to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this led to the definition of the concept which charactarised those behaviours. This seems to be what you are describing in your section 1. The Concept of Intelligence, with the list (a) to (m).

In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as 'the major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence' is no longer a description of behaviours, but rather the entity which makes those behaviours possible.

There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed quality is in fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence that the entity exists, and that is often how science moves forward. But in the present case the concept of general intelligence (G), as a causal force rather than a statistical tool, is open to doubt. If there is a general intelligence (as opposed to a collection of capabilities) which can be 'embodied' in problem solving, then a number of difficult problems are raised. Where does this general intelligence reside? What is it composed of? How is it deployed in our problem solving and other aspects of our living?

Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day to day interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes rather than a collection of individual capabilities. This gives us the intuition that some people have more of the quality of general intelligence about them than do others. And in our language it is reasonable to have a word which refers to that impression which we have, and that is how we use the word 'intelligence'. But in our scientific endeavours we need to be more cautious and critical, and aspire to making a distinction between observable mechanisms and ascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily easy to achieve in methodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic to Steven's request for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry. If we do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibility that we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of the phlogiston explanation for combustion.

My background is in education, not in intelligence research, so I am happy to be corrected by those with greater expertise!


On 07/03/15 03:53, 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*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)    -------------------------------------------------    _______________________________________________    Fis mailing list

_______________________________________________Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.es

-- -----------------------------------------Professor David (Dai) GriffithsProfessor of Educational CyberneticsInstitute for Educational Cybernetics (IEC) The University of Bolton

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to