Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-22 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-22 Thread Joseph Brenner
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-22 Thread Guy A Hoelzer
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19 (John Collier) and footnote to fluctuon discussion (Stanley N Salthe)

2010-11-21 Thread Stanley N Salthe
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

[Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19 (John Collier) and footnote to fluctuon discussion (Stanley N Salthe)

2010-11-20 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
John, Stan, Loet, Krassimir, List: This message responses to posts of both Stan and John, which are, strangely enough, philosophically, intimately related. First, Thank You, Stan, for your illuminating post which clarifies your personal philosophy. (The paper you comment on can be found

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-19 Thread John Collier
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-19 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-19 Thread Guy A Hoelzer
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

Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 543, Issue 19

2010-11-17 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
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,