Dear Professor Zhong & Colleagues, 

Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this 
Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect: 

- As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would it be 
useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always be 
antecedents to intelligence science outcomes? 
Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these two 
elements (among others) in a particular system configuration? 

- Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence 
science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently be 
considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing, retrieving, 
transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, i s there a 
difference between intelligence science in systems that are self-organized (ie 
complexity science), compared to intelligence science systems that are not 
self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems display complexity? 


----- Original Message -----

From: "钟义信" <> 
To: "joe brenner" <> 
Cc: "dai.griffiths.1" <>, "fis" <> 
Sent: Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36 

Dear Joe, Steven, and other friends, 

It is interesting, ans also benefitial, to have had opportunities to, via FIS 
forum, exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence 
science. Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good 

Intelligence science is, of course, a sort of complex science and would not be 
easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However, it is the 
right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand, it is 
extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for 
researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we 
have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial 
intelligence so far. 

As for the conceptual distinktions between intelligence science and information 
science, between intelligence science and artificial intelligence, and between 
intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment, mention the followings: 

-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as 
that of information science, provided that the studies of information science 
will contain not only information itself but also the products of information, 
in which knowledge and intelligent strategy for problem solving are major 
components. In other words, the studies of information science should adopt the 
view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the topic of 
intelligence science be brought to FIS forum. 

-- According to the current status of the research in artificial intelligence 
(AI), its scope of studies is much narrower than that of intelligence science. 
As a matter of fact, AI for the time being is a category of technological 
research, using computer as platform to support some smart software for solving 
certain problems. AI should be a kind of multi-disciplinary research, but it 
has majnly been confined within the scope of computer science. Not long ago, 
some of the AI researchers started to dealing with the emotion problem, but it 
still in its infant stage. Moreover, the topic of consciousness is still 
ignored in AI. So , AI is indeed incomparable to intelligence science, not to 
say to human intelligence. 

-- The relationship between intelligence and wisdom is sometimes confused. If 
intelligence is referred to human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. 
However, if the concept of intelligence is referred to machine intelligence, 
then it should be regarded as a sub-set of wisdom. The most typical attribute 
for wisdom is the creative capabilities that would be impossible for machine to 

In addition, it is also worth of mentioning that due to the special properties 
that information and intelligence possess and that are greatly different from 
that of matter, the methodology for information science and intelligence 
science studies should be radically differnet from that employed in physical 
science. No doubt, everyone will entierly recognize the huge contributions made 
by the redictionism (divide and conquer) which will still play a central role 
in contemporary physical science studies. But reductionism will certainly be 
not enough for information and intelligence science studies. Cutting human 
brain into a number of parts and clearly knowing the matter structure and the 
energy relation within each of the parts (that is the so called 'divide and 
conquer') will make little contribution to the understanding the secrets of 
human brain's function of thinking. 

Whether it is OK or not? comments are welcome. 

Best regards, 

Yixin ZHONG 

----- 回复邮件 ----- 
发信人: <> 
收信人: 钟义信 < > 
抄送: Chuan Zhao < >,fis <>,dai.griffiths.1 
< > 
时间: 2015年03月11日 11时54分07秒 

Dear All, 

I think that the approach of Chuan - and that of Professor Zhong - to 
intelligence is characterized by its TIMELESSNESS. On the one hand, it is the 
newest, most forward-looking, taking into account the existence of the latest 
technology. On the other, it ties back, through Chinese culture, to 2015 BCE, 
when human intelligence was no different than it is today. Full value can then 
be given to the term 'Frontiers'. 

The result of this scope is that, sometimes, the answers to the questions that 
are asked receive responses that are less precise than some might like. But 
this is a small price to pay for gaining a better overall grip on the critical 
concepts, in their historical and philosophical depth, to which Professor Zhong 

Best regards, 



----Message d'origine---- 
De : 
Date : 10/03/2015 - 17:38 (PST) 
À : , 

Dear Dai, 

Many thanks foryour comments on the topics thatI raised March 7 forFIS 

What I wanted tostress in my writing of March 7 is thatthe intelligence science 
and the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complexones and 
therefore the traditional methodology featured with "divide and conquer" should 
be no longer suitablefor 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 
methodologyfor theintelligence science studies. 

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

As for the intelligence science itselfand 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. Weshould make much moreefforts 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 

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 

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 (& 
_______________________________________________    Fis mailing list 

_______________________________________________Fis mailing list 

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




Fis mailing list 

John Prpić MBA 
PhD Student - MIS & Innovation 
Research - 
Twitter - @JPNuggets 

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to