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

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

2015-03-31 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith
 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 communication with the environment by the
 agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of both aspects,
 but I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the communication aspect.
 If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence again, missing
 the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent—its own
 life-cycle maintenance, the self-production dimension… was I wrong in my
 understanding?



 Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice
 discussion.



 Regards to all—Pedro
  --
 *De:* Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de 赵川 [
 zh...@cdut.edu.cn]
 *Enviado el:* viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10
 *Para:* Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner
 *Cc:* FIS论坛
 *Asunto:* [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE
 - unless reaches

   *Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,*



  After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one
 mail now.

  Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many
 suggestions: common sense  aberrant common sense; critical thinking
 and intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages,  Subjunctive,
 biological issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's
 perspectives, and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of
 diamond! I enjoy you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in
 worldwide cultures and languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your
 mentioned, we are study Symmetry phenomena in Chinese that abstract a
 common issue as Symmetry of Language. Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal:
 The Language of 'Gitanjali': the Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion,
 2012) http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” that is fine. And
 let me connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more
 inspirations. Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As
 another example to such paradox here is a lines from Buddha:



 it is impossible to reach

  but it is impossible to escape suffering

  unless one reaches

 --- from Buddha   Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014



  I

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

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

2015-03-28 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
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
 
  
 
 
  Normal
  0
  
  
  
  
  false
  false
  false
  
  ES-TRAD
  JA
  X-NONE
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 /* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:Table Normal;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
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

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

2015-03-27 Thread 赵川
Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,

 

 After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one mail now. 

 Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many 
suggestions:common sense  aberrant common sense; critical thinking and 
intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages,  Subjunctive, biological 
issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's perspectives, 
and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of diamond! I enjoy 
you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and 
languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your mentioned, we are study Symmetry 
phenomena in Chinese that abstract a common issue as Symmetry of Language. 
Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal: The Language of 'Gitanjali': the 
Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion, 2012) 
http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” that is fine. And let me 
connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more inspirations. 
Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As another example to such 
paradox here is a lines from Buddha: 

 

it is impossible to reach

but it is impossible to escape suffering

 unless one reaches

--- from Buddha   Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014

 

 I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our university, 
I organized a Poem-islandMorning Chant three years ago, and yesterday I open it 
of 2015, spring team. This is the words of encourage from an India Prof. Mihir 
Chakraborty sent for such an events. We consisted  90days last spring team. 
Read Chinese ancient style poem, modern poems and English poems. Really has a 
Poem-Island in our campus. 

 Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes, 
Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar 
parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should special 
explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment, just put together is precious, we 
should let some link together. Know you see: so many information/consciousness 
streams are interweaving – forming worldwide new culture. 

 More later.   

 

best wishes, good weekend, 

Chuan

March 27, 2015___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis