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 our right hand side will be these three plus the plain old logical (also read: ordinary AI) frameworks. On the left will be something new, but not unexpected, since first (to my knowledge) explicitly being proposed by von Neumann. These cover something like reasoning "inside" the system; what do molecules "think" when they collaboratively build systemic contexts? The question here is also not a quest for the one-true-vision-of-god, but a set of functors, monads, arrows that support what we know of the left hand side phenomenon. It is still science, after all. We've learned quite a bit about this so far, especially about causal connectives, but have much yet to learn. So, when such a man as Yi Xin, proposes we add intelligence to our considerations of information, it made great sense to me. Information fits well on the right hand side, and our collected FIS experts have the various threads well in hand. FIS expertise is a leverageable treasure. But "intelligence" of the kind we normally associate with humans and autonomic, autopoeitic living systems is definitely a left hand side, soft, second sort of problem. As my colleagues, including Beth say, we need to look at art as one doorway into this mystery. I know Beth will comment more on this after certain near term demands on her time relax. Again, I thank Yi Xin for the suggested expansion of our scope, and the inclusion of art (and story) from Zhao. --Ted _____ Ted Goranson tedgoran...@mac.com http://www.sirius-beta.com _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
