[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear All,



Intelligence is a wide subject and there are many opinions on it. Eric
gives a brilliant overview of areas and aspects of intelligence. We should
clarify, following Pedro’s question: *is there an inanimate form of
intelligence?, *which of the many layers of the mental construct
‘intelligence’ we talk about, and to what ends.

Eric does not distinguish between mechanical problem solving (finding out
one specific among many alternatives) and that what comes after *cogito
ergo sum. *The self-referential application of intelligence on the system
that does problem-solving intelligently is where a boundary between Genius
(Eric’s term) and a finite automaton can be drawn.

At our present stage of insight and knowledge, it appears more prudent to
concentrate on the lower parts of the continuum. This approach leads us to
the lower boundary, separating ‘regulation, cybernetic decision making’ to
the ‘ability to remember and to learn’.



Answering Pedro’s question about the inanimate forms of interregulation by
feedback loops uncovers the fundamental paradigm that needs to be changed.
We have learnt at Programming 101 to see a thermostat as the simplest
decision-making unit. *Temp < thresholdlow: switch on, temp > thresholdup:
switch off. *The general idea is to trisect a continuum and apply
consequences to the perceived position on the continuum.



The paradigm question is: where do you get any *thresholds *using the
Wittgenstein-type rational logic, since it is based solely on *N*? The
Sumerian concept, which was formalized by Wittgenstein and refined by
Shannon, does not allow for any irregularities or additional amounts for
any of its basic elements. Using a counting system with *a = 1 + 1 + 1+…+1*
where the *number of how many times 1 *is the definition of a symbol is not
suitable by its grammatical rules to generate thresholds. One has to get
planar and use trigonometry to establish e.g. *sin(x) *to encounter
thresholds, albeit these also come up with a regularity which gives no rise
to any situation of dramatic change in whatever properties we talk about.
The Sumerian system of symbols is incapable of generating explosions,
discharges, breaks, collapses and the like, because the elements of the
symbols set remain standardized. There is no bias that could add up, in the
Sumerian system. The words of the Wittgenstein language suggest that the
elements are ordered among each other, and no cracks or contradictions
exist within that part of the picture about which we make sentences that
are interpersonally understandable. The basic, cultural consensus of the
presently valid systems of thought is, that the picture of the world is
built up of symbols that fit seamlessly and are exactly so as one has
defined them and no discussion about it. There is 1 set of definitions and
1 number line of which the unit is 1. Observations cannot be otherwise than
expectations.

This is what needs to be changed. The paradigm shift shows us the world
which can be seen by two glasses of a stereoscopic eyepiece. So far, we
have used he right way of looking at things, where everything is built of
identical units and the units have no other properties than being of the
extent 1. In this view, everything is as expected.

Now we learn to look through the left eyeglass.

   1. If you take a collection of symbols which each are made up of 2
   natural numbers, then
   2. You have cohorts, in dependence of how many variants of *a,b *you
   use, and
   3. For deeper reasons [1] you play with a cohort of *136 *individuals
   which are each a pair of *(a,b), *namely
   *{(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),…,(15,16),(16,16)}*, then you have *Cohort 16*
   .;
   4. This etalon collection C16 can be described by establishing the
   individuals’ linear place in any of the sorting orders you subject the
   collection to;
   5. You will find characteristic names for the individuals, which names
   are as good an identification as naming them by their identifiers *(a,b),
   *namely e.g. *{(stands near the middle in [**αβ]), (is way off in [**γδ]),
   (at two-thirds in [**κλ]), etc.}. *
   6. The identification by association is an alternative to counting so
   many 1-s on *N* that identify the individual in a defined linear order.
   The identification by *N* degenerates into a special case of
   identification by sorting, but without referring to its neighbors.

Using both looking glasses in stereo, one will find areas and
circumstances, where the inner relations among the members of a cohesive
whole are worthy of consideration. Group sociometry, palace intrigues,
economic modeling, and apparently also the mechanism governing the
memory *plusque
*genetic, all these methods use symbols sets that are doubly indexed: a.
according to place in Newton sense and b: place according to properties
differentiating the elements against other elements, individuals among
their peers.

