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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
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.cnmailto: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.commailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com 收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cnmailto:z...@bupt.edu.cn 抄送:JohnPrpic pr...@sfu.camailto:pr...@sfu.ca,fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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.cnmailto: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.camailto:pr...@sfu.ca 收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cnmailto:z...@bupt.edu.cn 抄送:fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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
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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
f 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 ChuanDear 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,JosephMessage d'origineDe : z...@bupt.edu.cnDate : 10/03/2015 - 17:38 (PST)À : dai.griffith...@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.esObjet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear 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 standingproblem.The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a qualityto humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities.That is to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this ledto the definition of the concept which charactarised thosebehaviours. This seems to be what you are describing in your section1. 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 entitywhich makes those behaviours possible. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed qualityis in fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence thatthe entity exists, and that is often how science moves forward. Butin the present case the concept of general intelligence (G), as acausal force rather than a statistical tool, is open to doubt. Ifth
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, i s 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 - Original Message - 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, a sort 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 distinktions between intelligence science and information science, between intelligence science and 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 will contain not only information itself but also the products of information, in which knowledge and intelligent 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 of studies is 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 the AI researchers started to dealing with the emotion problem, but it 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 referred to human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. However, if the concept of intelligence is referred to machine 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 properties that information and intelligence possess and that 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. Cutting human brain into a number of parts and clearly 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 of human brain's function of thinking. Whether it is OK or not? comments are welcome. Best
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 *收信人:*fis 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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Cari Tutti, geometria, filosofia, fisica, psicologia ed, io aggiungo, economia si integrano e armonizzano perfettamente. Tutto ciò si verifica se si conosce la corretta elaborazione e trasformazione o tras-informazione dei concetti: in una varietà continua si hanno tre differenti determinazioni possibili: determinazione di posizione o di luogo, determinazioni di grandezza o quantità, e determinazioni metriche o di misura; il metodo delle relazioni o analogie; la connessione delle nostre rappresentazioni corrisponde alla connessione delle cose. Questo e tanto altro discende dal pensiero geniale di Bernhard Riemann. Distinti saluti. Francecso Rizzo. 2015-03-07 14:53 GMT+01:00 Dai Griffiths dai.griffith...@gmail.com: 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
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 for your comments on the topics that I raised March 7 for FIS discussion. What I wanted to stress in my writing of March 7 is that the intelligence science and the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complex ones and therefore the traditional methodology featured with divide and conquer should be no longer suitable for 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 methodology for the intelligence science studies. If we have the common understanding on the above points, I will feel satisfied very much. As for the intelligence science itself and 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. We should make much more efforts 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 qualityto humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities.That is to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this ledto the definition of the concept which charactarised thosebehaviours. This seems to be what you are describing in your section1. 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 entitywhich makes those behaviours possible. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed qualityis in fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence thatthe entity exists, and that is often how science moves forward. Butin the present case the concept of general intelligence (G), as acausal force rather than a statistical tool, is open to doubt. Ifthere is a general intelligence (as opposed to a collection ofcapabilities) which can be 'embodied' in problem solving, then anumber of difficult problems are raised. Where does this generalintelligence 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 today interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes ratherthan a collection of individual capabilities. This gives us theintuition that some people have more of the quality of generalintelligence about them than do others. And in our language it isreasonable to have a word which refers to that impression which wehave, and that is how we use the word 'intelligence'. But in ourscientific endeavours we need to be more cautious and critical, andaspire to making a distinction between observable mechanisms andascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily easy to achieve inmethodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic to Steven'srequest for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry. If we do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibilitythat we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of thephlogiston explanation for combustion
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
I agree with Jerry and Joe - and I agree that, in part, this may be a language or cultural issue/challenge. I would like to see a few basic statements about the scientific epistemology involved in the approach. I want to see a separation of concerns. Right now I see a not entirely exhaustive bunch of topics (how would I or they know?) simply thrown into a bag labeled Intelligence Science. While these topics may have a common basis (although this is not stated) together their relationships are uncertain. I am also concerned with the use of adjectives. For example, what, exactly, is the distinction between AI and Advanced AI? I do not understand this distinction. I encourage our Chinese friends to precisely differentiate their various topics and illustrate how they are related, stating the type of inquiry they propose and the nature of it (formal or experimental, for example). If there is a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, exactly what is it and how are the two related? If emotion plays a role, is it critical, where does it fit, what difference does it make and how, exactly, does it occur? In short I feel that we need to agree on practices, exchange scientific glossaries and agree on terms. Regards, Steven On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn 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 *收信人:*fis 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 