Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong) on phenomenology and Cybersemiotics

[Robert Ulanowicz]

Dear Søren,

Bravo for coming to the defense of phenomenology!

As I wrote to Joseph offline:

"Why make excuses for phenomenology? As an engineer, I consider it the  
necessary foundation for science. When theory and phenomenology  
collide (as with Newtonianism and the atomic theory in the 19th  
Century), it is phenomenology that always trumps theory, not  
vice-versa!"

Cheers to all,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email 
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web 
--


Quoting Søren Brier :

> Dear Joseph
>
> I am sorry not to have had time this semester to participate in the  
> discussion this semester, but I want to support your approach of  
> taking a phenomenological aspect seriously. I cannot see how we can  
> avoid taken the human experience serious as an important part of  
> reality, which is radically different from both the material and the  
> informational aspect of reality.
>
> This is a major point in my Cybersemiotics and why the other half of  
> the title says "Why information is not enough". Take a look in  
> Google book version. See address in signature.  For those interested  
> I add ULRs for summarizing articles on the subject: from the book :  
> INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
> http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/1-Brier.pdf  
> and my article from the special issue of Entropy on Cybersemiotics   
> http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/8/1902/pdf   (whole issue of  
> Entropy with other relevant article:  
> http://www.mdpi.com/search/?s_journal=entropy&s_special_issue=317 ).
>
> It is true that a phenomenological  approach destroys a pure  
> physicalistic vision of science, which - even in its information  
> theoretical versions - is identified with "the scientific approach".  
> This is the idea that we can explain our own experience and behavior  
> from a deep analytical investigation of the part of reality that is  
> outside our personal consciousness. Often it is expressed in the  
> belief that physical or informational deep laws of nature can  
> explain our consciousness and its content without taking qualia of  
> sense experiences, subjectivity, will and desires into  
> considerations. This is often called eliminative materialism. But  
> are matter and information more real than experiences? All our  
> knowledge is based on experience. This is why computers and robots  
> do not know anything but only can react adequately to situations.
>
>
> Venlig hilsen/best wishes
> Søren Brier
>
> Professor in the Semiotics of Information, Cognition and  
> Communication Science
> Department of International Culture and Communication Studies,  
> Copenhagen Business School
> Cybersemiotics: Why Information is not enough, Toronto University  
> Press, 2008:  
> http://books.google.com/books?id=Ueiv9cRR9OQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cybersemiotics&hl=da&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
>   
> .
>
>
> Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es  
> [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af Joseph Brenner
> Sendt: 11. december 2010 18:59
> Til: fis
> Emne: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)
>
> Dear All,
>
> I return to the original definition of this project because I am not  
> satisfied with its evolution. There are points in Professor Zhong's  
> perspective on (natural) intelligence that I still would like to  
> call attention to, apart from the connection between intelligence  
> and information.
>
> 1. "intelligence as wealth" implies something acquired, a  
> posteriori, from experience, as well as some innate capacity for  
> processing that experience. There are thus two aspects and their  
> interaction to be taken into account.
>
> 2. "the secrets of intelligence, human thinking in particular" could  
> be sought in the above.
>
> 3. "how intelligence is produced by brains". Neurology and cognitive  
> science have provided fantastic new insights, and even possible  
> semi-quantitative measures of intelligence as capacity for  
> processing some simple stimuli, but something is still being missed.
>
> I therefore make this plea for a phenomenological approach,  
> recognizing that since Petitot and Varela, responsible  
> phenomenology, like responsible dualism, can be naturalized, that  
> is, made part of science.
>
> A coherent phenomenological approach might for example distinguish  
> between the operation of intelligence leading to a variety of  
> options vs. a simple cognitive process ending in a more or less  
> clear-cut thought.
>
> In any case, I have taken to heart comments that suggest that I am  
> t

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong) on phenomenology and Cybersemiotics

[Søren Brier]

Dear Joseph

I am sorry not to have had time this semester to participate in the discussion 
this semester, but I want to support your approach of taking a phenomenological 
aspect seriously. I cannot see how we can avoid taken the human experience 
serious as an important part of reality, which is radically different from both 
the material and the informational aspect of reality.

This is a major point in my Cybersemiotics and why the other half of the title 
says "Why information is not enough". Take a look in Google book version. See 
address in signature.  For those interested I add ULRs for summarizing articles 
on the subject: from the book : INFORMATION AND COMPUTATION
http://www.idt.mdh.se/ECAP-2005/INFOCOMPBOOK/CHAPTERS/1-Brier.pdf and my 
article from the special issue of Entropy on Cybersemiotics  
http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/8/1902/pdf   (whole issue of Entropy with 
other relevant article: 
http://www.mdpi.com/search/?s_journal=entropy&s_special_issue=317 ).

It is true that a phenomenological  approach destroys a pure physicalistic 
vision of science, which - even in its information theoretical versions - is 
identified with "the scientific approach". This is the idea that we can explain 
our own experience and behavior from a deep analytical investigation of the 
part of reality that is outside our personal consciousness. Often it is 
expressed in the belief that physical or informational deep laws of nature can 
explain our consciousness and its content without taking qualia of sense 
experiences, subjectivity, will and desires into considerations. This is often 
called eliminative materialism. But are matter and information more real than 
experiences? All our knowledge is based on experience. This is why computers 
and robots do not know anything but only can react adequately to situations.


Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier

Professor in the Semiotics of Information, Cognition and Communication Science
Department of International Culture and Communication Studies, Copenhagen 
Business School
Cybersemiotics: Why Information is not enough, Toronto University Press, 2008: 
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ueiv9cRR9OQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cybersemiotics&hl=da&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
 .


Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På 
vegne af Joseph Brenner
Sendt: 11. december 2010 18:59
Til: fis
Emne: [Fis] Fw: INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Dear All,

I return to the original definition of this project because I am not satisfied 
with its evolution. There are points in Professor Zhong's perspective on 
(natural) intelligence that I still would like to call attention to, apart from 
the connection between intelligence and information.

1. "intelligence as wealth" implies something acquired, a posteriori, from 
experience, as well as some innate capacity for processing that experience. 
There are thus two aspects and their interaction to be taken into account.

2. "the secrets of intelligence, human thinking in particular" could be sought 
in the above.

3. "how intelligence is produced by brains". Neurology and cognitive science 
have provided fantastic new insights, and even possible semi-quantitative 
measures of intelligence as capacity for processing some simple stimuli, but 
something is still being missed.

I therefore make this plea for a phenomenological approach, recognizing that 
since Petitot and Varela, responsible phenomenology, like responsible dualism, 
can be naturalized, that is, made part of science.

A coherent phenomenological approach might for example distinguish between the 
operation of intelligence leading to a variety of options vs. a simple 
cognitive process ending in a more or less clear-cut thought.

In any case, I have taken to heart comments that suggest that I am trying 
somehow to overturn the results, and subvert the use, of the scientific method. 
As a physical scientist, I can only conclude that I have badly expressed my 
intention, which is to support physical science by pointing out aspects and 
implications that may have been missed, due to a reliance on classical logic.

Thus I have a positive reaction to Pedro's concept of "trialism", since my 
logical approach is "ternary", but the connection should be explored in another 
thread.

Thanks and best wishes,

Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Pedro C. Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 1:55 PM
Subject: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)


Intelligence and Information
Yi-Xin-Zhong
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing100876, China
yxzh...@ieee.org


1. The Study of Intelligence Science

Intelligence has been very well regarded as the most valuable wealth for 
mankind, compared with other attributions like constitution and strength, and 
the study of intelligence science should therefore 

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Stanley N Salthe]

Gordana --

Interpretation of information builds more information, which again becomes
interpreted.  In living systems each generation makes a new interpretation
based upon changed conditions of life. But in this case there is not more
(genetic) information, but rather recently altered information -- history
rewritten according to the latest interpretation of recent conditions.  Some
might call this process 'intelligence'. This is the (neo)Darwinian
interpretation.  It does not address your point about "increasingly complex
patterns of information", which is indeed what appears in the fossil record
(as well as in human discourse).  To build more requires preservation and
interpretation. In the physical world, this image is captured in the
asteroid impacts on the moon, with subsequent hits deforming, but not
erasing, the original one.  Information here increases, but not, I think,
intelligence.  Intelligence, I think, lies more in reinterpretation than in
the building more that may follow upon it.

