[Fis] AI Discussion--Part 1 (by Yixin Zhong)

Wed Oct 18 04:28:26 CEST 2023

Dear Marcus,

I am interestingly reading your comments on "Paradigm Change in AI". Many thanks for your concern and for your comments. Unfortunately, the website you provided cannot be accessible.

There are many topics for discussion and the comments on all the topics are valuable, I believe.

Anyway, the most meaningful points that are worth of discussing consist the followings. 
(1) What is the proper definition for paradigm in the context of Kuhn's "scientific revolution"? 
(2) Do you think the current paradigm in current AI problematic?
(3) More specifically, do you think the principle of "divede and conquer" unsuitable for AI research?
(4) Do you think the principle of "pure folmaism" sufficient for AI research?

My understandings on the four points above have been presented in the "Declaration" and "The Notes". Comments and criticism are mostly welcome.

Best regards,

Prof. Yixin ZHONG
AI School, BUPT
Beijing 100876, China

------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "MarcusAbundis"<55mrcs at gmail.com>;
Date:  Tue, Oct 17, 2023 07:39 PM
To:  "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es>; "钟义信"<zyx at bupt.edu.cn>; 

Subject:  Re: [Fis] AI Discussion--Part 1 (by Yixin Zhong)

Dear Zhong,

In reading 1.1 of your S&T manifesto I recall a quote from Aristotle: 

'Man is the metre of all things, the hand is the instrument of instruments, and the mind is the form of forms.”

– AND there is this interesting note on music you might appreciate:

‘The history of the study of the human hand is permeated by a sense of awe. Described by Aristotle as the “instrument of instruments”, the hand was seen as the unique tool of the intellect and as the bodily organ that best denoted the distinction of humans from “brutes”. Not only was it wondrously engineered, but it also served as a subtle register of emotion, as a device for computation, as a formal means of communication in rhetoric and sign language, and as a prime visual site for the exercise of the 'art of memory'. In this last capacity, it performed a particularly notable role in music.’

> from Kemp, M. Science in culture. Nature 409, 666 (2001). https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1038/35055614__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WfAFgOjZ99i5Hg29BO0nfvN2hiV5x0JJWD_mqvbsgAqtauDNzKxNGg0Pv01sxkMFdClsR9EL86RxXYoM$ 

– Discussion on issues/demands/advances around 'the hand' actually to date to the pre-Socratic Anaxagoras (at least). That said, claiming 'Neither science nor technology existed in the early primitive time' seems a bit odd and to refer to 'The Secret . . .of S&T' ´– this does not seem entirely correct. Existential empiricism seems to be the true root of all science, and surely there was eary empirical fire building, hunting, cave painting, hand axes, stone chipping in our ancestors. EACH of these roles, still TODAY, require some high level of empirical skill, so how does one differentiate this from other tools, science, and related processes? For myself, to build fire from rubbing two sticks together is an exhausting task, and trying to chip a stone/obsidian arrow or spear head is a skill I cannot even begin to exhibit . . . although my cave paintings are quite good.

I think it is better to refer to the Upper Paleolithic Revolution as a better starting point, with science merely one area of many likely cultural advances. I discuss this matter of hands in the advance of intelligence in my video on Super-Intelligence (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11oFq6g3Njs&t=3s__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WfAFgOjZ99i5Hg29BO0nfvN2hiV5x0JJWD_mqvbsgAqtauDNzKxNGg0Pv01sxkMFdClsR9EL8xvKOU9u$ ) starting at minute 4– which you may find interesting. 

I will comment on other parts as I have time. I hope you understand we BOTH argue for such a paradigm shift, but our approaches differ.

Sincerely,

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231018/7ddb2708/attachment-0001.html>