In the case that the *three-way interdependence diverse-similar-numbering* is
at its mathematically possible limits, the ideal, maximally cohesive cum
diverse arrangement of symbols on the etalon collection shows *32, 97 *to
be thresholds that trisect the continuum, here in the form of the number
line. Outside the thresholds *32, 97 *the collection can be more similar
than diverse; inside the range, the collection can be in more diverse
states than it can be similar within itself. (Matter spills out.)



Intelligence is an activity that is observed on organisms with a
functioning neural system. The neural system must work in accordance with,
as a daughter of, the rules governing Physics, Chemistry, Physiology.
Problem solving must have antecedents in the inanimate world. To have the
formalized case of problems, one needs to have distinction markers on
something that can change. No thresholds, no problems. Thresholds are
existentially necessary to anything out of which intelligence and genius
can evolve.

Thresholds are impossible to find within the Sumerian system. There needs
to be an independent, but interacting way of counting which allows for
thresholds to appear.

When we consider the members of a group, the individuals carry and possess
their individuating marks (most of the time invisibly to us), showing how
they relate as neighbors to whom during reorders. “Example: X is good as
{engineer, cook, cartographer,…} but is risky because {no team leader, bad
husband, can’t economize,…}.” The fit to one’s place is determined by
several concurring factors, that have to do with one’s likeness to the most
average of the elements in that comparison.

The conflicting assignments of linear, planar or spatial attributes to an
element that is a member of a cohesive group creates thresholds, levels,
units of level change.

AI needs something to ponder about. Why not give it the task of tabulating
instances of *(a,b) *that can coexist during reorders? There are very many
details that AM (artificial memory) can remember and typify. Creating a
generic lexicon organically, starting with *(a,b)*, should be no greater a
challenge than to write an automaton that can play Chess or Go. Bundling
cycles of the etalon collection that can go together, one could start a
work comparable to a dictionary of basic fuseki (where the joseki are given
by the factual bundles of potentially coexisting cycles). Such a Lexicon of
All Possible Occurrences would be intimately cross-referenced and would
include all possible words a finite automaton can dream up. (Therefore, all
sentences the automaton can say.)

In short: use the cycles’ properties to establish a counting system, that
admittedly works only within groups the members of which are consistent
with each other (have a liaison running among its members), but generates
an untold number of alternatives, continuities and limits, thresholds and
ranges.

It is not a big deal. You ask your student and within a week you have a
functioning tautomat. Then you know how to shift a paradigm.



All the best:

Karl

*[1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oeis.org/A242615__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WbIVI1muA-bUi2sgH-PQNJNVsNmMPNuD5KYiu88Bg8L3Hd7QUTl_gEoOmXRB7r5JyhkrMfVIXVDAv4subhcsC8gXSf4$  <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oeis.org/A242615__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WbIVI1muA-bUi2sgH-PQNJNVsNmMPNuD5KYiu88Bg8L3Hd7QUTl_gEoOmXRB7r5JyhkrMfVIXVDAv4subhcsC8gXSf4$ >*



Am Do., 19. Okt. 2023 um 20:52 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <
pedroc.marijuan en gmail.com>:

> Dear All,
>
> As the themes fly so fast, I have mixed some of the ideas previously
> circulated
>
> When Krassimir was asking about definitions of intelligence, responded by
> several parties (Karl, Yixin, Eric, Marcus...), I was reminded of a curious
> fact. Nobody would dare speak about intelligence in the "inanimate" world.
> Undoubtedly intelligence appears with life, with the biologic system. Given
> that life is hardly definable, no wonder that intelligence, one of its
> essential characteristics neither is. Of course, we can produce many
> empirical notions approaching it... Nevertheless, where exactly can be
> situated the emergence of intelligence in the biologic?
>
> A very recent contribution letter in Nature was claiming with good and
> brief arguments that sentience and cognition are absolutely related to the
> living cell, even the simplest ones (our occasional FIS colleague Bill
> Miller was one of the signatories--in Vol 620, p. 37, 3 August 2023). In a
> similar direction I also very recently have published a contribution in
> BioSystems journal (with Jorge Navarro --233, 2023, 105039) attempting the
> intellective link from cells to nervous systems and the human case,
> connecting with AI. In human intelligence, the extraordinary role played by
> social emotions, we argue, should be put in a new light (remember Kahneman
> about S1 and S2 utterly different human responses to novelty), at least if
> we want to contribute somehow to a better understanding of today's mounting
> techno-troubles. Let me state that referring to human intentions, purposes,
> values, etc., they do not quite make a cogent sense except properly
> connected with the reality of our life courses or "cycles"... In fact,
> these connections are frequently established in a biased and tricky way by
> most commercial AI systems. But there are positive hints there (see the
> field of "sentiment analysis"), for the hope is that AI might open new
> windows to the rather limited understanding of our whole intellection
> (intelligence/emotions), and even evolve towards a new understanding of AI
> itself, more properly intertwined with the extended realms of, say, natural
> intelligence.
>
> It is in the above sense that I welcome the call to a new paradigm, etc.,
> as a possibility to provoke new discussions. Although I disagree with the
> scientific-philosophical validity of the term, and with some of the gross
> simplifications about the characterization of physical paradigm. (Some of
> the most magnificent syntheses of human history precisely were there: what
> was the Newtonian theory but a fantastic synthesis of the celestial motions
> and all the diverse motions on Earth? An amazing, epochal integration). I
> also fail to make sense of "wisdom"-- does it abide in common folks, in
> social networks, in "experts", in committees, in governments, in entire
> societies or cultures, in our civilization? Is it just a vague idealization
> out from common sense? In any event, wisdom seems to be the most scarce,
> depleted public resource today. In particular, I think a well-arranged AI
> system for medical diagnosis could be far more reliable and wiser than a
> facultative of primary care or a specialist (I mean, becoming a great
> helping hand for the troubled practitioners of our overwhelmed public
> health systems). And thinking more in general, these days I was trying to
> compile a list of our common intellectual limitations (maybe I will send
> them to the list for advise later on), in this respect the mirror that AI
> could offer on us could be scary...
>
> To conclude, it looks as if a good rhetoric instrumentation has been
> deployed by the presenters (thanks!), which is important and interesting at
> the time being to promote a general debate on the AI complex and somehow
> risky enterprise, but in my opinion with some gaps yet. I will try to
> advance more precisions in later exchanges.
>
> Best regards,
> --Pedro
>
> El 19/10/2023 a las 11:55, Eric Werner escribió:
>
> Dear Yixin,
>
> Can you be more specific what you mean by "change the paradigm used in
> AI".  It might help to give a specific example.
>
> *At present AI systems certainly behave as if they are goal directed.
>
> *AI systems appear to have wisdom in that they can propose wise courses of
> action
>
> * What do you mean by "pure formalism"?  It seems one of the powers of
> formalism is to understand AI and human intelligence.
>
> * It seems AI systems exhibit human-like wisdom when they offer advice or
> guide the actions of a virtual assistant or self driving car. The react
> based on the circumstances and goals of the other, at leas to an extent.
>
> * Why can't a machine understand human goals and purposes if it gains a
> model of those from human data?
>
> * Why can't an AI system have intentions?
>
> My overall problem is understanding your specific criticism of the present
> AI paradigm? This notion seems to me to need clearer definition.
>
> How would you overcome the present AI paradigm and what specifically is
> different when you want to "change the paradigm used in AI"???
>
> This is not a criticism it is a real question in trying to understand
> you.  At present I just don't see the difference between the present AI
> paradigm and your new AI paradigm.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> On 10/19/23 8:48 AM, 钟义信 wrote:
>
> Dear Krassimir, Dear Eric, and Dear Colleagues,
>
> The discussion is going on well thanks to all your efforts.
>