STAN
(Pedro -- this is a new week, so this is my first)

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> wrote:

>  I suppose semioticians are interested in an individual human’s
> sense-making in a context of human society.
>
> Or perhaps a social animal’s sense making.
>
> What I think about is how life forms organize to produce increasingly
> complex patterns of information processing.
>
> Gordana
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> *On Behalf Of *Stanley N Salthe
> *Sent:* den 13 november 2010 23:03
>
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)
>
>
>
> Concerning:
>
>
>
> >The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without
> information. For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the >world in
> a meaningful way and it increases with the number of different ways an agent
> is able to respond with.
>
>
>
>   It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis
> -- that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent.  Thus,
> intelligence would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be
> located by its needs.  Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by
> this concept.  Hoffmeyer claims that it is especially a social skill.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <
> gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several
> reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual
> tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in
> the natural world.
> Yixin mentions the problem of three approaches to AI which exist
> independently, based on the methodological doctrine of "divide and conquer".
> We agree that "divide and conquer" is just not enough, it is the movement in
> one direction, and what is needed is the full cycle -bottom up and top down
> - if we are to understand biological systems.
>
> The appropriate model should be generative - it should be able to produce
> the observed behaviors, such as done by Agent Based Models (ABM) which
> includes individual agents and their interactions, where the resulting
> global behavior in its turn affects agents' individual behavior. Unlike
> static objects that result from a "divide and conquer" approach, agents in
> ABM are dynamic. They allow for the influence from bottom up and back
> circularly. Central for living organisms is the dynamics of the
> relationships between the parts and the whole.
>
> Shannon's theory of communication is very successful in modeling
> communication between systems, but it is a theory that presupposes that
> communication exists and that mechanisms of communication are known. On the
> other hand if we want to answer the question why those systems communicate
> at all and what made them develop different mechanisms of communication we
> have to go to a more fundamental level of description where we find
> information processes and structures in biological systems. Natural
> computation such as described by Rozenberg and Kari in "The many facets of
> natural computing"
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~lila/Natural-Computing-Review.pdf includes
> information processing in living organisms.
>
> Generative models of intelligence may be based on info-computational
> approach to the evolution of living systems. Three basic steps in this
> construction are as follows:
> . The world on its basic level is potent

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Jacob Lee]

 to the environment. One can argue
that increasing the repertoire of meaningful responses
(interactions with the world) increases agents potential for
survival and success.

As a consequence this approach makes way for a basic quantitative
measure of intelligence as a level of complexity of an organism
providing the diversity of its responses.( Of course this measure
of intelligence is not in the sense of IQ or specific individual's
"smartness" but of the species increasing capability to flourish.)

This view also agrees with the understanding that even in humans
there are several different intelligences - linguistic, logical,
kinesthetic, naturalist, emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal,
spatial, musical, etc. If the complexity of the information
processing structures and diversity of interactions with the
environment are the measure, then plants and by the same token
even single cells may qualify as intelligent in the sense of
naturalist and kinesthetic intelligence.

In sum, there are different ways to define intelligence and
information dependent on what we want them to do for us. Concepts
are tools used by theories. Theories are tools used by people.
Many different concepts address different aspects of the world and
seem to fill their purpose.
>From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base
for the construction of generative explanatory models for the
development of intelligence by information processing in living
organisms.

With best regards,
Gordana
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc <http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc>


PS
More on Info-Computationalism
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/work/publications.html
<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/work/publications.html>





-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>
[mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
<mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
    Sent: den 12 november 2010 13:19
To: fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Dear FIS colleagues,

It is quite nice reading along the messages of this new discussion
session. In particular, Krassimir's posting is very interesting for me
in two senses. It represents an important research community of
information scientists/engineering practitioners (strong in Easter
Europe and other areas) that was not engaged in our list discussions
yet, specially thinking in the common project envisioned with other
parties about the International Society for Information Studies. Well,
the general content of the message (now I cannot go to the many
interesting details deserving specific comment) has strongly
reminded me
about the theoretical evolution happened in another field: string
theory. About how a multiplicity of approaches from rather different
angles has recently coalesced into what is known as
"M-Theory"---included in the comparison is that M theory predicts the
possibility of 10 exp 500 different universes... In our common
quest for
foundations of information science, How should we cope with so many
attempts to develop general information theories? Even more, How
should
we cope with the different "implicit" conceptions of information, well
established and logically sound within almost each disciplinary
body? In
what extent looks viable a possible "Info M-Theory"? Would it open an
explosion of 10 exp (?) possible configurations of info realms?

