Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips in mechanics. If I understand Joseph, he is right to point out that the notion of 'simultaneity' from a non-observer stance is not necessary, because the distributed nature of physics is an ontological given in my Monist world view. The confusion now is that humans often over extend the machine analogy to explain currently unexplained phenomena, e.g. intelligence. It is exactly the fact that most assume a priori that if the brain and universe aren't actually digital, or at least mechanical, they can be simulated to the point to duplication via such noiseless state machines. Not only do I argue that we have over-extended our industrial analogies past the point of utility in the context of intelligence, mind, significance, cognition, etc., I also suggest that such heuristics actively obfuscate a viable path to discover such understanding. Why? Let's take vision. It is often assumed that our own retina digitizes EM phenomena transducing them into independent states like bits in a square wave. Or, at the very least, such evolved systems can be simulated to the point of duplication via state machines. The problem is that a large amount of energy is expended to create such independent discrete states, states that are specifically designed not to be related in any way with adjacent states. However, there is a vast amount of relationships, both temporal and spatial, among potential observables embedded in the agent's surroundings that can co-stimulate two adjacent rods thereby assimilating not only two distinct events, but their spatio-temporal relations, simultaneously. This potentially useful information to the agent is embedded in the agent's environment for free, so to speak. Digitizing, on the other hand, spends energy to filter out these inter-relations only to re-create these relations later with still more energy and increased memory consumption. In this way, Joseph is right to question the need to insert the notion of simultaneity, because, the biology never took it out. It is our centuries of trying to perfect our control over noiseless states that creates the paradox; and, therefore, a need to overtly put it back in. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com wrote: 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 : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches Dear FISers
Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
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 : fis@listas.unizar.es 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
Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
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 : fis@listas.unizar.es 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
Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches
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 : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE -
unless reaches
Normal
0
false
false
false
ES-TRAD
JA
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:Table Normal;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
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