> Here is a few points I would like to mention (or re-mention).
>
> (1) The purpose of the "declaration on Paradigm Change in AI" is to make
> an appeal for *change the paradigm used in AI.*
>
> (2) There may have different understanding on the concept of paradigm.
> However, *the concept of paradigm for a scientific discipline has been
> re-defined as the scientific world view and the associated methodology* because
> the scientific worldview and its methodology as a whole is the only factor
> that can determine whether a scientific discipline needs a "revolution"
> (Kuhn's language).
>
> (3) The major result of "paradigm change in AI" is *to change the
> methodology used in AI, including the principles of "pure formalism" and
> "divide and conquer"*.  This is because of the fact that *the former
> principle leads to the ignoring the meaning and value and thus leads to the
> loss of understanding ability and explaining ability* while *the latter
> one leads to the loss of the general theory for AI*. Note that "no
> explaining ability" and "no general theory" are the most typical and also
> most concerned problems for current AI.
>
> (4) There is *difference between human intelligence and human wisdom*.
> One of the functions of human wisdom is to find the to-be-solved problem
> which must be meaningful for human purpose of improving the living and
> developing. Yet, the function of human intelligence is to solve the problem
> defined by human wisdom.
>
> (5) Human intelligence can be simulated by machine. But human wisdom
> cannot be simulated by machine because machine is non-living beings that
> has no its own purpose and cannot understand human purpose. No purpose
> means no wisdom.
>
> I wonder if you agree or not. Comments are welcome!
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Prof. Yixin ZHONG
> AI School, BUPT
> Beijing 100876, China
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------ Original ------------------
> *From: * "Krassimir Markov"<itheaiss en gmail.com> <itheaiss en gmail.com>;
> *Date: * Thu, Oct 19, 2023 03:32 AM
> *To: * "fis"<fis en listas.unizar.es> <fis en listas.unizar.es>;
> *Subject: * Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12
>
> Dear Yixin, Eric and FIS colleagues,
> Let me present some thoughts about
>
> *The “Intelligence” Paradigm*
>
> For those who are not familiar with the concepts of "paradigm" and
> "paradigm shift", I would recommend texts from Wikipedia that explain it
> clearly enough.
>
> I myself maintain a neutral position in the dispute between Popper and
> Kuhn regarding the development of science. Both theses have their grounds,
> but at different levels and stages. In fact, in this case, the law of
> quantitative accumulation, which leads to qualitative changes, applies.
> Obviously, in a number of cases the paradigm shift happens in leaps and
> bounds, while in others it happens smoothly and barely perceptibly.
>
> For example, the accumulation of sufficient observations and evidences
> regarding the shape of the earth required a shift to a new paradigm: from
> the "Earth is flat" paradigm to the "Earth is not flat" paradigm.
>
> Sometimes opposing paradigms can coexist, not negating each other, but
> complementing each other. For example, this is the case with Euclid's fifth
> postulate (the parallel postulate).
>
> The postulate has long been considered self-evident or inevitable, but no
> evidence has been found. Eventually, it was discovered that reversing the
> postulate gave valid, albeit different, geometries. A geometry where the
> parallelism postulate does not hold is known as non-Euclidean geometry.
>
> With regard to the paradigm of "intelligence" we have a similar situation.
> We have at least two opposing paradigms based on two opposing postulates.
>
> The first, let's call it the "flat intelligence postulate", was well
> articulated by Yixin in his post:
>
> "Intelligence is the ability to solve problems, but not the ability to
> detect and define problems, the latter of which is one of the faculties of
> wisdom."
>
> The second, let's call it the "non-flat intelligence postulate", will
> sound unifying: "Intelligence is both the ability to solve problems and the
> ability to detect and define problems" (Eric), but in different directions
> in the hierarchy of intelligences (KM)". This is how we arrive at the idea
> of cybernetic systems, where there is a controller and a controlled, but
> the controller is connected to the environment from which it receives
> controlling influences and is, in practice, both "controller" and
> "controlled", but in different aspects of the system.
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
>
> To be continued ...
>
>
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XRs1aHCeukEbh8_ycn8OWx-LVxoN0CAv7jFRZZ_WStbmS11a36Z1dHCDJH-xi4P9iqcrHp3wBiFnmw5An8mmT3xuij-z$> Libre
> de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WbIVI1muA-bUi2sgH-PQNJNVsNmMPNuD5KYiu88Bg8L3Hd7QUTl_gEoOmXRB7r5JyhkrMfVIXVDAv4subhcsJpia3zY$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XRs1aHCeukEbh8_ycn8OWx-LVxoN0CAv7jFRZZ_WStbmS11a36Z1dHCDJH-xi4P9iqcrHp3wBiFnmw5An8mmT3xuij-z$>
> <#m_-9188411091358084838_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231020/b087e8ad/attachment-0001.html>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5C75AE29 en 656B1E7E.55D1306500000000.png
Type: image/png
Size: 31269 bytes
Desc: no disponible
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231020/b087e8ad/attachment-0001.png>