My impression is that the conflation of information with the
intelligence discussion (while the former can be abstracted almost to
completion, the latter has to be "situated", "embodied", and in
general
related to self-construction processes) provides ground for better
formulations of the above rough questions, and maybe a radical new
response.

best regards

---Pedro


Krassimir Markov escribió:
> Dear Yi-Xin, Pedro and FIS Coleagues,
>
> Thank you for kind invitation. I am very glad to take part in FIS.
>
> During the years I have seen a stable interest to the basic
problems of
> informatics. This was the reason to unite more than 2000
scientists all
> over the world in the ITHEA® International Scientific Society
(ITHEA® ISS)
> and for the last ten years to organize more than 60 conferences, to
> publish two Int. Journals and more than 30 books. The Institute of
> Information Theories and Applications FOI ITHEA® was established as
> independent nongovernmental organization to support the
collaboration
> between members of ITHEA

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

I suppose semioticians are interested in an individual human's sense-making in 
a context of human society.
Or perhaps a social animal's sense making.
What I think about is how life forms organize to produce increasingly complex 
patterns of information processing.
Gordana


From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: den 13 november 2010 23:03
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Concerning:

>The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
>For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the >world in a meaningful 
>way and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to 
>respond with.

  It seems to me that this implies, in any non-mechanistic system, semiosis -- 
that is to say, a process of interpretation by the agent.  Thus, intelligence 
would be related to the viewpoint of the agent, which would be located by its 
needs.  Semioticians, however, have not been much engaged by this concept.  
Hoffmeyer claims that it is especially a social skill.

STAN



On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic 
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,

Relating information with intelligence seems to me important for several 
reasons. I will try to suggest that intelligence might be a good conceptual 
tool if we want to anchor our understanding of information and knowledge in the 
natural world.
Yixin mentions the problem of three approaches to AI which exist independently, 
based on the methodological doctrine of "divide and conquer". We agree that 
"divide and conquer" is just not enough, it is the movement in one direction, 
and what is needed is the full cycle -bottom up and top down - if we are to 
understand biological systems.

The appropriate model should be generative - it should be able to produce the 
observed behaviors, such as done by Agent Based Models (ABM) which includes 
individual agents and their interactions, where the resulting global behavior 
in its turn affects agents' individual behavior. Unlike static objects that 
result from a "divide and conquer" approach, agents in ABM are dynamic. They 
allow for the influence from bottom up and back circularly. Central for living 
organisms is the dynamics of the relationships between the parts and the whole.

Shannon's theory of communication is very successful in modeling communication 
between systems, but it is a theory that presupposes that communication exists 
and that mechanisms of communication are known. On the other hand if we want to 
answer the question why those systems communicate at all and what made them 
develop different mechanisms of communication we have to go to a more 
fundamental level of description where we find information processes and 
structures in biological systems. Natural computation such as described by 
Rozenberg and Kari in "The many facets of natural computing" 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~lila/Natural-Computing-Review.pdf includes information 
processing in living organisms.

Generative models of intelligence may be based on info-computational approach 
to the evolution of living systems. Three basic steps in this construction are 
as follows:
. The world on its basic level is potential information.
(I agree with Guy on his information realism)
. Dynamics of the world is computation which in general is information 
processing (natural computationalism or pancomputationalism)
. Intelligence is a potential for (meaningful) action in the world. (I agree 
with Josph)

The minimal claim would be that there is no intelligence without information. 
For an agent, intelligence is the ability to face the world in a meaningful way 
and it increases with the number of different ways an agent is able to respond 
with. (This is a statistical argument: in a dynamical world, ability of an 
agent to respond to a change in several different ways increases its chances 
for survival.)
Back to the question of Raquel: can a simple organism be ascribed intelligence? 
- which Pedro suggests to answer in the positive by broadening the concept of 
intelligence. I agree with this proposed generalization for several reasons.

