Dear FISers,
Herewith I respond to late messages from several colleagues. I think they are
pretty much interrelated.
First, from Chuan and Yixin, about the scope of intelligence science. In my
view, the evolutionary dimension has been missing. No other kind of
intelligence has existed until recent decades in this planet except that one
existing in living beings--humans and many other animals. Cells themselves
manifest intelligence, as I have argued several times in this list. All kinds
of natural intelligence are finally due to the coupling between nucleic acids
and their protein transcripts. Then the essential “goal” becomes evident, as
the maintenance and reproduction of the living organism. Failure to achieve
that, particularly in front of another intelligence striving for its own goal
�Cagainst the former subject- means but natural selection in action:
disappearance of the subject. Intelligence derives from life and has to be
checked by how it subserves life’s goals. Otherwise we leave “empty”, baseless,
that very important goal aspect.
Our own intelligence, answering Joseph, often evaluates situations, problems,
relationships, etc. by the concurrent action of two systems (echoing Daniel
Kahneman): system 1, fast and dirty, highly emotionally laden, and system 2,
slow and reflective, implying the most rational capabilities. The former is
closer to our deeper personal goals as living entities, a faithful transmitter
of what we need inside, and the second acts as a sort of high-level,
discursive, logic intelligence. It is not easy integrating them plainly, but
Poetry, I think, uses both in the most cohesive way, taking the best of both
worlds �Csee the poems we have posted these days, and personally I find
Machado’s poem rather astonishing vitally and rationally.
Then, Josh's views about the information paradox, are not easy to confront. On
the one side, I understand that he equates (or at least compares) it to the
paradox of simultaneity between distinctive events and their interrelationhips
in mechanics. Koichiro Matsuno has posted about that paradox in this list, so I
refrain to comment. But on the other side, when the paradox is essentially
considered as addressed to significance in the organisms sense, I fail to fully
grasp it. Maybe it is because I see that very information paradox (beautiful
term!) as that which occurs between self-production and communication with the
environment by the agent. I have written recently about the “intertwining” of
both aspects, but I understand that Josh’s paradox only implies the
communication aspect. If it is so, we are left in the first paragraph’s absence
again, missing the essential goal of the informational, intelligent agent―its
own life-cycle maintenance, the self-production dimension… was I wrong in my
understanding?
Greetings to Roulette, Dino, Dai, and other new colleagues in this nice
discussion.
Regards to all―Pedro
________________________________
De: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de 赵川 [zh...@cdut.edu.cn]
Enviado el: viernes, 27 de marzo de 2015 15:10
Para: Roulette Wm. Smith, Ph.D.; Rafael Capurro; Joseph Brenner
Cc: FIS论坛
Asunto: [Fis] Chuan's reply11 - THE FRONTIERS OF INTELLIGENCE SCIENCE - unless
reaches
Dear Roulette Wm. Smith , dear Joseph, Rafael, Pedro, and ALL,
After this week’s work I can have enough time to write one mail now.
Dear Roulette, thanks for you mail with blessing and so many
suggestions: common sense & aberrant common sense; critical thinking and
intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and languages, Subjunctive, biological
issues, Kantian notions of the a priori and a posteriori, Lem's perspectives,
and Ethnomethodologies. Yes, the pearls, the cut surfaces of diamond! I enjoy
you said “critical thinking and intelligence(s) in worldwide cultures and
languages”. Parallel with “Subjunctive”your mentioned, we are study Symmetry
phenomena in Chinese that abstract a common issue as Symmetry of Language.
Rafael’s comment: Dr. Sukriti Ghosal: The Language of 'Gitanjali': the
Paradoxical Matrix (in: The Criterion, 2012)
http://www.the-criterion.com/V3/n2/Sukriti.pdf” that is fine. And let me
connected it with our Symmetry of language study and gain more inspirations.
Yes, worldwide culture, now it is echoes in Indian. As another example to such
paradox here is a lines from Buddha:
it is impossible to reach
but it is impossible to escape suffering
unless one reaches
--- from Buddha Mihir Chakraborty for Peom-Island Morning Chant2014
I am an adviser of a poetry association of students in our university,
I organized a Poem-island Morning Chant three years ago, and yesterday I open
it of 2015, spring team. This is the words of encourage from an India Prof.
Mihir Chakraborty sent for such an events. We consisted 90days last spring
team. Read Chinese ancient style poem, modern poems and English poems. Really
has a Poem-Island in our campus.
Buddha’s paradox words are so powerful and really wisdom. Yes,
Symmetry phenomena in Chinese and Gitanjali’s paradox Matrix are similar
parallel manners of thinking and language. This is the point I should special
explain soon. Thanks for Rafael’s comment, just put together is precious, we
should let some link together. Know you see: so many information/consciousness
streams are interweaving �C forming worldwide new culture.
More later.
best wishes, good weekend,
Chuan
March 27, 2015
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
