Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies.  I was away this
weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments.

But, briefly:
Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re:
paradoxes.  Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this

Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful.  They bring
much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next
day or so before I respond.

Until then, best to all;

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, <> wrote:

> Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All,
> In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a poetic
> sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four of
> Josh's expressions for I think require further discussion would be useful
> to explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they are as
> follows, with my comments interpolated:
>  ·         the self-efficacious relationship between agents and
> surroundings
> JEB: a good expression of the need for looking at content and context
> together;
> ·         the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and wholes
> JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a non-separability or overlap between
> parts and wholes, leading toward a necessary new mereology, but see point
> 4;
> ·         a both/and outcome
> JEB: a necessary processual antidote to an either/or ontology;
> ·         a paradox of simultaneity
> JEB: here, the concept of simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from classical
> logic and physics and I think there is a better alternative. If classical
> simultaneity does not exist, as in General Relativity and other absolutes
> also do not exist, there is no paradox to be explained. In the case of
> time, the non-separability of time and space has as a consequence that
> neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each is partly the other,
> like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in point 2 is not
> required.
> To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not intended to
> denature the original insights but show that they can be related to a  
> non-standard,
> non-binary logic that better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of
> intelligent processes. Thank you. Joseph
> ----Message d'origine----
> De :
> Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)
> À :
> Cc :
> Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
> - unless reaches
>  Dear FISers,
> Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think they
> are pretty much interrelated.
> First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In
> my view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of
> intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet except that
> one existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells
> themselves manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this
> list. All kinds of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling
> between nucleic acids and their protein transcripts.  Then the essential
> “goal” becomes evident, as the maintenance and reproduction of the living
> organism. Failure to achieve that, particularly in front of another
> intelligence striving for its own goal –against the former subject- means
> but natural selection in action: disappearance of the subject. Intelligence
> derives from life and has to be checked by how it subserves life’s goals.
> Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless, that very important goal aspect.
>  Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations,
> problems, relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems
> (echoing Daniel Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally
> laden, and system 2, slow and reflective, implying the most rational
> capabilities. The former is closer to our deeper personal goals as living
> entities, a faithful transmitter of what we need inside, and the second
> acts as a sort of high-level, discursive, logic intelligence. It is not
> easy integrating them plainly, but Poetry, I think, uses both in the most
> cohesive way, taking the best of both worlds –see the poems we have posted
> these days, and personally I find Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally
> and rationally.
>  Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to
> confront. On the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least
> compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and
> their interrelationhips in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about
> that paradox in this list, so I refrain to comment. But on the other side,
> when the paradox is essentially considered as addressed to significance in
> the organisms sense, I fail to fully grasp it. Maybe it is because I see
> that very information paradox (beautiful term!) as that which occurs
> between self-production and communication with the environment by the
> agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of both aspects,
> but I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the communication aspect.
> If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence again, missing
> the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent—its own
> life-cycle maintenance, the self-production dimension… was I wrong in my
> understanding?
> Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice
> discussion.
> Regards to all—Pedro
>  ------------------------------
> *De:* Fis [] en nombre de 赵川 [
> *Enviado el:* viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10
> *Para:* Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner
> *Cc:* FIS论坛
> *Asunto:* [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE -
> unless reaches
>   *Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,*
>          After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one mail
> now.
>          Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many
> suggestions: common sense & aberrant common sense; critical thinking and
> intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages,  Subjunctive,
> biological issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's
> perspectives, and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of
> diamond! I enjoy you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in
> worldwide cultures and languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your
> mentioned, we are study Symmetry phenomena in Chinese that abstract a
> common issue as Symmetry of Language. Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal:
> The Language of 'Gitanjali': the Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion,
> 2012)” that is fine. And
> let me connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more
> inspirations. Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As
> another example to such paradox here is a lines from Buddha:
> it is impossible to reach
>  but it is impossible to escape suffering
>                  unless one reaches
> --- from Buddha   Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014
>          I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our
> university, I organized a Poem-island Morning Chant three years ago, and
> yesterday I open it of 2015, spring team. This is the words of encourage
> from an India Prof. Mihir Chakraborty sent for such an events. We consisted
>  90days last spring team. Read Chinese ancient style poem, modern poems
> and English poems. Really has a Poem-Island in our campus.
>          Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes,
> Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar
> parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should
> special explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment, just put together is
> precious, we should let some link together. Know you see: so many
> information/consciousness streams are interweaving – forming worldwide new
> culture.
>          More later.
> *best wishes, good weekend, *
> *Chuan*
> *March 27, 2015*
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to