Maturana and Varela conflate life itself with cognition (to be alive is to 
cognize). Similarly, we can connect the development of life (towards more and 
more complex organisms) with intelligence (if an organism acts meaningfully in 
the world, we say it acts intelligently; meaningfulness has degrees and so has 
intelligence). In that approach intelligence would be the property of an 
organism which gives it a potential to develop increasingly more complex 
informational structures and increasingly more complex (meaningful) responses 
to the environment. One can argue that increasing the repertoire of meaningful 
responses (int

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Stanley N Salthe]

nses.( Of course this measure of intelligence is not
> in the sense of IQ or specific individual's "smartness" but of the species
> increasing capability to flourish.)
>
> This view also agrees with the understanding that even in humans there are
> several different intelligences - linguistic, logical, kinesthetic,
> naturalist, emotional, interpersonal, intrapersonal, spatial, musical, etc.
> If the complexity of the information processing structures and diversity of
> interactions with the environment are the measure, then plants and by the
> same token even single cells may qualify as intelligent in the sense of
> naturalist and kinesthetic intelligence.
>
> In sum, there are different ways to define intelligence and information
> dependent on what we want them to do for us. Concepts are tools used by
> theories. Theories are tools used by people. Many different concepts address
> different aspects of the world and seem to fill their purpose.
> From an info-computational approach we may hope to provide a base for the
> construction of generative explanatory models for the development of
> intelligence by information processing in living organisms.
>
> With best regards,
> Gordana
> http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc
>
>
> PS
> More on Info-Computationalism
> http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/work/publications.html
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es]
> On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
> Sent: den 12 november 2010 13:19
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)
>
> Dear FIS colleagues,
>
> It is quite nice reading along the messages of this new discussion
> session. In particular, Krassimir's posting is very interesting for me
> in two senses. It represents an important research community of
> information scientists/engineering practitioners (strong in Easter
> Europe and other areas) that was not engaged in our list discussions
> yet, specially thinking in the common project envisioned with other
> parties about the International Society for Information Studies. Well,
> the general content of the message (now I cannot go to the many
> interesting details deserving specific comment) has strongly reminded me
> about the theoretical evolution happened in another field: string
> theory. About how a multiplicity of approaches from rather different
> angles has recently coalesced into what is known as
> "M-Theory"---included in the comparison is that M theory predicts the
> possibility of 10 exp 500 different universes... In our common quest for
> foundations of information science, How should we cope with so many
> attempts to develop general information theories? Even more, How should
> we cope with the different "implicit" conceptions of information, well
> established and logically sound within almost each disciplinary body? In
> what extent looks viable a possible "Info M-Theory"? Would it open an
> explosion of 10 exp (?) possible configurations of info realms?
>
> My impression is that the conflation of information with the
> intelligence discussion (while the former can be abstracted almost to
> completion, the latter has to be "situated", "embodied", and in general
> related to self-construction processes) provides ground for better
> formulations of the above rough questions, and maybe a radical new
> response.
>
> best regards
>
> ---Pedro
>
>
> Krassimir Markov escribió:
> > Dear Yi-Xin, Pedro and FIS Coleagues,
> >
> > Thank you for kind invitation. I am very glad to take part in FIS.
> >
> > During the years I have seen a stable interest to the basic problems of
> > informatics. This was the reason to unite more than 2000 scientists all
> > over the world in the ITHEA® International Scientific Society (ITHEA®
> ISS)
> > and for the last ten years to organize more than 60 conferences, to
> > publish two Int. Journals and more than 30 books. The Institute of
> > Information Theories and Applications FOI ITHEA® was established as
> > independent nongovernmental organization to support the collaboration
> > between members of ITHEA® ISS. (pls. see www.ithea.org ). Let finish
> this
> > introductory part with little information about me. My name is Krassimir
> > Markov. I am mathematician with specialization in computer science and I
> > have worked in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics at the
> > Bulgarian Academy of Sciences since 1975.
> >
> > I think, firstly we need to answer to the second question - What is the
> > correct concept of information? --Without proper understanding

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

gt;construction of generative explanatory models for the development of 
>intelligence by information processing in living organisms.

With best regards,
Gordana
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc 


PS
More on Info-Computationalism
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/work/publications.html 





-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan
Sent: den 12 november 2010 13:19
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

Dear FIS colleagues,

It is quite nice reading along the messages of this new discussion 
session. In particular, Krassimir's posting is very interesting for me 
in two senses. It represents an important research community of 
information scientists/engineering practitioners (strong in Easter 
Europe and other areas) that was not engaged in our list discussions 
yet, specially thinking in the common project envisioned with other 
parties about the International Society for Information Studies. Well, 
the general content of the message (now I cannot go to the many 
interesting details deserving specific comment) has strongly reminded me 
about the theoretical evolution happened in another field: string 
theory. About how a multiplicity of approaches from rather different 
angles has recently coalesced into what is known as 
"M-Theory"---included in the comparison is that M theory predicts the 
possibility of 10 exp 500 different universes... In our common quest for 
foundations of information science, How should we cope with so many 
attempts to develop general information theories? Even more, How should 
we cope with the different "implicit" conceptions of information, well 
established and logically sound within almost each disciplinary body? In 
what extent looks viable a possible "Info M-Theory"? Would it open an 
explosion of 10 exp (?) possible configurations of info realms?

