[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12

Tue Oct 24 20:37:27 CEST 2023

Dear All,

If I may, I would like to offer you a definition of intelligence based on a natural scientific (physical and biological) understanding of the essence of information.
So, intelligence is the ability to process very large flows of information.
Living beings receive huge amounts of information from the environment. All receptors of human body sense organs provide information flow of about 0.01 zettabyte (billions of billion) bytes per second. This level of information flow intensity is characteristic for living beings and distinguishes living from non-living. Parameters of this flow (relative intensity and orderliness) constitute the essence of emotions.
Note that the most powerful and even computer networks are capable of processing information flows of much lower intensity, about one hundred billion times less.
However, that is not all. Man differs from other living beings in that he has a developed ability to process not only the information that comes from the environment, but also information from memory. The intensity of information flow coming from the memory of an adult human being is more difficult to measure, but according to some indirect data it is not less than the flow from outside.
Some animals also have developed memory and abilities based on it - fantasy, imagination, mythology and so on. But only man is capable of living and acting in a reality half (or even more) composed of the constructs of his own memory. This ability gives rise to the phenomena of meaning, logic, the desire to create a coherent picture of the world, as well as the concepts of justice, beauty, good and evil, and other categories of ethics and aesthetics.
This definition may be less convenient for wordplay, but it can be used to determine exactly how far today's computer systems are from what could be called artificial intelligence in any but a speculative sense.

________________________________
From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
Sent: 20 October 2023 02:51
To: fis at listas.unizar.es <fis at listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12

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,

[https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://exmail.qq.com/cgi-bin/viewfile?type=logo&domain=bupt.edu.cn__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UxqigHqAkDRzz1q1ug6nMDGXKc4f3BFvZfJr_iKr2Uj2mlbJr_16pots6hB_re7Fl6UXk44n05VlySU04fs$ ]
Prof. Yixin ZHONG
AI School, BUPT
Beijing 100876, China

------------------ Original ------------------
From:  "Krassimir Markov"<itheaiss at gmail.com><mailto:itheaiss at gmail.com>;
Date:  Thu, Oct 19, 2023 03:32 AM
To:  "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es><mailto:fis at 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.png]

To be continued ...

----------

[https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UxqigHqAkDRzz1q1ug6nMDGXKc4f3BFvZfJr_iKr2Uj2mlbJr_16pots6hB_re7Fl6UXk44n05Vl2Tu0SN0$ ]<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$>    Libre de virus.https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UxqigHqAkDRzz1q1ug6nMDGXKc4f3BFvZfJr_iKr2Uj2mlbJr_16pots6hB_re7Fl6UXk44n05VlBZhceyk$ <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$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231024/f34ac3b4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 5C75AE29 at 656B1E7E.55D1306500000000.png
Type: image/png
Size: 31269 bytes
Desc: 5C75AE29 at 656B1E7E.55D1306500000000.png
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231024/f34ac3b4/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: So.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 14237 bytes
Desc: So.docx
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231024/f34ac3b4/attachment-0001.docx>