[Fis] FW: Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION

2010-11-24 Thread Christophe Menant

Resent to the correct address
 


From: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr
To: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
Subject: FW: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100




Dear Colleagues,
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: 
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf). 
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 
http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf ).
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
Christophe



From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION: A Charicature. Psychology






Dear Loet,
 
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 
well-defined subject? 
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?
 
Best wishes,
 
Joseph
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

- 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



Dear Joseph, 
 
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 
a psychologist.) 
 
Perhaps, this is an example of scholars discussing a subject using an 
inappropriate paradigm. J
 
Best wishes, 
Loet
 




Loet Leydesdorff 
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] 

[Fis] Fwd: FW: Fw: INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION

2010-11-24 Thread walter . riofrio
  

Dear FIS colleagues, 
I guess these issues deserve some more careful attention and
discussion since I can't find any other approach than might address
with better success the relation Information-Intelligence: from
cells to human organisms as an evolutionary perspective. 
Sincerely, 
Walter 

-


Walter Riofrio 
 Researcher IPCEM, University Ricardo Palma. Lima-Perú 
 Chercheur Associé; Complex Systems Institute-Paris (ISC-PIF) 
 Theoretical and Evolutionary Biology 
 Email: walter.riof...@iscpif.fr  

-
 
  - Original Message -
  From: Christophe Menant christophe.men...@hotmail.fr
  To: fis@listas.unizar.es
  Cc: 
  Sent: mié 24/11/10 09:47
  Subject: Fwd: [Fis] FW:  Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION
Resent to the correct address
-
 From: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr
 To: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
 Subject: FW: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION
 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:33:12 +0100
   Dear Colleagues,
 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: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf [1]). 
 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
http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf [2] ).
 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
 Christophe
-
 From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
 To: l...@leydesdorff.net; fis@listas.unizar.es
 Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:09:52 +0100
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE  INFORMATION: A Charicature.
Psychology
   Dear Loet,   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 well-defined subject? 
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