My impression is that the conflation of information with the 
intelligence discussion (while the former can be abstracted almost to 
completion, the latter has to be "situated", "embodied", and in general 
related to self-construction processes) provides ground for better 
formulations of the above rough questions, and maybe a radical new response.

best regards

---Pedro


Krassimir Markov escribió:
> Dear Yi-Xin, Pedro and FIS Coleagues,
>
> Thank you for kind invitation. I am very glad to take part in FIS.
>
> During the years I have seen a stable interest to the basic problems of
> informatics. This was the reason to unite more than 2000 scientists all
> over the world in the ITHEA® International Scientific Society (ITHEA® ISS)
> and for the last ten years to organize more than 60 conferences, to
> publish two Int. Journals and more than 30 books. The Institute of
> Information Theories and Applications FOI ITHEA® was established as
> independent nongovernmental organization to support the collaboration
> between members of ITHEA® ISS. (pls. see www.ithea.org ). Let finish this
> introductory part with little information about me. My name is Krassimir
> Markov. I am mathematician with specialization in computer science and I
> have worked in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics at the
> Bulgarian Academy of Sciences since 1975.
>
> I think, firstly we need to answer to the second question - What is the
> correct concept of information? --Without proper understanding of
> information, the definition of concept "intelligence" as well as all the
> answers of the rest questions will be intuitive and not clear.
>
> There exist several common theoretical information paradigms in the
> Information Science. May be, the most popular is the approach based on the
> generalization of the Shannon's Information Theory [Shannon, 1949], [Lu,
> 1999]. Another approach is the attempt to synthesize the existing
> mathematical theories in a common structure, which is applicable for
> explanation of the information phenomena [Cooman et al, 1995].
>
> 
>
> At the end, there exist some works that claim for theoretical generality
> and aspire to be a new approach in the Information Science, but theirs
> authors should clear up what they really talk about [Burgin, 1997].
>
>   
--
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



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

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS colleagues,

It is quite nice reading along the messages of this new discussion 
session. In particular, Krassimir's posting is very interesting for me 
in two senses. It represents an important research community of 
information scientists/engineering practitioners (strong in Easter 
Europe and other areas) that was not engaged in our list discussions 
yet, specially thinking in the common project envisioned with other 
parties about the International Society for Information Studies. Well, 
the general content of the message (now I cannot go to the many 
interesting details deserving specific comment) has strongly reminded me 
about the theoretical evolution happened in another field: string 
theory. About how a multiplicity of approaches from rather different 
angles has recently coalesced into what is known as 
"M-Theory"---included in the comparison is that M theory predicts the 
possibility of 10 exp 500 different universes... In our common quest for 
foundations of information science, How should we cope with so many 
attempts to develop general information theories? Even more, How should 
we cope with the different "implicit" conceptions of information, well 
established and logically sound within almost each disciplinary body? In 
what extent looks viable a possible "Info M-Theory"? Would it open an 
explosion of 10 exp (?) possible configurations of info realms?

My impression is that the conflation of information with the 
intelligence discussion (while the former can be abstracted almost to 
completion, the latter has to be "situated", "embodied", and in general 
related to self-construction processes) provides ground for better 
formulations of the above rough questions, and maybe a radical new response.

