Dear FIS colleagues,
very briefly stated (ugh, no spare time, devoured by ugly application
forms!), I think that quantification as Guy demands can only occur in
some small corners of our discussion areas, but not in the fundamental
ideas, not well crafted yet. For instance, I take from a
Dear Pedro,
I beg your indulgence (3rd note) to make one point: Pedro wrote: I
understand Joseph lamentations, but do not share them, as logical
clarification of an intrinsically evolutionary phenomenon --without any
major discontinuity-- as intelligence is (at least in my view), becomes too
Dear Colleagues,
I have some sympathy for Pedro's call for acceptance of a fuzzy definition
for intelligence, or perhaps a large set of operational definitions. This
is familiar to me as an evolutionary biologist. We treat the concept of
fitness exactly this way, and I think both concepts hold
As my first posting of the week,
Jerry -- Your questions are good in allowing me to further sharpen what I
meant (all too briefly) to say. Then ...
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com
wrote:
John, Stan, Loet, Krassimir, List:
This message responses
Jerry, List, Krassimir,
At 09:40 PM 17/11/2010, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
John, List:
A simple semiotic flaw exists in this paper.
So, I am not buying into the hypothesis or the conclusions.
Reality is far more perplex than mere technical terms.
Given the situation, who else can find the
Dear John and FIS colleages,
I much agree (below) with the return to the biological; also Gordana and
Raquel had already argued along these guidelines. It does not mean that
things become very much clearer initially in the connection between
information and intelligence, but there is room for
Pedro et al.,
My previous cautionary post did not get much traction in this thread, but I
still think my point was an important one to ensure that we are all talking
about the same thing. My point was that “intelligence” in inherently
subjective (in the eye of the beholder), unless we can
John, List:
A simple semiotic flaw exists in this paper.
So, I am not buying into the hypothesis or the conclusions.
Reality is far more perplex than mere technical terms.
Given the situation, who else can find the logical flaw?
Cheers
Jerry
On Nov 17, 2010, at 12:00 PM,
