Dear Ted, and All FIS Freinds,
Many thanks to Pedro who provides the precious way for me to learn from, and
exchange ideas with, FIS friends for the studies of information science. I
appreciate very much Miss Chuan Zhao's idea that scientists from east and west
work together and that scientists and artists work together.
It is noticed from the discussions that different people may, to some extent,
have differnt understanding over the concept in discussion. This is yet a very
normal pattern and it is the differences that make everyone to have more
rethoughts and thus have deeper understanding. Consequently, new progresses
could then be achieved collectively in this way.
It is also nice to notice that the concept of
"Information-Knowledge-Intelligence Conversion, or Information Conversion in
brief" has received some attentions from the discussions. To my understanding,
this conversion is an essential principle, or an important law, in Information
Science. It may be of more significance than the law of Energy Conversion in
physics. Upon Pedro's request, I will make more explanations ealier or later in
coming April. It is my sincere hope that more comments and criticisms can then
be received from you.
Dear Ted, are you going to be in China for some period of time? If so, please
let us know.
Best regards,
Y. X. Zhong （钟义信）
Prof., Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Intelligent Systems
Chairman of Editorial Board, Journal of China P&T Universities
Chair of advisory board, International Journal of Advanced Intelligence
yxzh...@ieee.org
2011-03-12
发件人： Ted Goranson
发送时间： 2011-03-12, 00:08:31
收件人： fis@listas.unizar.es
抄送：
主题： [Fis] To Zhao, Yi Xin and Joseph
Zhao --
> Are you Chinese?
Almost. My grandchildren are Chinese and I expect to be in China soon and for
much of my future.
> I agree with your abstract: “…two together reinforce each other in a powerful
> way. If Yi Xin’s proposal was an information-centric approach to the problem
> of information and Zhao’s was an intelligence-centric approach to the same
> problem.”
> ...
>Where is new? And what is new? Now allow it be is the source of
> new.
>
> Mu xin mentioned an inscription in a centimes in one of his
> novel, from his Chinese first I
think is “many into one”, the day before yesterday I asked Prof. Mair, he sent
back, the Latin and
English one: “e pluribus unum ”, “out of many, one”, these is the stander.
>
> Yes, if now we face a new renaissance and this time the
> Renaissance is of science and art,
east and west together!
Let me respond briefly to you by turning the images a bit more toward what the
FIS group is used to,
and at the same time respond to Joseph.
I have been working on a framework that can loosely be described as merging art
and science,
supposing that we define science as a collection of useful logical statements
about the world, and art
as engaging "statements" (about the world) that skate above logic. The goal is
to create a second
reasoning system that has some formal basis for this "art" side and which
integrates in useful ways
with logic. We readily experience art and love in life. In this category, I
also include our ability to
"reason" about the many "soft" things we encounter; these include reasoning
over situations
where we do not or cannot have facts.
The result is a two-sorted logic. The second "sort" is not logic in the
ordinarily understood sense; instead it is a
categoric calculus where the objects are situations instead of facts and
inferences and the
connectives are morphisms (and more sophisticated operations) instead of the
well-traveled logical connectives. This notion of two-sorts is widely used in
theorem-proving systems and was developed for "soft" reasoning as situation
theory. We are now taking
advantage of new results in categoric mathematics of logic to finally build
practical reasoning and
agent systems.
I have always believed that this applies directly to the FIS problem, which I
see as requiring one set
of "right hand side" logics which characterize observations "outside" the
system: biosemiotics,
information entropic imperative-based systems, and new "native" abstractions.
The first two of these dominate FIS discussions,
forming two tribes. I see the first as bringing the abstractions of Peircean
human cognition to
biology (and biologically similar self-organizing); the second is instead
"abstracting up" from physics, leveraging powerful tools of
thermodynamics, effect and probability. New native abstractions are explored by
Jerry, Karl and
John. All three of these have domains in which they are best. None by itself
will be sufficient.
They cannot be merged.
So on ou
