[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 16

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear Krassimir, Yixin, et al,


Krassimir – thank you for this useful reframing of Yixin’s ‘paradigm
points’.

I add some additional thoughts (shown by ‘—’):

> (2) There are different understandings on the concept of paradigm.
However, the concept of paradigm for a scientific discipline has been
re-defined as the scientific world view . . . the only factor that can
determine whether a scientific discipline needs a "revolution" (Kuhn's
language).

— An even more-basic consideration is: despite ‘scientific gains’, science
is continually re-defined, BY DESIGN. Science began as Natural Philosophy,
to grasp Nature’s ENTIRE character. But Nature’s vastness, contra human
perceptual and psychological limits, means we proceed via slow serial,
step-wise moves, with many logical gaps. Human ‘broken scientific views’
thus call for continual paradigm shifts, until we gradually build on a
WHOLE map/grasp of Nature.

> (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 . . . .

— I frame this differently. I refer to ‘metadata’ and ‘Meta-meta’ vistas.
Metadata are narrow formal domains (diverse paradigms: the Standard Model,
periodic table, etc.). THESE broken/partial roles represent common human
intelligence. BUT Meta-meta conveys human wisdom, noting Patterns across
diverse metadata domains, where a WHOLE Meta-meta map is targeted to
realize true human wisdom on the Cosmos. This view is detailed further in:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://drive.google.com/file/d/11r5LHrzAV2wAPXAPbEMxO58GuTR48hdP/view?usp=sharing__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rzil8RIIMKeypm_le7JCMuE1mCwk4HNA4WoTeq3lFiRPwiohD3iBHp6t21CyANqEewMEtLPkUdHV6SjI$ 

> (5) Human intelligence can be simulated by machine. . . . No purpose
means no wisdom.

— This is well stated EXCEPT I do not agree Human analogue intelligence is
presently replicatable by digital computational machines. There are innate
computational limitations to digital machines, calling for a detailed
technical discussion, but that can best be summed up as ‘rounding errors’.
We have to improve our computational tools before we can begin to make such
a claim.

> (1) The purpose of the "declaration on Paradigm Change in AI" is to make
an appeal for change the paradigm used in AI.

> (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 . . .

— I suggest these two goals apply not only to AI, but mark the entire point
of a FOUNDATIONS of Information Science forum. Similar informatic needs
were noted by Korzybski's ‘confused levels of abstraction’ (1933), and by
Shannon and Weaver as a ‘missing theory of meaning’ (1949). Until these
more-basic considerations are resolved, discussions on EVEN-MORE-ABSTRACT
AI issues will make no useful advance. So, I agree with Yixin, in general,
but disagree on an AI framing.

— My earlier post pointing to base human empiricism (re fire, stone hand
axes, etc.) likewise targeted these more-basic issues . . . but Yixin
seemed disinclined to engage. Again, my own more-basic exploration of these
issues is covered in the link above.


Marcus


>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231022/b8c071b1/attachment.html>