Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information
Dear Krassiir,The formulars you proposed in your summary is good. May I mention that the following formulas will be more precise:Object Info = External info = Syntactic info = DataPerceived info = Internal info = Syntactic info + Semantic info + Pragmatic infoIn other words, data is also a kind of information - called syntactic information, the information without meaning and utility associated. And therefore we have a uniform concept of information.So, the discussions we have last week is very much helpful!Thank you!--Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China - 回复邮件 -发信人:Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>收信人:foundationofinformationscience 时间:2017年10月08日 02时06分15秒主题:[Fis] Data - Reflection - InformationDear FIS Colleagues,It is time for my second post this week.Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to allcolleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!**Christophe Menant had written: “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate informationfrom data. A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctlydemodulated.I would say that:1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent. - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (humanvoice, ant pheromone). - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise). - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal(interpretation/meaning generation).2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received bydifferent agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings forsomeone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account(human beings, ant-hill).Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your"reflections without meaning".Could you tell a bit more?“Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this weekconnected to my question about data and information. For this goal, belowI shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.Citations:Stanley N Salthe: “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word'sderivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”Y. X. Zhong:“It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,related and also different to each other. The first one is the informationpresented by the objects existed in environment before the subject'sperceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understoodby the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and thesecond one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by thesubject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and thepattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at thestage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject fromthe object information. So, it should have the form component of theobject (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object(semantic information), and the utility component of the object withrespect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,the "meaning" comes out.”Karl Javorszky:“Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what wedo not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it isthe background to that what we see by using the eyes.Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by theinformation, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhaltand Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ andcontext /relationships/)”.Dai Griffiths:“I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usuallysuggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpretyour post, you are saying that information and meaning are separateconcepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity ofwhich they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwinedin the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomicstructure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information withoutmeaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”Guy A Hoelzer:“If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notionof information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.I claim that physical information is general, while semantic informationis merely a subset of physical information. Semanti
Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: Heretic
Dear friends,The debate on the definition of information is of significance because the definition of information is the real foundation of information science. It is noticed that many contravercies in information science either in the past or at present time are more or less related to the different understandings of the concept of information.It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information, related and also different to each other. The first one is the information presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the subject from the former.The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the pattern with which the state varyies". No meaning and no utility at the stage.The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from the object information. So, it should have the form component of the object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage, the "meaning" comes out.What is new, we discovered that the meaning (semantic information) is the 'function' of the union of the syntactic information and the pragmatic information. This can be understood as the definition of the meaning/semantic information and the relation among them. In othr words, "meaning (semantic information)" cannot be understood arbitrarily.Comments are welcome.--Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China - 回复邮件 -发信人:Lars-Göran Johansson收信人:foundationsofinformationscienceinformationscience 时间:2017年10月05日 16时45分39秒主题:Re: [Fis] Fwd: Re[2]: HereticDear allIt seems to me that the heat in the debate about the definition of the concept of Information is fuelled by deep metaphysical feelings: different people have different views about what is REALLY Information. Metaphysical debates can never be resolved. May I suggest that we agree on this: there are several different concepts, such as Shannon Information, Semantic Information, etc.. Each Information concept has its own distinct definition and each one may use whichever he/she finds useful.Whether any of these concepts refers to any real thing, INFORMATION, cannot be determined by any empirical research. The reason is that empirical research can sometimes decide the truth of a sentence, but never whether the predicate in that sentence refers to anything.Suppose we have found, empirically, that a sentence of the form ’ X is information’ where ’information’ has a clear definition. (Chose anyone you like.) The truth of this sentence entails that the object referred to by ’X’ must exist; this is a truth condition for any declarative sentence. But it does not follow that the predicate ’Information' refers to something. It suffice that the object X belongs to the extension of the predicate. This is the nominalist position.Since 1000 years the core debate in metaphysics has been whether there are universals, i.e., properties and relations. The debate aboutInformation is a debate about the existence of a property.I am an empiricist and nominalist, accepting Occam’s razor: one should not assume more entities than necessary. And assuming that Information is a property, an entithy, is not necessary. We can proceed with scientific research, using any information concept we think useful, without assuming it refers to anything. Metaphysical issues can safely be put to rest.Lars-Göran Johansson4 okt. 2017 kl. 19:49 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: Messaggio inoltrato Da:tozziart...@libero.itA: Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.comData: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] HereticDear Prof. Hankey,I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.--Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankeyalexhan...@gmail.com:Dear Professor Tozzi,Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,as you evidently do not wish to participate in whatthe rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of 'information',and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally differentmathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.With all good wishes,Alex HankeyOn 4 October 2017 at 02:30,<tozziart...@libero.it>wrote:Dear FISers,After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the te
Re: [Fis] There two categories of Information, Instead of One.
