Dear John,

Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for me to think about.

May I just say a few words as my simple responses to the two points you wrote in your mail.

-- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary elements for an intelligence science system. Otherwise it would be unable to know where to go, what to do and how to do. In the latter case, it cannot be regards as intelligence system. 

--  As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able to acquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn the strategy for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can be said a compplex system.

Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?

Best regards,

Yixin ZHONG 

----- 回复邮件 -----
发信人:John Prpic <>
收信人:钟义信 <>
抄送:fis <>
时间:2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒

Dear Professor Zhong & Colleagues,

Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this year!
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, is 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?


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 comments!

Intelligence science is, of course, asort 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 distinktionsbetween intelligence scienceand information science, between intelligence scienceand 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 willcontain not only information itself but also the products of information,in which knowledge andintelligent 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 ofstudiesis 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 theAI researchers started todealing withthe emotion problem, butit 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 referredto human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. However, if the concept of intelligence is referred tomachine 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 simulation.

In addition, it is also worth of mentioning that due to the special propertiesthat information and intelligence possess andthat 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. Cuttinghuman brain into a number of parts andclearly 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 ofhuman brain'sfunction of thinking.

Whether it is OK or not? comments are welcome.

Best regards,


----- 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 refers.

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 discussion.

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 (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

JohnPrpić MBA
PhDStudent - MIS & Innovation
Research -
Twitter -@JPNuggets

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to