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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Pedro,Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think itvery much valuablethat 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收信人:fis 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 ChuanDear 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. MarijuánGrupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation GroupInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la SaludCentro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X50009 Zaragoza, SpainTfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/-___Fis mailing listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 150305 My Understanding on Intelligence Science.doc Description: Binary data ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear All, I do not agree with this characterization, not to say caricature of my position by Steven. To say that a problem is a language or cultural 'issue' is to fail to give value to what Chuan's position offers that is unique. If Steven wants precise differentiation, certainty, exact relations and exact this or that, then he has already missed the point and he can go elsewhere to find them. Professor Zhong says, in relation to Chuan's work: Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 Instead both intelligence science and information science need new methodology featured by the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, and the view of interaction between subject and object. This is also the methodology that fits the needs for the multidisciplinary science, or complex science. It may be worth of stressing on that methodology shift is critically important for both intelligence and information science studies. This approach, for me, means starting by making some very big allowances for what some of Chuan's offerings are, which at first sight appear as 'unscientific'. It would be a big mistake, as she would be the first to admit, to say that they are the whole story, but we may learn from the way in which they are a part of it. Best regards, Joseph Message d'origine De : ste...@iase.us Date : 06/03/2015 - 19:36 (PST) À : z...@bupt.edu.cn Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan I agree with Jerry and Joe - and I agree that, in part, this may be a language or cultural issue/challenge. I would like to see a few basic statements about the scientific epistemology involved in the approach. I want to see a separation of concerns. Right now I see a not entirely exhaustive bunch of topics (how would I or they know?) simply thrown into a bag labeled Intelligence Science. While these topics may have a common basis (although this is not stated) together their relationships are uncertain. I am also concerned with the use of adjectives. For example, what, exactly, is the distinction between AI and Advanced AI? I do not understand this distinction. I encourage our Chinese friends to precisely differentiate their various topics and illustrate how they are related, stating the type of inquiry they propose and the nature of it (formal or experimental, for example). If there is a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, exactly what is it and how are the two related? If emotion plays a role, is it critical, where does it fit, what difference does it make and how, exactly, does it occur? In short I feel that we need to agree on practices, exchange scientific glossaries and agree on terms. Regards, Steven On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn 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 收信人:fis 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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Krassimir and All, I think what Zhao Chuan is trying to do is essential for progress in Intelligence Science. We are all familiar with concrete scientific approaches, and no-one is challenging their on-going necessity. However, their limitations are also a scientific fact, and new qualitative perspectives, especially if they are rigorous as well as broad, are to be welcomed. I was aware of the new publication of Shi and I am sure Chuan has factored it into her approach. Thank you for the link, Krassimir, which is a useful one. It is also a scientific fact that, roughly corresponding to the geographical limits of their territory, people have other forms of thought which co-exist with 'ours', in reply to the comment about geography. The Hopi Native Americans, living in a tiny area on three small mountains in the U.S. state of New Mexico, have an extraordinarily complex system of thought and concept of knowledge that we have much to learn from. It fits, among other things, the scientific criterion of reproducibility. Having said that, I agree with Jerry and would urge Chuan to tell us more about the specific projects in which she and her students are engaged. Best wishes, Joseph Message d'origine De : mar...@foibg.com Date : 04/03/2015 - 05:39 (PST) À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan Dear Chuan, Pedro, and FIS colleagues, We need more concrete point of view to provide discussion. Maybe it will be good to take in account the paper: Zhongzhi Shi. On Intelligence Science // International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Volume 1, Number 1, pp.39-57, November, 2009. http://aia-i.com/ijai/sample/vol1/no1/39-57.pdf Abstract: Intelligence Science is an interdisciplinary subject which dedicates to joint research on basic theory and technology of intelligence by brain science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and others. Brain science explores the essence of brain, research on the principle and model of natural intelligence in molecular, cell and behavior level. Cognitive science studies human mental activity, such as perception, learning, memory, thinking, consciousness etc. In order to implement machine intelligence, artificial intelligence attempts simulation, extension and expansion of human intelligence using artificial methodology and technology. Research scientists coming from above three disciplines work together to explore new concept, new theory, new methodology. It will be successful and create a brilliant future in 21 century. The paper will outline the framework of intelligence science and present the ten big issues. Research approaches will be pointed out. Finally the paper gives perspective for the future. Friendly regards Krassimir PS: Dear Pedro, please forward to FIS this message if it is stopped by spam filter. -Original Message- From: Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:00 PM To: 'fis' Subject: 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
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
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Chuan, Pedro, and FIS colleagues, We need more concrete point of view to provide discussion. Maybe it will be good to take in account the paper: Zhongzhi Shi. On Intelligence Science // International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Volume 1, Number 1, pp.39-57, November, 2009. http://aia-i.com/ijai/sample/vol1/no1/39-57.pdf Abstract: Intelligence Science is an interdisciplinary subject which dedicates to joint research on basic theory and technology of intelligence by brain science, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and others. Brain science explores the essence of brain, research on the principle and model of natural intelligence in molecular, cell and behavior level. Cognitive science studies human mental activity, such as perception, learning, memory, thinking, consciousness etc. In order to implement machine intelligence, artificial intelligence attempts simulation, extension and expansion of human intelligence using artificial methodology and technology. Research scientists coming from above three disciplines work together to explore new concept, new theory, new methodology. It will be successful and create a brilliant future in 21 century. The paper will outline the framework of intelligence science and present the ten big issues. Research approaches will be pointed out. Finally the paper gives perspective for the future. Friendly regards Krassimir PS: Dear Pedro, please forward to FIS this message if it is stopped by spam filter. -Original Message- From: Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:00 PM To: 'fis' Subject: 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 list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
