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

2015-03-18 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti,
mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o
non farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e
auguri di un meritato successo.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn:

 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 pr...@sfu.ca,fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *时间:*2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒
 *主题:*Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan


 Cari 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 Chuan


 Dear 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,
 John


 --
 *From: *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 19:07:36
 *Subject: *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, 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

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

2015-03-18 Thread John Collier
List,

I find that it works well to use Google Translate. It is hardly perfect, but 
much better than Bing, which gives laughable translations. I have used it here 
in Brazil on both my computer and cell phone, as well as having my bank use it 
when there were communications problems. Here is the translation I got this 
time:

Dear Yixin Zhong and Dear All,
I'm sorry that my words are not understood. On the other hand I do not want to 
miss out on anyone. Who can understand it is free to do or not to use as I 
want. The world turns the same, including the field of intelligence, regardless 
of my words. Anyway, thank you and best wishes for a well-deserved success.
Francesco Rizzo.

Best,
John


From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Francesco Rizzo
Sent: March 18, 2015 7:21 AM
To: 钟义信
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

Caro Yixin Zhong e Cari Tutti,
mi dispiace che le mie parole non siano capite. D'altra parte non voglio 
mancare di riguardo a nessuno. Chi le può comprendere è libero di farne o non 
farne l'uso che vuole. Il mondo gira lo stesso, compreso il campo 
dell'intelligenza, a prescindere dalle mie parole. Comunque, grazie e auguri di 
un meritato successo.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-03-15 12:12 GMT+01:00 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cnmailto:z...@bupt.edu.cn:

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.commailto:13francesco.ri...@gmail.com
收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cnmailto:z...@bupt.edu.cn
抄送:JohnPrpic pr...@sfu.camailto:pr...@sfu.ca,fis 
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
时间:2015年03月15日 18时01分07秒
主题:Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan



Cari 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.cnmailto: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.camailto:pr...@sfu.ca
收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cnmailto:z...@bupt.edu.cn
抄送:fis fis@listas.unizar.esmailto: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 Chuan



Dear 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

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

2015-03-15 Thread Francesco Rizzo
Cari 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 Chuan


 Dear 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,
 John


 --
 *From: *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 19:07:36
 *Subject: *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, 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

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

2015-03-12 Thread 钟义信
f intelligence is referred tomachine 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 propertiesthat information and intelligence possess andthat 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. Cuttinghuman brain into a number of parts andclearly 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 ofhuman brain'sfunction 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 joe.bren...@bluewin.ch收信人:钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn抄送:Chuan Zhao zh...@cdut.edu.cn,fis fis@listas.unizar.es,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 the related concepts like intelligence and wisdom are complexones and therefore the traditional methodology featured with "divide and conquer" should be no longer suitablefor 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 methodologyfor theintelligence science studies.If we have the common understanding on the above points, I willfeel satisfied very much.As for the intelligence science itselfand 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. Weshould make much moreefforts 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 fis@listas.unizar.es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. Ifth

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

2015-03-11 Thread John Prpic
Dear 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, i s 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, 
John 


- Original Message -

From: 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 19:07:36 
Subject: 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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
*收信人:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es
*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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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 dai.griffith...@gmail.com:

  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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es 
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *收信人:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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

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

2015-03-10 Thread 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 dai.griffith...@gmail.com
收信人:fis fis@listas.unizar.es
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

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

2015-03-06 Thread Steven Ericsson-Zenith
I agree with Jerry and Joe - and I agree that, in part, this may be a
language or cultural issue/challenge.

I would like to see a few basic statements about the scientific
epistemology involved in the approach. I want to see a separation of
concerns. Right now I see a not entirely exhaustive bunch of topics (how
would I or they know?) simply thrown into a bag labeled Intelligence
Science.  While these topics may have a common basis (although this is not
stated) together their relationships are uncertain.

I am also concerned with the use of adjectives. For example, what, exactly,
is the distinction between AI and Advanced AI? I do not understand this
distinction.

I encourage our Chinese friends to precisely differentiate their various
topics and illustrate how they are related, stating the type of inquiry
they propose and the nature of it (formal or experimental, for example). If
there is a difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, exactly what is it
and how are the two related? If emotion plays a role, is it critical, where
does it fit, what difference does it make and how, exactly, does it occur?

In short I feel that we need to agree on practices, exchange scientific
glossaries and agree on terms.

Regards,
Steven



On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 *收信人:*fis fis@listas.unizar.es
 *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

 --
 -
 Pedro C. Marijuán
 Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
 Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
 Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
 Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
 http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
 -

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


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

2015-03-06 Thread 钟义信


Dear Pedro,Thank you very much for recommending Ms. ZHAO's good topic, intelligence science, for discussion at FIS platform. I think itvery much valuablethat 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es收信人:fis fis@listas.unizar.es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


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

2015-03-06 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Dear All,
I do not agree with this characterization, not to say caricature of my position 
by Steven. To say that a problem is a language or cultural 'issue' is to fail 
to give value to what Chuan's position offers that is unique. If Steven wants 
precise differentiation, certainty, exact relations and exact this or that, 
then he has already missed the point and he can go elsewhere to find them.
Professor Zhong says, in relation to Chuan's work:
 
