Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply8 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE-- an old poem as an echo

2015-03-21 Thread Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi
Greetings All;

I am new to your group, and am moved to contribute by the Machado passage
posted by Pedro.  Never have I read such a concise and eloquent rendering
of how I've come to understand the dynamic physical process of mind and
intelligence.  The poetic focus this last week, and the thread's original
Far East infusion, has been refreshing.  However, I will try to
contribute something towards a more formal expression of intelligence per
Joe Brenner's suggestion.

My own research has led me to a number of realizations, not the least of
which, very generally stated, is that the question of cognition, mind, and
intelligence will only be understood by embracing a paradox of information
- not in the the Shannon sense, but in the significance to organisms sense.

Namely, to be informed, in the sense that an agent's internal structure
re-organizes so as to increase its chance of making significant choices in
its indeterminate environment, is to do two seemingly contradictory things
at once:
1) Re-organize so as to represent, or 'know', distinct objects and events
in the agent's world that are relevant to it, and
2) Re-organize so as to represent, or 'know', the relevant inter-relations
between these objects and events.

And, the crux of the paradox is that these two behaviors are *simultaneous*.
Put very briefly, agents evolved to do this, I suggest, because physical
reality is itself both distinct events and their inter-relations,
*simultaneously*.  Here in lies the numerical intractability of the *n*-body
problem; because, both the barionic masses and their gravitational
attributes co-exist, not as a sequential processes, but as a single unified
dynamic.

It is here where I think this thread's openness to more (w)holistic world
views can be very useful.  Never the less, an *n*-body system, though
numerically intractable, is still formally knowable to within knowable
bounds.  So, there is a both/and outcome, where distinct formalism, the
so-called Western tradition, are employed as tools to both measure and
influence the complex irreducible dynamics of self-adaptive systems.

Wanderer, your footsteps are the road, and nothing more; wanderer, there
is no road, the road is made by walking.

Celestial masses both form and are simultaneously formed by the dynamic
gravitational terrain, an attribute intrinsically of the system.
Similarly, I suggest that brain assemblages of neural, glial, and blood
vessel cells both form and are simultaneously formed by their interstitial
chemistry and fields into and out of complex terrains of mass and energy.
Again, this system is intractable when assessed sequentially.  There is a
physical, and therefore, simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and
their whole.

By walking one makes the road, and upon glancing behind one sees the path
that never will be again.  Wanderer, there is no road - only wakes upon the
sea.

Amazing image.  A beautiful rendering of a self-efficacious relationship
between the distinct agent(s) and its(their) surroundings at every scale.

Cordially,
Josh

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote:

 Dear FISers,

 Herewith my contribution to the poetic intelligence tangent we have
 entered.
 It is in Spanish, from the great poet Antonio Machado:

 Caminante, son tus huellas
 el camino y nada más;
 Caminante, no hay camino,
 se hace camino al andar.
 Al andar se hace el camino,
 y al volver la vista atrás
 se ve la senda que nunca
 se ha de volver a pisar.
 Caminante no hay camino
 sino estelas en la mar.

 One English translation could say:

 “Wanderer, your footsteps are the road, and nothing more; wanderer, there
 is no road, the road is made by walking. By walking one makes the road, and
 upon glancing behind one sees the path that never will be trod again.
 Wanderer, there is no road-- Only wakes upon the sea.

 I find it quite moving, and extremely complex on its meaning, quite
 phenomenological and deeply neurophilosophical. But above all, impressive.
 Thanks are due to Chuan, Stan, Joseph, Francesco... et al.
 best---Pedro

 Lee todo en: Caminante no hay camino - Poemas de Antonio Machado 
 http://www.poemas-del-alma.com/antonio-machado-caminante-
 no-hay-camino.htm#ixzz3Uv6PQoJo http://www.poemas-del-alma.
 com/antonio-machado-caminante-no-hay-camino.htm#ixzz3Uv6PQoJo
 Francesco Rizzo wrote:

 Caro Joseph e cari Tutti,
 anche se rischio di essere bloccato o frainteso perché non ho voce
 linguistica di moda, nei numerosi interventi precedenti ho sottolineato
 l'importanza della parola composta emo-ra-zionalità, risultato della
 combinazione della intelligenza emotiva e della razionalità
 intellettuale. Nessuna descrizione non poetica della realtà può essere
 completa. Ilya Prigogine ha proposto di adottare nel campo della scienza il
 paradigma della musica. Henri Poincarè ritiene, talvolta, le equazioni o le
 funzione  un museo teratologico ed i modelli paradigmatici una scelta
 convenzionale o di 

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches

2015-03-29 Thread Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi
Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies.  I was away this
weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments.

But, briefly:
Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re:
paradoxes.  Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this
discussion?

Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful.  They bring
much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next
day or so before I respond.

Until then, best to all;
Josh

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch 
joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote:

 Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All,

 In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a poetic
 sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four of
 Josh's expressions for I think require further discussion would be useful
 to explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they are as
 follows, with my comments interpolated:

  · the self-efficacious relationship between agents and
 surroundings

 JEB: a good expression of the need for looking at content and context
 together;

 · the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and wholes

 JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a non-separability or overlap between
 parts and wholes, leading toward a necessary new mereology, but see point
 4;

 · a both/and outcome

 JEB: a necessary processual antidote to an either/or ontology;

 · a paradox of simultaneity

 JEB: here, the concept of simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from classical
 logic and physics and I think there is a better alternative. If classical
 simultaneity does not exist, as in General Relativity and other absolutes
 also do not exist, there is no paradox to be explained. In the case of
 time, the non-separability of time and space has as a consequence that
 neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each is partly the other,
 like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in point 2 is not
 required.



