Resent to the correct address
Subject: FW: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100
Looking at relations between information and intelligence brings in the need to
explicit the agents we are considering, as the intelligence of a unicellular
organism has not much to do with the intelligence of a human being.
An evolutionary approach may be a usable path. Begin with simple organisms and
progressively chain on more complex ones.
In order to begin with simple enough a definition of intelligence, we can use
Gordana’s one where the intelligence of an agent is «the ability to face the
world in a meaningful way», and also use Stan's linking of this point to a
process of interpretation by the agent relatively to its needs.
Putting these two perspectives together can lead to define intelligence as the
«interpretation of a received information to generate a meaningful information
(a meaning) that will be used by the agent to satisfy its needs thru action
implementation ». The agent can be a simple organism or a human being, with of
course different needs to satisfy. So the evolutionnary perspective, where
intelligence is linked with information (using an already presented approach:
Needs of a paramecium, like «stay alive» are much simpler to define than human
needs like «increase happyness». But in both cases we have information (coming
from the environment or from the organism) that is related to the needs in
order to generate meaningful information used to produce an action (physical or
mental) aimed at the satisfaction of the needs (i.e. behave intelligenly by
«facing the world in a meaningful way»).
(more on meaning generation vs needs/contraints satisfaction at
But there is an important difference between animals and humans that brings in
heavy concerns. It is human consciousness, be it first person type (phenomenal
consciousness: what it is like to experience something) or third person type
(self-consciousness: perceiving oneself as existing in the environment). The
problem is that the nature of human consciousness is today a mystery for
science and philosophy. So the nature of human intelligence (with its relations
with information and knowledge) has to be considered as unknown. Only its
behavioral consequences are understandable to some extend.
However, we can work on the relations between information and intelligence for
animals and limit the human case to intelligent behaviour.
All the best
To: l...@leydesdorff.net; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION: A Charicature. Psychology
You have opened up what may be an important box, and we need to see if it is
Pandora's or Sophia's! Does not your note imply the following questions:
1. Intelligence is a well-defined subject of studies in psychology, but is it a
2. If intelligence is a well-defined subject of studies, should not this be
part of the solution, rather than the problem?
3. Are we to conclude that all we non-psychologists can know is that, with due
respect to your wife, psychologists know better what intelligence is? Is
there a process view of intelligence in psychology?
4. Since we have more or less agreed that consciousness, information and
knowledge are all critical to the understanding of intelligence, do we conclude
that psychologists also have appropriate, adequately complex notions of these
that we can learn from or contribute to?
5. Thus, are you saying that if we are using an inappropriate paradigm for
studying intelligence, psychology is the appropriate one?
6. If so, that is, if psychology is the most appropriate paradigm, what support
does it have or require from other disciplines that are relative to point 4
above, especially information?
Shall we see where this track might lead?
- Original Message -
From: Loet Leydesdorff
To: 'Joseph Brenner' ; 'fis'
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 10:39 PM
Subject: RE: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION: A Charicature
It seems to me that part of the problem is that “intelligence” is a
well-defined subject of studies within psychology. (I happen to be married with
Perhaps, this is an example of scholars discussing a subject using an
inappropriate paradigm. J
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR),
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]