best regards

---Pedro


Krassimir Markov escribió:
> Dear Yi-Xin, Pedro and FIS Coleagues,
>
> Thank you for kind invitation. I am very glad to take part in FIS.
>
> During the years I have seen a stable interest to the basic problems of
> informatics. This was the reason to unite more than 2000 scientists all
> over the world in the ITHEA® International Scientific Society (ITHEA® ISS)
> and for the last ten years to organize more than 60 conferences, to
> publish two Int. Journals and more than 30 books. The Institute of
> Information Theories and Applications FOI ITHEA® was established as
> independent nongovernmental organization to support the collaboration
> between members of ITHEA® ISS. (pls. see www.ithea.org ). Let finish this
> introductory part with little information about me. My name is Krassimir
> Markov. I am mathematician with specialization in computer science and I
> have worked in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics at the
> Bulgarian Academy of Sciences since 1975.
>
> I think, firstly we need to answer to the second question - What is the
> correct concept of information? --Without proper understanding of
> information, the definition of concept "intelligence" as well as all the
> answers of the rest questions will be intuitive and not clear.
>
> There exist several common theoretical information paradigms in the
> Information Science. May be, the most popular is the approach based on the
> generalization of the Shannon's Information Theory [Shannon, 1949], [Lu,
> 1999]. Another approach is the attempt to synthesize the existing
> mathematical theories in a common structure, which is applicable for
> explanation of the information phenomena [Cooman et al, 1995].
>
> 
>
> At the end, there exist some works that claim for theoretical generality
> and aspire to be a new approach in the Information Science, but theirs
> authors should clear up what they really talk about [Burgin, 1997].
>
>   
--
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Yi-Xin, Pedro and FIS Coleagues,

Thank you for kind invitation. I am very glad to take part in FIS.

During the years I have seen a stable interest to the basic problems of
informatics. This was the reason to unite more than 2000 scientists all
over the world in the ITHEA® International Scientific Society (ITHEA® ISS)
and for the last ten years to organize more than 60 conferences, to
publish two Int. Journals and more than 30 books. The Institute of
Information Theories and Applications FOI ITHEA® was established as
independent nongovernmental organization to support the collaboration
between members of ITHEA® ISS. (pls. see www.ithea.org ). Let finish this
introductory part with little information about me. My name is Krassimir
Markov. I am mathematician with specialization in computer science and I
have worked in the Institute of Mathematics and Informatics at the
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences since 1975.

I think, firstly we need to answer to the second question - What is the
correct concept of information? –Without proper understanding of
information, the definition of concept “intelligence” as well as all the
answers of the rest questions will be intuitive and not clear.

There exist several common theoretical information paradigms in the
Information Science. May be, the most popular is the approach based on the
generalization of the Shannon's Information Theory [Shannon, 1949], [Lu,
1999]. Another approach is the attempt to synthesize the existing
mathematical theories in a common structure, which is applicable for
explanation of the information phenomena [Cooman et al, 1995].

Besides of this, we need to point the diligence of the many researchers to
give formal or not formal definitions of the concept "information".
Unfortunately, although they are quite attractive in some cases, these
definitions did not bring to any serious theoretical results [Abdeev,
1994], [Bangov, 1995], [Tomov, 1991], [Elstner, 1993].

At the end, there exist some works that claim for theoretical generality
and aspire to be a new approach in the Information Science, but theirs
authors should clear up what they really talk about [Burgin, 1997].

The theoretical base of the informatics needs the philosophical support
and substantiation to become wide accepted scientific paradigm. This way,
the scientific research in the domain of informatics would be able to leap
across its boundaries and to become as elements of the scientific view of
life.

Discovering the common philosophical paradigm has exceptional importance
[Popper, 1968].

Let call it “General Information Theory” (GIT).

Starting point need to be the consideration that the General Information
Theory (GIT) needs to be established as internal non-contradictory system
of contentions [Markov et al, 1993].  Basic requirement is that the GIT
needs to explain the already created particular information theories and
paradigms.

The mathematical structures ought to serve as a tool for achievement the
precise clearness of the philosophical formulations and establishing the
common language for describing and interpreting the information phenomena
and processes.

The second very important requirement is to build the GIT on the base of
the inceptive philosophical definition of the concept "information" using
as less as possible the primary undefined concepts with maximal degree of
philosophical generalization. This requirement follows the consideration
that the concept "information" is not mathematical concept. The behavior,
peculiarity and so on could be described by the mathematical structures
but this is another problem. In this case, the accent is stressed on the
comprehension that the information has purely material determination and
that it is a consequence of the interaction between the material objects
as well as of the real processes and phenomena occurred in them and with
them.

We had started developing the GIT in the period 1977-1980. The first
publication, which represents some elements of GIT, was [Markov, 1984].
The establishment of GIT was not rectilinear. Occasionally, the influences
of other paradigms have disturbed this process and have turned it to the
vain effort (se for example [Burgin, Markov, 1991]).