  Normal
  0
  
  
  false
  false
  false
  
   
   
   
   
   
  
  MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
 
Instead
both intelligence science and information science need new methodology featured
by the view of information, the view of system, the view of ecology, and the
view of interaction between subject and object. This is also the methodology
that fits the needs for the multidisciplinary science, or complex science. It 
may be worth of stressing on that methodology
shift is critically important for both intelligence and information science
studies.
This approach, for me, means starting by making some very big allowances for 
what some of Chuan's offerings are, which at first sight appear as 
'unscientific'. It would be a big mistake, as she would be the first to admit, 
to say that they are the whole story, but we may learn from the way in which 
they are a part of it.
Best regards,
Joseph 
Message d'origine
De : ste...@iase.us
Date : 06/03/2015 - 19:36 (PST)
À : z...@bupt.edu.cn
Cc : fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
I agree with Jerry and Joe - and I agree that, in part, this may be a language 
or cultural issue/challenge. 
I would like to see a few basic statements about the scientific epistemology 
involved in the approach. I want to see a separation of concerns. Right now I 
see a not entirely exhaustive bunch of topics (how would I or they know?) 
simply thrown into a bag labeled Intelligence Science.  While these topics 
may have a common basis (although this is not stated) together their 
relationships are uncertain. 
I am also concerned with the use of adjectives. For example, what, exactly, is 
the distinction between AI and Advanced AI? I do not understand this 
distinction.
I encourage our Chinese friends to precisely differentiate their various topics 
and illustrate how they are related, stating the type of inquiry they propose 
and the nature of it (formal or experimental, for example). If there is a 
difference between Intelligence and Wisdom, exactly what is it and how are the 
two related? If emotion plays a role, is it critical, where does it fit, what 
difference does it make and how, exactly, does it occur? 
In short I feel that we need to agree on practices, exchange scientific 
glossaries and agree on terms.
Regards,
Steven
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 6:53 PM, 钟义信 z...@bupt.edu.cn 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 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
收信人:fis fis@listas.unizar.es
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

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

2015-03-04 Thread joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
Dear Krassimir and All,
I think what Zhao Chuan is trying to do is essential for progress in 
Intelligence Science. We are all familiar with concrete scientific approaches, 
and no-one is challenging their on-going necessity. However, their limitations 
are also a scientific fact, and new qualitative perspectives, especially if 
they are rigorous as well as broad, are to be welcomed. I was aware of the new 
publication of Shi and I am sure Chuan has factored it into her approach. Thank 
you for the link, Krassimir, which is a useful one.
It is also a scientific fact that, roughly corresponding to the geographical 
limits of their territory, people have other forms of thought which co-exist 
with 'ours', in reply to the comment about geography. The Hopi Native 
Americans, living in a tiny area on three small mountains in the U.S. state of 
New Mexico, have an extraordinarily complex system of thought and concept of 
knowledge that we have much to learn from. It fits, among other things, the 
scientific criterion of reproducibility.
Having said that, I agree with Jerry and would urge Chuan to tell us more about 
the specific projects in which she and her students are engaged. 
Best wishes,
Joseph
Message d'origine
De : mar...@foibg.com
Date : 04/03/2015 - 05:39 (PST)
À : pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan
Dear Chuan, Pedro, and FIS colleagues,
We need more concrete point of view to provide discussion.
Maybe it will be good to take in account the paper: 
Zhongzhi Shi. On Intelligence Science // International Journal of Advanced 
Intelligence
Volume 1, Number 1, pp.39-57, November, 2009.
http://aia-i.com/ijai/sample/vol1/no1/39-57.pdf  
Abstract:
Intelligence Science is an interdisciplinary subject which dedicates to 
joint research on
basic theory and technology of intelligence by brain science, cognitive 
science, artificial
intelligence and others. Brain science explores the essence of brain, 
research on the principle
and model of natural intelligence in molecular, cell and behavior level. 
Cognitive science
studies human mental activity, such as perception, learning, memory, 
thinking, consciousness
etc. In order to implement machine intelligence, artificial intelligence 
attempts
simulation, extension and expansion of human intelligence using artificial 
methodology
and technology. Research scientists coming from above three disciplines 
work together
to explore new concept, new theory, new methodology. It will be successful 
and create a
brilliant future in 21 century.
The paper will outline the framework of intelligence science and present 
the ten big
issues. Research approaches will be pointed out. Finally the paper gives 
perspective for
the future.
 
Friendly regards
Krassimir
 
 
PS: Dear Pedro, please forward to FIS this message if it is 
stopped by spam filter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:00 PM 
To: 'fis' 
Subject: 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
-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation

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

2015-03-04 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

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

--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://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

2015-03-04 Thread Krassimir Markov
Dear Chuan, Pedro, and FIS colleagues,

We need more concrete point of view to provide discussion.

