I find that it works well to use Google Translate. It is hardly perfect, but 
much better than Bing, which gives laughable translations. I have used it here 
in Brazil on both my computer and cell phone, as well as having my bank use it 
when there were communications problems. Here is the translation I got this 

Dear Yixin Zhong and Dear All,
I'm sorry that my words are not understood. On the other hand I do not want to 
miss out on anyone. Who can understand it is free to do or not to use as I 
want. The world turns the same, including the field of intelligence, regardless 
of my words. Anyway, thank you and best wishes for a well-deserved success.
Francesco Rizzo.


From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Francesco Rizzo
Sent: March 18, 2015 7:21 AM
To: 钟义信
Cc: fis

Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti,
mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio 
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o non 
farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo 
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e auguri di 
un meritato successo.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 钟义信 <<>>:

Dear Francesco,

Thank you for your e-mail.

I am sorry not to give you a reply because I am unable to understand your 

Best regards,


----- 回复邮件 -----
发信人:Francesco Rizzo 
收信人:钟义信 <<>>
抄送:JohnPrpic <<>>,fis 
时间:2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒

Cari Tutti,
seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a proposito 
dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza dell'intelligenza, mi piace 
ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la sua importanza quando guida i 
ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi caotici sono creativi. Senza questa 
creatività la legislazione del nostro intelletto  non potrebbe conferire forma 
(tras-informare) e significare i dati altrimenti sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le 
trascendenze intellettuali  e le intuizioni empiriche servono a costruire la 
concordanza o la connessione tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura 
o della società che si com-penetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente.
Saluti augurali e grati.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-12 10:57 GMT+01:00 钟义信 <<>>:

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,


----- 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 
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 

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 

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 -----
收信人:钟义信 <<>>
抄送:Chuan Zhao <<>>,fis 
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 
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<tel:%2B34%20976%2071%203526> (& 6818)<>    
_______________________________________________    Fis mailing list<>

_______________________________________________Fis mailing<>

-- -----------------------------------------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<>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to