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 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 收信人:fis 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... multidis
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 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 > *收信人:*fis > *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 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 收信人:fis 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
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" 发送时间: 2015-03-04 19:22:54 收件人: 'fis' 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 To: Dear Zhao Chuan: In this brief introduction, you present your readers with a number of views. Perhaps you could expand your statement so that we can grasp some of the structures behind you writings. I have ha