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 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