 To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not intended to
 denature the original insights but show that they can be related to a  
 non-standard,
 non-binary logic that better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of
 intelligent processes. Thank you. Joseph

 Message d'origine
 De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)
 À : zh...@cdut.edu.cn
 Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
 Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
 - unless reaches


  Dear FISers,



 Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think they
 are pretty much interrelated.



 First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In
 my view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of
 intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet except that
 one existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells
 themselves manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this
 list. All kinds of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling
 between nucleic acids and their protein transcripts.  Then the essential
 “goal” becomes evident, as the maintenance and reproduction of the living
 organism. Failure to achieve that, particularly in front of another
 intelligence striving for its own goal –against the former subject- means
 but natural selection in action: disappearance of the subject. Intelligence
 derives from life and has to be checked by how it subserves life’s goals.
 Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless, that very important goal aspect.


  Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations,
 problems, relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems
 (echoing Daniel Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally
 laden, and system 2, slow and reflective, implying the most rational
 capabilities. The former is closer to our deeper personal goals as living
 entities, a faithful transmitter of what we need inside, and the second
 acts as a sort of high-level, discursive, logic intelligence. It is not
 easy integrating them plainly, but Poetry, I think, uses both in the most
 cohesive way, taking the best of both worlds –see the poems we have posted
 these days, and personally I find Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally
 and rationally.


  Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to
 confront. On the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least
 compares) it to the paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and
 their interrelationhips in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about
 that paradox in this list, so I refrain to comment. But on the other side,
 when the paradox is essentially considered as addressed to significance in
 the organisms sense, I fail to fully grasp it. Maybe it is because I see
 that very information paradox (beautiful term!) as that which occurs
 between self-production and 

Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless reaches

2015-03-31 Thread Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi

 I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the paradox of
 simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips in
 mechanics.


If I understand Joseph, he is right to point out that the notion of
'simultaneity' from a non-observer stance is not necessary, because the
distributed nature of physics is an ontological given in my Monist world
view.  The confusion now is that humans often over extend the machine
analogy to explain currently unexplained phenomena, e.g. intelligence.  It
is exactly the fact that most assume a priori that if the brain and
universe aren't actually digital, or at least mechanical, they can be
simulated to the point to duplication via such noiseless state machines.

Not only do I argue that we have over-extended our industrial analogies
past the point of utility in the context of intelligence, mind,
significance, cognition, etc., I also suggest that such heuristics actively
obfuscate a viable path to discover such understanding.  Why?

Let's take vision.  It is often assumed that our own retina digitizes EM
phenomena transducing them into independent states like bits in a square
wave.  Or, at the very least, such evolved systems can be simulated to the
point of duplication via state machines.  The problem is that a large
amount of energy is expended to create such independent discrete states,
states that are specifically designed not to be related in any way with
adjacent states.  However, there is a vast amount of relationships, both
temporal and spatial, among potential observables embedded in the agent's
surroundings that can co-stimulate two adjacent rods thereby assimilating
not only two distinct events, but their spatio-temporal relations,
simultaneously.  This potentially useful information to the agent is
embedded in the agent's environment for free, so to speak.  Digitizing, on
the other hand, spends energy to filter out these inter-relations only to
re-create these relations later with still more energy and increased memory
consumption.

In this way, Joseph is right to question the need to insert the notion of
simultaneity, because, the biology never took it out.  It is our centuries
of trying to perfect our control over noiseless states that creates the
paradox; and, therefore, a need to overtly put it back in.





On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 10:16 PM, Joshua Augustus Bacigalupi 
bacigalupiwo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Pedro and Joseph, thank you for your thoughtful replies.  I was away this
 weekend, and look forward to responding shortly to your comments.

 But, briefly:
 Pedro - I'm not sure I have access to Koichiro Matsuno's discussion re:
 paradoxes.  Would you mind quoting some of the relevant portions of this
 discussion?

 Joseph - Your comments on simultaneity are very insightful.  They bring
 much to mind; but, I will let these initial thoughts settle over the next
 day or so before I respond.

 Until then, best to all;
 Josh

 On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 6:33 PM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch 
 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote:

 Dear Josh, Pedro, Chuan and All,

 In Josh's original note and the subsequent comments on it, I see a poetic
 sensibility with which I fully empathize. I return, however, to four of
 Josh's expressions for I think require further discussion would be useful
 to explicate the complex relations involved. In reverse order, they are as
 follows, with my comments interpolated:

  · the self-efficacious relationship between agents and
 surroundings

 JEB: a good expression of the need for looking at content and context
 together;

 · the simultaneous dynamic between so-called parts and wholes

 JEB: ‘so-called parts’ suggests a non-separability or overlap between
 parts and wholes, leading toward a necessary new mereology, but see point
 4;

 · a both/and outcome

 JEB: a necessary processual antidote to an either/or ontology;

 · a paradox of simultaneity

 JEB: here, the concept of simultaneity has been ‘imported’ from classical
 logic and physics and I think there is a better alternative. If classical
 simultaneity does not exist, as in General Relativity and other absolutes
 also do not exist, there is no paradox to be explained. In the case of
 time, the non-separability of time and space has as a consequence that
 neither simultaneity nor succession is ‘pure’ but each is partly the other,
 like parts and wholes. Thus the word ‘simultaneous’ in point 2 is not
 required.



 To repeat, these somewhat more formal statements are not intended to
 denature the original insights but show that they can be related to a  
 non-standard,
 non-binary logic that better reflects, among other things, the dynamics of
 intelligent processes. Thank you. Joseph

 Message d'origine
 De : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 Date : 28/03/2015 - 11:59 (PST)
 À : zh...@cdut.edu.cn
 Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
 Objet : Re: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
 - unless reaches


  Dear FISers