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

[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Dear All,
I think that the approach of Chuan -  and that of Professor Zhong - to 
intelligence is characterized by its TIMELESSNESS. On the one hand, it is the 
newest, most forward-looking, taking into account the existence of the latest 
technology. On the other, it ties back, through Chinese culture, to 2015 BCE, 
when human intelligence was no different than it is today. Full value can then 
be given to the term 'Frontiers'.
The result of this scope is that, sometimes, the answers to the questions that 
are asked receive responses that are less precise than some might like. But 
this is a small price to pay for gaining a better overall grip on the critical 
concepts, in their historical and philosophical depth, to which Professor Zhong 
refers.   
Best regards,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : z...@bupt.edu.cn
Date : 10/03/2015 - 17:38 (PST)
À : dai.griffith...@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis]   THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Dai,
Many thanks for your comments on the topics that I raised March 7 for FIS 
discussion.
What I wanted to stress in my writing of March 7 is that the intelligence 
science and the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complex ones 
and therefore the traditional methodology featured with "divide and conquer" 
should be no longer suitable for intelligence science studies. At the same 
time, I also recommended to the intelligence science studies the new 
methodology, or equivalently the complex science methodology, that may be 
featured with the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, 
and the view of interaction between subject and object. In other words, what I 
would like to emphasized is the methodology shift from reductionism to complex 
science methodology for the intelligence science studies.
If we have the common understanding on the above points, I will feel satisfied 
very much.
As for the intelligence science itself and its related concepts like 
intelligence , artificial intelligence, advanced artificial intelligence, and 
wisdom, etc., they are too complicated for people to reach the agreement for 
the time being. We should make much more efforts for achieving better 
understandings on those complicated subjects.
Best regards,
Yixin ZHONG, 2015-03-11
- 回复邮件 -
发信人:Dai Griffiths 
收信人:fis 
时间:2015年03月07日 21时53分22秒
主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
  
Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standing
problem.

The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a qualityto 
humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities.That is to 
say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this ledto the definition 
of the concept which charactarised thosebehaviours. This seems to be what 
you are describing in your section1. The Concept of Intelligence, with the 
list (a) to (m).

In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as'the 
major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence'is no longer 
a description of behaviours, but rather the entitywhich makes those 
behaviours possible. 

There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed qualityis in 
fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence thatthe entity 
exists, and that is often how science moves forward. Butin the present case 
the concept of general intelligence (G), as acausal force rather than a 
statistical tool, is open to doubt. Ifthere is a general intelligence (as 
opposed to a collection ofcapabilities) which can be 'embodied' in problem 
solving, then anumber of difficult problems are raised. Where does this 
generalintelligence reside? What is it composed of? How is it deployed in   
 our problem solving and other aspects of our living?

Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day today 
interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes ratherthan a 
collection of individual capabilities. This gives us theintuition that some 
people have more of the quality of generalintelligence about them than do 
others. And in our language it isreasonable to have a word which refers to 
that impression which wehave, and that is how we use the word 
'intelligence'. But in ourscientific endeavours we need to be more cautious 
and critical, andaspire to making a distinction between observable 
mechanisms andascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily easy to 
achieve inmethodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic to 
Steven'srequest for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry. If  
  we do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibilitythat 
we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of thephlogiston 
explanation for combustion.

My background is in education, not in i

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply6-Chuan's reply3 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

I asked for a concise statement of "complex scientific method" and you sent
me this. I have stared at it for awhile and can make no sense of it. I am
certainly aware of EPR and the surrounding issues. Can anyone help me here?

Are the Chinese team by proposing "Intelligence Science" simply proposing
Solipsism? Do they propose that all intelligence is simply an illusion?

I mean no disrespect and I do suspect that there is a language/cultural
problem here.

Steven



On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:34 PM, 赵川  wrote:

> in the attackment, thanks!
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Chuan's reply6-Chuan's reply3 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

[赵川]

in the attackment, thanks!




15-03-11 reply6·refer to EPR see IS&IS.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
___
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

[钟义信]

Dear Dai,Many thanks for your comments on the topics that I raised March 7 for FIS discussion.What I wanted to stress in my writing of March 7 is that the intelligence science and the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complex ones and therefore the traditional methodology featured with "divide and conqer" should be no longer suitable for intelligence science studies. At the same time, I also recommended to the intelligence science studies the new methodology, or equivalently the complex science methodology, that may be featured with the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, and the view of interaction between subject and object. In other words, what I would like to emphasized is the methodology shift from reductionism to complex science methodology for the intelligence science studies.If we have the common understanding on the above points, I will feel satisfied very much.As for the intelligence science itself and its related concepts like intelligence , artificial intelligence, advanced artificial intelligence, and wisdom, etc., they are too complicated for people to reach the agreement for the time being. We should make much more efforts for achieving better understandings on those complicated subjects.Best regards,Yixin ZHONG, 2015-03-11- 回复邮件 -发信人:Dai Griffiths 收信人:fis 时间:2015年03月07日 21时53分22秒主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan  Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standingproblem.The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a qualityto humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities.That is to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this ledto the definition of the concept which charactarised thosebehaviours. This seems to be what you are describing in your section1. The Concept of Intelligence, with the list (a) to (m).In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as'the major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence'is no longer a description of behaviours, but rather the entitywhich makes those behaviours possible. There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed qualityis in fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence thatthe entity exists, and that is often how science moves forward. Butin the present case the concept of general intelligence (G), as acausal force rather than a statistical tool, is open to doubt. Ifthere is a general intelligence (as opposed to a collection ofcapabilities) which can be 'embodied' in problem solving, then anumber of difficult problems are raised. Where does this generalintelligence reside? What is it composed of? How is it deployed inour problem solving and other aspects of our living?Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day today interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes ratherthan a collection of individual capabilities. This gives us theintuition that some people have more of the quality of generalintelligence about them than do others. And in our language it isreasonable to have a word which refers to that impression which wehave, and that is how we use the word 'intelligence'. But in ourscientific endeavours we need to be more cautious and critical, andaspire to making a distinction between observable mechanisms andascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily easy to achieve inmethodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic to Steven'srequest for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry. Ifwe do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibilitythat we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of thephlogiston explanation for combustion.My background is in education, not in intelligence research, so I amhappy to be corrected by those with greater expertise!DaiOn 07/03/15 03:53, 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 ChuanDear Chuan and FIS colleagues,The scientific study of intelligence is quite paradoxical. One isreminded about the problems of psychology and ethology to createadequate categories and frameworks about animal and human intelligence.The approaches started in Artificial Intelligence were quite glamorousthree or four decades ago, but the limitatio