The fundamental notion of the GIT is the concept "Information". All other
concepts are defined based on this definition. In 1988, the not formal
definition of the concept of Information was published in [Markov, 1988].
It became as a fundamental definition for the GIT [Markov et al, 1993],
[Markov et al, 2003a], [Markov et al, 2007]. The translation of the
philosophical theory into the formal one seems a good approach for
verification of the ideas. Because of this, we try to present the basic
concepts of the General Information Theory not only philosophically but
formally, too [Markov et al, 2003b], [Markov et al, 2004].

GIT is built by three specialized theories:
- Theory of Information,
- Theory of Infos,
- Theory of Inforaction.

The first theory is j

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Yixin and FIS colleagues,
(at fis discussions the costume is to use first names!)

Many thanks for your scholarly text. At first glance one can think that 
you have multiplied the problems: we barely cope with the information 
science discussion and now you ask us adding the scientific 
constructions around another "unfathomable" term, intelligence. By the 
way, it is interesting that in the origins of both terms for the Western 
world (in Latin), there is a confluence in the same person: both were 
coined by Cicero (Marcus Tullius, 1st century BC). So here we are, 
following his very footsteps!

"Since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and 
formulates them in our minds, honorable actions are ascribed by us to 
virtue, and dishonorable actions to vice; and only a madman would 
conclude that these judgments are matters of opinion, and not fixed by 
nature."

The connection with nature is an essential point in the intelligence 
discussion. I do not quite agree with the conventional sense of the term 
"natural intelligence" as applied mainly to human thinking, as this 
creates a barrier to properly ascertaining both the nature of 
intelligence and intelligence in nature. On a personal basis, this very 
topic (natural intelligence) is very dear to me: it became in early 80's 
my leitmotiv to abandon professional engineering work and start a 
scientific research confronting the arch-dominance of artificial 
intelligence views. After the inevitable upheavals when you do not 
conform to the rule, in 1989 I could present a PhD thesis entitled 
"Natural Intelligence: on the Evolution of Biological Information 
Processing" (in Spanish). To make a long story short, there appear 
fascinating aspects when discussing the fundamentals of intelligence not 
in machines or in people, but in living cells (and in primitive nervous 
systems), with remarkable differences between the prokaryote and the 
eukaryote ways of "intelligently" staying in the world. Advanced nervous 
systems will come later on... and human social institutions become not 
too far from the scope of this enlarged conception of intelligence.

I do not want to produce a longish message, so let me conclude this 
first approximation to Yixin's text by fully endorsing his views, and 
particularly his proposal on the fundamental axis 
information-knowledge-intelligence, of course with quite many details 
and nuances to introduce along the future exchanges. I am not sure about 
the philosophical easiness of the discussion, but scientifically this 
means a more coherent and more interconnected pathway: paradoxically, a 
simplifying complexification. In next messages I will try to contribute 
to the discussion with ideas from the cellular realm, and from the 
perspective of nervous system evolution.

all the best

Pedro

PS.  Let me welcome to our list and to the current discussion-session to 
prof. Krassimir Markov from the ITHEA Institute (International Journal & 
International Society). This important scientific-technological 
initiative is centered around "INFORMATION THEORIES AND APPLICATIONS". 
See their web at:  http://www.foibg.com/   You are welcome, Krassimir!

-- 
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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

Re: [Fis] INTELLIGENCE & INFORMATION (by Y.X.Zhong)

[Raquel del Moral]

Dear Prof. Zhong,

Many thanks for your opening text. In fact, we have been recently
working in cooperation with other groups about the problem of
abstracting computationally the "intelligence" of the "minimal
eukaryotic cell" and we have found ourselves discussing very similar
aspects to the questions you ask in your exciting message. What is the
correct concept of intelligence? Can we apply it to the living cell? If
so, what functions of the cell are supporting the intelligence of the
system? In previous discussions in this list we have heard several
parties who have directly or indirectly supported the idea of cellular
intelligence (conspicuously Kevin Clark and Pedro: we do not quite
agree with them!). 

Jorge and me believe that it is very important extending the
intelligence concept correctly into the cellular realm, where we can
pinpoint most of the molecular mechanism involved in
information-knowledge-intelligence conversion. It could change the
panorama of these studies and particularly the relationship between
natural intelligence and artificial intelligence...


Raquel & Jorge
-- 



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