Dear Friends,The discussion on the concept of information is really fundamental and is the central issue to the foundation of information science.But, may I remind that there are two categories of the concept of information. One is the concept of object information and the other is the concept of perceived information. They are different from, but also related to, each other.The object information presented by an object is referred as the state of the object and the pattern with which its state varies. It has nothing to do with the subject and therefore also termed ontological information.The perceived information that the subject has about the object is the form, meaning, and utility of the object, all of which are percived by the subject from the object information. The form, meaning, and utility are respectively termed as syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information. When talking about "information", you must clearly aware of which category of the concept you are really mentioning to. Do not make confusion between the two categories of the concept of information.When talking about the object information, there is only the state/pattern of the object and has no meaning. Only when talking about the perceived information, there will then be the form, meaning, and utility in it.The data is the carrier, or _expression_, of the percived information. So, data is merely the syntactic information, not the senmantic information (meaning), and of course not the perceived information as whole. What we call the "information" is often referred to the meaning of the information that is the semantic information, instead on the informastion in the sense of Shannon Information.For more detail please see my paper apperred in the book "Information Studies and the Quest for Transdisciplinaity", edited by M. Burgin and W. Hofkirchner, World Scientific , pp.165-190. 2017Best regards,--Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China - 回复邮件 -发信人:Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>收信人:foundationofinformationscience 抄送:collier ,ag659 时间:2017年10月03日 19时16分08秒主题:[Fis] If "data = "" why we need both concepts?Dear John and FIS Colleagues,I am Computer Science specialist and I never take data to be information.For not specialists maybe it is normal "data to be often taken to beinformation" but this is not scientific reasoning.Simple question: if "data = "" why we need both concepts?Friendly greetingsKrassimirDear list,As Floridi points out in his Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2010. A volume for the Very Short Introduction series. data is often takento be information. If so, then the below distinction is somewhatarbitrary. It may be useful or not. I think that for some circumstances itis useful, but for others it is misleading, especially if we are trying tocome to grips with what meaning is. I am not sure there is ever datawithout interpretation (it seems to me that it is always assumed to beabout something). There are, however, various degrees and depths ofinterpretation, and we may have data at a more abstract level that isinterpreted as meaning something less abstract, such as pointer readingsof a barometer and air pressure. The pointer readings are signs of airpressure. Following C.S. Peirce, all signs have an interpretant. We canignore this (abstraction) and deal with just pointer readings of aparticular design of gauge, and take this to be the data, but even thepointer readings have an important contextual element, being of aparticular kind of gauge, and that also determines an interpretant. Justpointer readings alone are not data, they are merely numbers (which also,of course, have an interpretant that is even more abstract.So I think the data/information distinction needs to be made clear in eachcase, if it is to be used.Note that I believe that there is information that is independent of mind,but the above points still hold once we start into issues of observation.My belief is based on an explanatory inference that must be tested (andalso be useful in this context). I believe that the idea of mindindependent information has been tested, and is useful, but I am not goingto go into that further here.Regards,JohnPS, please note that my university email was inadvertently wiped out, so Iam currently using the above email, also the alias coll...@ncf.ca Ifanyone has wondered why their mail to me has been returned, this is why.On 2017/09/30 11:20 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote:Dear Christophe and FIS Colleagues,I agree with idea of meaning.The only what I would to add is the next:There are two types of reflections:1. Reflections without meaning called DATA;2. Reflections with meaning called INFORMATION.Friendly greetingsKrassimir--Krassimir MarkovDirectorITHEA Institute of Information Theories and ApplicationsSofia, Bulgaria
Re: [Fis] Season Greetings / Merry Christmas
Dear Colleagues,On the yearly occasion, may I wish you all a Merry Chistmas and Happy New Year!--Prof. Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）Center for Intelligence Science ResearchUniversity of Posts & TelecommunicationsBeijing 100876, China - 回复邮件 -发信人:Pedro C. Marijuan 收信人:fis 时间:2015年12月21日 18时57分35秒主题:[Fis] Season Greetings / Merry ChristmasDear FIS Colleagues,Herewith the customary Nativity scene at El Pilar Basilica of Zaragoza.Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!--Pedro-- -Pedro C. MarijunGrupo de Bioinformacin / Bioinformation GroupInstituto Aragons de Ciencias de la SaludCentro de Investigacin Biomdica de Aragn (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 list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Francesco,Thank you for your e-mail.I am sorry not to give you a reply because I am unable to understand your language.Best regards,Yixin ZHONG- 回复邮件 -发信人:Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>收信人:钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>抄送:JohnPrpic ,fis 时间:2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanCari Tutti,seguendo, per quel che posso capire, la discussione che si è accesa a proposito dell'intelligenza della scienza o della scienza dell'intelligenza, mi piace ricordare che il concetto di "caos" dimostra la sua importanza quando guida i ricercatori a creare nuove idee. I sistemi caotici sono creativi. Senza questa creatività la legislazione del nostro intelletto non potrebbe conferire forma (tras-informare) e significare i dati altrimenti sconnessi dell'esperienza. Le trascendenze intellettuali e le intuizioni empiriche servono a costruire la concordanza o la connessione tra le leggi del cervello e le leggi della natura o della società che si com-penetrano, esaltano e nobilitano reciprocamente.Saluti augurali e grati.Francesco Rizzo.2015-03-12 10:57 GMT+01:00 钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>:Dear John, Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for me to think about.May I just say a few words as my simple responses to the two points you wrote in your mail.-- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary elements for an intelligence science system. Otherwise it would be unable to know where to go, what to do and how to do. In the latter case, it cannot be regards as intelligence system. -- As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able to acquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn the strategy for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can be said a compplex system.Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?Best regards,Yixin ZHONG - 回复邮件 -发信人:John Prpic <pr...@sfu.ca>收信人:钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>抄送:fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>时间:2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Professor Zhong & Colleagues,Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this year!Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect:- As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would it be useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always be antecedents to intelligence science outcomes?Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these two elements (among others) in a particular system configuration?- Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently be considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing, retrieving, transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, is there a difference between intelligence science in systems that are self-organized (ie complexity science), compared to intelligence science systems that are not self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems display complexity?Best,JohnFrom: "钟义信" <z...@bupt.edu.cn>To: "joe brenner" <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>Cc: "dai.griffiths.1" <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>, "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>Sent: Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36Subject: Re: [Fis]THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Joe, Steven, and other friends,It is interesting, ans also benefitial,to have had opportunities to, via FIS forum,exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence science.Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good comments! Intelligence science is, of course, asort of complex science and would not be easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However,it is the right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand,it is extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial intelligence so far.As for the conceptual distinktionsbetween intelligence scienceand information science, between intelligence scienceand artificial intelligence, and between intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment,mention the followings:-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as that of information science, provided that the studies of
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear John, Thank you very much for the comments you made, which are very useful for me to think about.May I just say a few words as my simple responses to the two points you wrote in your mail.-- To my understanding, "context" and "goals" among others are necessary elements for an intelligence science system. Otherwise it would be unable to know where to go, what to do and how to do. In the latter case, it cannot be regards as intelligence system. -- As an intelligent system, it would usually be self-organized under certain conditions. This means thar the system has clear goal(s), is able to acquire the information about the changes in environment, able to learn the strategy for adjusting the structures of the system so as to adapt the system to the exchanged environment. This is the capability of self-organizing. If the change of the environment is sufficiently complex and the system is able to adapt itself to the change, then the system can be said a compplex system.Do you think so? Or you have different understanding?Best regards,Yixin ZHONG - 回复邮件 -发信人:John Prpic 收信人:钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>抄送:fis 时间:2015年03月12日 11时43分09秒主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Professor Zhong & Colleagues,Unsurprisingly, some very rich food for thought in the FIS group so far this year!Here's a few comments that I hope are useful in some respect:- As I think about the idea of intelligence science as put forward, would it be useful to say that "context" and "goals" (as constructs) would always be antecedents to intelligence science outcomes?Said another way, must intelligence science systems always include these two elements (among others) in a particular system configuration?- Also, when I look at the list of "elementary abilities" of intelligence science (ie A-M), it strikes me that more than a few of them can currently be considered to be core knowledge management techniques (storing, retrieving, transferring, transforming of information etc)... therefore, is there a difference between intelligence science in systems that are self-organized (ie complexity science), compared to intelligence science systems that are not self-organized? Must all intelligence science systems display complexity?Best,JohnFrom: "钟义信" <z...@bupt.edu.cn>To: "joe brenner" Cc: "dai.griffiths.1" <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>, "fis" Sent: Wednesday, 11 March, 2015 19:07:36Subject: Re: [Fis]THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Joe, Steven, and other friends,It is interesting, ans also benefitial,to have had opportunities to, via FIS forum,exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence science.Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good comments! Intelligence science is, of course, asort of complex science and would not be easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However,it is the right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand,it is extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial intelligence so far.As for the conceptual distinktionsbetween intelligence scienceand information science, between intelligence scienceand artificial intelligence, and between intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment,mention the followings:-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as that of information science, provided that the studies of information science willcontain not only information itself but also the products of information,in which knowledge andintelligent strategy for problem solving are major components.In other words, the studies of information science should adopt the view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the topic of intelligence science be brought to FIS forum. -- According to the current status of the research in artificial intelligence (AI),its scope ofstudiesis much narrower than that of intelligence science. As a matter of fact, AI for the time being is a category of technological research, using computer as platform to support some smart software for solving certain problems. AI should be a kind of multi-disciplinary research, but it has majnly been confined within the scope of computer science. Not long ago, some of theAI researchers started todealing withthe emotion problem, butit still in its infant stage. Moreover, the topic of consciousness is still ignored in AI. So , AI is indeed incomparable to intelligence science, not to say to human intelligence.-- The relationship between intelligence and wisdom is sometimes confused. If intelligence is referredto human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. However, if the concept of intelligence is referred tomachine i
Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Joe, Steven, and other friends,It is interesting, ans also benefitial, to have had opportunities to, via FIS forum, exchange ideas with you colleagues under the topic of intelihence science. Special thanks go to Joe, Steven, and other friends for their good comments! Intelligence science is, of course, a sort of complex science and would not be easy to thoroughly understand in a short period of time. However, it is the right time to have it concerned seriously for now as, on one hand, it is extremely important for human kinds and, on the other hand, it is possible for researchers to make progress toward this direction based on the successes we have already achieved in the studies of information science and artificial intelligence so far.As for the conceptual distinktions between intelligence science and information science, between intelligence science and artificial intelligence, and between intelligence and wisdom, we may, for the moment, mention the followings:-- The scope of intelligence science would be regarded as almost the same as that of information science, provided that the studies of information science will contain not only information itself but also the products of information, in which knowledge and intelligent strategy for problem solving are major components. In other words, the studies of information science should adopt the view of ecological system. This is also the reason why the topic of intelligence science be brought to FIS forum. -- According to the current status of the research in artificial intelligence (AI), its scope of studies is much narrower than that of intelligence science. As a matter of fact, AI for the time being is a category of technological research, using computer as platform to support some smart software for solving certain problems. AI should be a kind of multi-disciplinary research, but it has majnly been confined within the scope of computer science. Not long ago, some of the AI researchers started to dealing with the emotion problem, but it still in its infant stage. Moreover, the topic of consciousness is still ignored in AI. So , AI is indeed incomparable to intelligence science, not to say to human intelligence.-- The relationship between intelligence and wisdom is sometimes confused. If intelligence is referred to human intelligence, it would be the same as wisdom. However, if the concept of intelligence is referred to machine intelligence, then it should be regarded as a sub-set of wisdom. The most typical attribute for wisdom is the creative capabilities that would be impossible for machine to simulation. In addition, it is also worth of mentioning that due to the special properties that information and intelligence possess and that are greatly different from that of matter, the methodology for information science and intelligence science studies should be radically differnet from that employed in physical science. No doubt, everyone will entierly recognize the huge contributions made by the redictionism (divide and conquer) which will still play a central role in contemporary physical science studies. But reductionism will certainly be not enough for information and intelligence science studies. Cutting human brain into a number of parts and clearly knowing the matter structure and the energy relation within each of the parts (that is the so called 'divide and conquer') will make little contribution to the understanding the secrets of human brain's function of thinking. Whether it is OK or not? comments are welcome.Best regards,Yixin ZHONG- 回复邮件 -发信人:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch 收信人:钟义信 <z...@bupt.edu.cn>抄送:Chuan Zhao <zh...@cdut.edu.cn>,fis ,dai.griffiths.1 <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>时间:2015年03月11日 11时54分07秒主题:Re: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear 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,JosephMessage d'origineDe : z...@bupt.edu.cnDate : 10/03/2015 - 17:38 (PST)À : dai.griffith...@gmail.com, fis@listas.unizar.esObjet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao ChuanDear Dai,Many thanks foryour comments on the topics thatI raised March 7 forFIS discussion.What I wanted tostress in my writing of March 7 is thatthe intelligence science and t
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 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 <dai.griffith...@gmail.com>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
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
