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 discussion? 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; Josh On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch < joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> 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 : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST) > À : zh...@cdut.edu.cn > Cc : email@example.com > 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 [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de 赵川 [ > zh...@cdut.edu.cn] > *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) http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” 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@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