Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

2015-03-06 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith
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

2015-03-06 Thread 钟义信


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


[Fis] Chuan's reply3 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan--- to Jerry Chandler 1

2015-03-06 Thread 赵川
 

Dear Jerry LR Chandler, and All,

Your mail is the first one replay to this discussion: “the Frontiers of 
Intelligence Science”.   Thanks for your mail within 7 questions. That let this 
session really well run. Let me answer some of your questions:

1.The structure of the book. It is in Chinese, I only translate the 
title of chapter: 

 

The Frontiers of Intelligence Science
——Something is Possible

Chapter 1  From Artificial Intelligence to Intelligence Science 

Chapter 2   International Intelligence Science Study and Cooperation  

Chapter 3   the Panorama of Intelligence and the Integrity of A-B Two Poles 
of Intelligence 

Chapter4The Contribute of Intelligence Science to methodology 

Chapter 5   Natural Language Understanding as the Frontier of Intelligence 
Study   

Chapter 6   Phase Theory 

Chapter 7   New Golden Age of Civilization

 

2.Yes, still very few people know Intelligence Science even in China, 
though it is put out in Oct., 2003 by CAAI. Above all it has grown more than 
ten years, it has formed frontiers, at least I have done theoretical study till 
then. 

Now is should seriously introduce the sponsor of this important direction. They 
are Prof. Zhong Yi Xin, Prof. He Hua Can, and Prof. Shi zhong zhi (Krassimir 
mentioned)etc. In a conference of CAAI 2003, the chair Prof. Zhong asked us 
from different sessions to a big meeting room to talk about the birth of 
Intelligence Science. He encouraged everyone to say out his/her feeling and 
opinion. I was delighted with such a new science and was encouraged to say that 
I am so earnest welcome such a new science and image its mission, I felt the 
new science is a holy approach, perhaps the real science is coming, as a young 
scholar I spoke ten minutes. Next I wrote an article title as “the Mission of 
Intelligence Science” next year. So thanks to the leader of CAAI leaded such an 
important change. We need strategist in science develop just as in war. Prof. 
Zhong is such a strategist. With their strong lead, we do many explorations. I 
think I am good soldier of SI. The growth rate is logically and with many 
reasons. So I said in my preface of the book: “From Artificial Intelligence 
(AI) to Intelligence Science (IS) is a strategic transformation, a major 
contribution to science.” yes, sometime contribution is actual fruit, sometime 
is a seed or a possibility; sometime is speed, sometime is direction, is an 
angular acceleration; some time is individual, sometime is collective. Prof. 
Zhong just in our FIS, and Pedro has special invited him stage this discussion 
the same. I think only he can tell us this/his history best! We should go on 
share the academic story together, though it is short but meaningful. It is 
interesting while this discussion we are in the same story now. 

   As a compare and evidence, let me cite a mail from Prof. L. A. Zadeh to 
BISC Group (Berkeley Initiative in Soft Computing):  

 

Lotfi A. Zadeh 

2012年11月10日 10:24:24

Dear members of the BISC Group: 

   Ruzena Bajcsy brought to my attention a very interesting interview with Noam 
Chomsky focused on What went wrong with AI. It is always a treat to hear or 
read what Chomsky has to say.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/?single_page=true

Regards to all,
Lotfi 

   With my small group we used two months to learn this interview and think 
the present science, especial computer science and technology, development 
condition that we were surer with our direction and ways. This linker still 
useful and I have put it in our FIS once and written in my new book this time. 
If you read this interview with Chomsky viewing AI, you should know that 
Chinese CAII has avoided such questions early and gave a right direction and 
action. Honorific Prof. Zadeh of 91-years old that year, using one finger to 
hit keyboard (he once mentioned in a mail to BISC group), he has organized a 
discuss “Information Revolution”. He and some BISCers worried about such 
revolution. It is just the same as our coming Vienna conference 2015—The 
Information Society at the Crossroads. 

   That is nice and peace, intelligence science has born and is growing. 

   It is a long mail now, more next mail. 

Best wishes, 

Zhao Chuan 

March 6, 2015




-原始邮件-
发件人: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
发送时间: 2015-03-04 19:22:54
收件人: 'fis' fis@listas.unizar.es
抄送:
主题: [Fis] [Fwd: THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan]---Jerry 
Chandler

Message from Jerry Chandler

 Original Message  
Subject: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:19:16 -0600
From: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com
To: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es


Dear Zhao Chuan: 


In this brief introduction, you present your readers with a number of views.


Perhaps you could expand 

Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

2015-03-06 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
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 the