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

[Francesco Rizzo]

Cari Tutti,
geometria, filosofia, fisica, psicologia ed, io aggiungo, economia si
integrano e armonizzano perfettamente. Tutto ciò si verifica se si conosce
la corretta elaborazione e trasformazione o tras-informazione dei concetti:
in una varietà continua si hanno tre differenti determinazioni possibili:
determinazione di posizione o di luogo, determinazioni di grandezza o
quantità, e determinazioni metriche o di misura; il metodo delle relazioni
o analogie; la connessione delle nostre rappresentazioni corrisponde alla
connessione delle cose. Questo e tanto altro discende dal pensiero geniale
di Bernhard Riemann.
Distinti saluti.
Francecso Rizzo.

2015-03-07 14:53 GMT+01:00 Dai Griffiths :

>  Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standing
> problem.
>
> The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a quality to
> humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities. That is
> to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this led to the
> definition of the concept which charactarised those behaviours. This seems
> to be what you are describing in your section 1. The Concept of
> Intelligence, with the list (a) to (m).
>
> In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as 'the
> major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence' is no
> longer a description of behaviours, but rather the entity which makes those
> behaviours possible.
>
> There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed quality is in
> fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence that the entity
> exists, and that is often how science moves forward. But in the present
> case the concept of general intelligence (G), as a causal force rather than
> a statistical tool, is open to doubt. If there is a general intelligence
> (as opposed to a collection of capabilities) which can be 'embodied' in
> problem solving, then a number of difficult problems are raised. Where does
> this general intelligence reside? What is it composed of? How is it
> deployed in our problem solving and other aspects of our living?
>
> Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day to day
> interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes rather than a
> collection of individual capabilities. This gives us the intuition that
> some people have more of the quality of general intelligence about them
> than do others. And in our language it is reasonable to have a word which
> refers to that impression which we have, and that is how we use the word
> 'intelligence'. But in our scientific endeavours we need to be more
> cautious and critical, and aspire to making a distinction between
> observable mechanisms and ascribed qualities (not that this is necessarily
> easy to achieve in methodological terms). Because of this I am sympathetic
> to Steven's request for differentiation of the topics and types of inquiry.
> If we do not go down this road then we should recognise the possibility
> that we will end up with a theory which is the equivalent of the phlogiston
> explanation for combustion.
>
> My background is in education, not in intelligence research, so I am happy
> to be corrected by those with greater expertise!
>
> Dai
>
>
>
> On 07/03/15 03:53, 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 scien

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

[Dai Griffiths]

Thanks for sharing these ideas, which, for me, raise a long standing 
problem.


The concept of 'intelligence' emerged as an ascription of a quality to 
humans and other animals who are capable of certain capabilities. That 
is to say, the starting point was the behaviours, and this led to the 
definition of the concept which charactarised those behaviours. This 
seems to be what you are describing in your section 1. The Concept of 
Intelligence, with the list (a) to (m).


In section 2, on the other hand, you speak of 'problem solving' as 'the 
major embodiment of intelligence'. In this case, 'intelligence' is no 
longer a description of behaviours, but rather the entity which makes 
those behaviours possible.


There is nothing wrong with hypothesising that an ascribed quality is in 
fact a verifiable entity. We can go and look for evidence that the 
entity exists, and that is often how science moves forward. But in the 
present case the concept of general intelligence (G), as a causal force 
rather than a statistical tool, is open to doubt. If there is a general 
intelligence (as opposed to a collection of capabilities) which can be 
'embodied' in problem solving, then a number of difficult problems are 
raised. Where does this general intelligence reside? What is it composed 
of? How is it deployed in our problem solving and other aspects of our 
living?


Our understanding of this is complicated by our experience of day to day 
interactions, in which we interact with people as wholes rather than a 
collection of individual capabilities. This gives us the intuition that 
some people have more of the quality of general intelligence about them 
than do others. And in our language it is reasonable to have a word 
which refers to that impression which we have, and that is how we use 
the word 'intelligence'. But in our scientific endeavours we need to be 
more cautious and critical, and aspire to making a distinction between 
observable mechanisms and ascribed qualities (not that this is 
necessarily easy to achieve in methodological terms). Because of this I 
am sympathetic to Steven's request for differentiation of the topics and 
types of inquiry. If we do not go down this road then we should 
recognise the possibility that we will end up with a theory which is the 
equivalent of the phlogiston explanation for combustion.


My background is in education, not in intelligence research, so I am 
happy to be corrected by those with greater expertise!


Dai



On 07/03/15 03:53, 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

 --
 -