[Fis] Defining Wisdom . . . (?!)

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear All,

First, I do not support trying to resolve issues of ‘wisdom’ here as I am
firmly in Eric’s camp as this involves too much ambiguity. That said . . .

On Yixin and Eric's notion of framing wisdom (various October posts, I
paraphrase) as ‘the ability to define the problem’ — actually, I think this
more often involves empiric trial-and-error in BUILDING intelligence and
wisdom. I see it as something that grows with experience, where each
trial/failure leads to new insights, perspectives, hypotheses, etc.,
guiding later attempts (and wisdom building). Okay, so maybe this is all
PART of defining the problem? But even before ‘defining the problem’ the
perspective one brings to the problem, anticipates/drives/limits us to a
‘type of answer’. Hence, one’s *learning* perspective seems more tied to
wisdom — namely, psychological plasticity as adaptive capacity.

The best tool I have seen for mapping one’s perspective/wisdom (re how one
defines problems) is the Hall-Tonna values inventory. Scott Bristol, my
former faculty mentor/supervisor when I was on staff at Stanford Graduate
School of Business, offers a rather useful version:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ljmap.com/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!W9OMYzK1nBlLyjKJHD83U6DXgpAUa3GnEnJo0874mydS2dO9ghEylzNmmmwz_9TZl3HoeP4VpyePfmRa$ 
My use of this tool helped me map and grasp my own psychological
plasticity. I suggest to Pedro, if FIS wishes to purposefully explore
wisdom, you may want to consider Scott for a New Years FIS presentation. He
is extraordinarily well-read and thoughtful.

Beyond this, Eric’s notion (27 Oct post) of Meta-AI as artificial wisdom
where
> Such a system poses questions, creates new problems that it then solves .
. . could rapidly explore different combinations of explicit and implicit
theoretical assumptions. Leading to new theories about nature and the
world.<
I see this as Natural Informatics or ‘thinking like Nature’. This
usefully takes
us beyond a purely anthropic vista . . . but then an anthropic aspect must
still be included. For example, thinking PURELY like Nature does not get
one to a Boeing 747 and the like. This requires applying Nature’s Rules
(Natural Wisdom?) in human-like (imaginative) ways that extend/build-on
Natural roles.

This seems to initially tie to Pedro’s 3 Nov note
> personally I have emphasized the need to connect with "natural
intelligence" --the origin of all intelligence <

But all said, I think considerable base ‘informatic issues’ must first be
covered before we can reasonably think of such a future.

Lastly, I see Mark’s 31 Oct note
> But there is a lot that stops us making connections between deep
practice, thought and judgement. . . If there is a paradigm shift that is
required, it is an epistemological shift that is in this space.<
This strikes me as the most wise thing said on wisdom in the present exchang
ed posts.
Alternatively, one might detail ‘types of wisdom’ to clarify what exactly
is being discussed . . . as with a PRECISE paradigm discussion – where I
earlier attempted to suggest a starting point, based on base empiricism.


P.S. Eric – I still hope to receive a specific reply to my 24 Oct post . .
. I am genuinely curious about your 1991 work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231105/061833f2/attachment.html>