Dear all,

As a native Italian speaker, I am taking the liberty to suggest
some improvements to the proposed Google translation.  Here
follows what I would surmise.  All best,          -dino

Dear Yixin Zhong and Dear All,

I'm sorry that my words are not understood. On the other hand I do not want
to show a lack of respect for anyone.  Who can understand my words is free
to take or not to take advantage of them as (s)he pleases.  The world would
turn the same, including the field of intelligence, regardless of my words.
Anyway, thank you and best wishes for a well-deserved success.

Francesco Rizzo.

-- 
Dino Buzzetti                                          formerly
Department of Philosophy     University of Bologna
​                                ​
                             currently
Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose Giovanni XXIII
​
via san Vitale, 114                   I-40125 Bologna BO
e-mail:  dino.buzzetti(at)gmail.com
             buzzetti(at)fscire.it
web: http://web.dfc.unibo.it/buzzetti/
​

​

On 18 March 2015 at 11:58, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

>  List,
>
>
>
> 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 time:
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Francesco
> Rizzo
> *Sent:* March 18, 2015 7:21 AM
> *To:* 钟义信
> *Cc:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
> 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 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>:
>
> Dear Francesco,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> I am sorry not to give you a reply because I am unable to understand your
> language.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- 回复邮件 -----
>
> *发信人:*Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
>
> *收信人:*钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>
>
> *抄送:*JohnPrpic <pr...@sfu.ca>,fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>
> *时间:*2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒
>
> *主**题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>:
>
>
>
> 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 <pr...@sfu.ca>
>
> *收信人:*钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>
>
> *抄送:*fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>
> *时间:*2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒
>
> *主**题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"钟义信" <z...@bupt.edu.cn>
> *To: *"joe brenner" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
> *Cc: *"dai.griffiths.1" <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>, "fis" <
> fis@listas.unizar.es>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36
> *Subject: *Re: [Fis]THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> Yixin ZHONG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- 回复邮件 -----
>
> *发信人**:*joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>
>
> *收信人**:*钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>
>
> *抄送**:*Chuan Zhao <zh...@cdut.edu.cn>,fis 
> <fis@listas.unizar.es>,dai.griffiths.1
> <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>
>
> *时间**:*2015年03月11日 11时54分07秒
>
> *主**题**:*Re: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
>
> 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,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ----Message d'origine----
> De : z...@bupt.edu.cn
> Date : 10/03/2015 - 17:38 (PST)
> À : dai.griffith...@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.es
> Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>
>
> *收信人**:*fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
>
> *时间**:*2015年03月07日 21时53分22秒
>
> *主**题**:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
>
>
>
>
>
> 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!
>
> Dai
>
>
>  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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 
> <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>*收信人:*fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> 
> <fis@listas.unizar.es>*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)    pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es    
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/    
> -------------------------------------------------    
> _______________________________________________    Fis mailing list    
> Fis@listas.unizar.es    http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________Fis mailing 
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> -- -----------------------------------------Professor David (Dai) 
> GriffithsProfessor of Educational CyberneticsInstitute for Educational 
> Cybernetics (IEC) The University of Boltonhttp://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> JohnPrpić MBA
>
> PhDStudent - MIS & Innovation
> Research -http://ssrn.com/author=1919614
> Twitter -@JPNuggets
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to