Maybe it will be good to take in account the paper: 

Zhongzhi Shi. On Intelligence Science // International Journal of Advanced 
Intelligence
Volume 1, Number 1, pp.39-57, November, 2009.
http://aia-i.com/ijai/sample/vol1/no1/39-57.pdf  

Abstract:
Intelligence Science is an interdisciplinary subject which dedicates to joint 
research on
basic theory and technology of intelligence by brain science, cognitive 
science, artificial
intelligence and others. Brain science explores the essence of brain, research 
on the principle
and model of natural intelligence in molecular, cell and behavior level. 
Cognitive science
studies human mental activity, such as perception, learning, memory, thinking, 
consciousness
etc. In order to implement machine intelligence, artificial intelligence 
attempts
simulation, extension and expansion of human intelligence using artificial 
methodology
and technology. Research scientists coming from above three disciplines work 
together
to explore new concept, new theory, new methodology. It will be successful and 
create a
brilliant future in 21 century.
The paper will outline the framework of intelligence science and present the 
ten big
issues. Research approaches will be pointed out. Finally the paper gives 
perspective for
the future.

Friendly regards
Krassimir


PS: Dear Pedro, please forward to FIS this message if it is stopped by spam 
filter.










-Original Message- 
From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 2:00 PM 
To: 'fis' 
Subject: 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

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
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] THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE--Zhao Chuan

2015-03-02 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
(Message from *Zhao Chuan*, excerpts from the Preface of her book on 
Intelligence Science)




*
THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE*

* *
Intelligence Science is a new science. It is the scientific spirit 
applied to thought and mental processes and phenomena; it is an emergent 
multidisciplinary direction of research. At the same time, it represents 
a long-standing tradition in oriental thought. After the success of 
science in grasping the rules of the natural world, and despite many 
false starts, science has finally begun to focus on intelligence. Hence 
East and West should meet here, Science and Art should meet here, and it 
is from here that the new scientific paradigm and a new paradigm for 
civilization should evolve.


In ancient times, human beings faced the challenges of existence. After 
a long period of evolution, it is the time to go from a survival mode - 
how to live better - and now face what A. Feln said: to think better is 
the challenge to our integrity. Know yourself was the inscription in 
the temple of Apollo. It can and should be taken to heart now more than 
in any other age. Intelligence Science has been born at the right moment.


Despite all their problems, all sciences are becoming richer and more 
successful, above all technological disciplines. The Internet is the 
'roof' over the Global Village in which this has taken place. Workers in 
the sciences and the humanities are already exchanging information about 
their work and also their feelings about their work. Intelligence 
Science emerges naturally.


We need to continuously try to face and answer honestly the question: 
how can the human factor be recognized and integrated naturally into 
science? Science needs rethinking, humanity needs rethinking, the West 
and the East need rethinking, so that we can benefit from the richness 
of human nature and  bear the complexity of human thought. Integration 
is not easy, but we must do it. If all civilizations develop, reach 
their limits and then fade, contending among themselves, finally they 
must fail and destroy each other. Alternatively, the Eastern and Western 
civilizations of today could interact more dynamically observing, 
understanding and checking each other to form a 'new' civilization that 
could go farther. Which alternative will we choose? Intelligence Science 
burdens itself with this mission.


From Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Intelligence Science (IS) is a 
strategic transformation, a major contribution to science. Led by the 
Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence ( CAAI), Intelligence 
Science was born in October, 2003. Since the first one created in Peking 
University, in just the last decade, 27 universities have set up a 
Department of Intelligence Science and Technology, and the number should 
increase. We can say that IS has now created a new frontier of 
knowledge, going from theory to practice and to education. But our task, 
the task of this book, is to describe and participate in the research 
and development of this still-forming frontier. Poincaré said: if we 
can occasionally enjoy relative tranquility, it is because of the 
tenacious struggle of our ancestors. If our vigor, our vigilance relax a 
moment, we will lose the fruits that our ancestors gained for us.


There is a poem of Master Hong Yi that can describe this new science: I 
come for the plant/ I leave the flower that has not bloomed yet,/it does 
not mean this is not a fine scene,/waiting for later generations. Due 
to the interactive changes involving East and West I mentioned above, 
our civilization has achieved a high degree of maturity in what is now a 
precious wealthy and peaceful age. First we should be thankful for the 
great fruits and wisdom which human beings have gained through tenacious 
struggle that we have arrived at such a moment and can formulate such 
thoughts. Generation by generation, the development of science and 
civilization reaches out and transmits them to us. Such a great flower 
is just blooming now, and is in its most beautiful period. The end of 
the 20th Century is safe, the steps of the 21st Century are smooth and 
steady, and the great harmony and the great adventure of human beings 
should begin.


We must know, we will know! (Wir müssen wissen / Wir werden wissen) 
these lines are engraved in the gravestone of the mathematical King 
David, David Hilbert. We need to have the same confidence and will. We 
should remember the same warning of Lu Xun: but if you want to have 
some rank in culture, you have to be tenacious. At the same time there 
is the wisdom of the farmer's proverbs: In seeding the transplants in 
the paddy field, older and younger are both needed and when everybody 
adds fuel, the flames rise high.. All persons who are concerned about 
civilization should optimistically make the effort together to 
integrate, to break through, to reach an age of a new quality. Such is 
my invitation to you: let us  reappraise all