[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 105, Issue 12 Expressibility of AI models

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Eric and All,

2023 10 26



Thank you for thematizing the *challenge* a change in paradigms imposes on
people who have to do the change. To James Watt, the idea to combine valves
and pistons was as self-evident, as was the idea to Einstein that there is
an inbuilt upper limit to some properties of assemblies (he exemplified the
speed of light). The challenge appears on the costs side for those, who did
not think that steam can be dosaged and the force of the steam pressure can
be put to practical use. To include the new paradigm into structures built
of time-honored principles one had learnt is indeed a *mental work*. It was
a paradigm change that Freud drew attention to the fact that children have
their own neural system and that pedagogic errors the caregivers may have
committed during the childhood of an individual will reflect in the
severity and forms of appearance of mental and neurological-somatic
disorders.


After 42 years of grunt service as a clinical psychologist (grunt: face to
face with clients), one has learnt one thing for sure: truth does not
possess *one *variety, truth comes in at least *two *variants. Whatever
Wittgenstein pontificates, his model of relations among symbols is a
description only of a special segment of the world (as he himself readily
and explicitly declares), in real life there are always several
determinations of truth, each equally true, even if formally contradictory.
All that is taught in STEM is a play with symbols referring to a heavily
restricted basic concept of how symbols can relate to each other. The STEM
way of solving problems is working well within a restricted perspective of
the world, using a restricted collection of tools. There must be at work in
human neurology a coexistent system of relations among members of the
symbols set. The trivial sciences (logic, rhetoric, grammar) deal with
such. We take pleasure in introducing the trivial algorithms, les liaisons
biologiques.


Now the time has brought forward computers and the possibility e.g. of
generating all true sentences that state *a+b=c. *This allows us to look at
the grammar of sentences that describe such as we are not able to speak
about. Wittgenstein said, so do not speak about such things you have no
competence to speak about, for lack of an organized system of relations
among concepts. Not being able to speak about observations can be rooted in
not being able to clearly observe something (not having microscopes,
spectrometers, or computers), and it is rooted also in not having words in
the lexica to describe such that would be observed if only one had the
tools to observe such.


The tautomat is a hybrid between sudokus and the ultimate form of Rubik’s
cube. In its functionality, it is comparable to an X-ray machine or a
multispectral telescope. One can detect coincidences and assemblies of
coincidences. It is very well possible to talk at length, and exactly,
about things that are not the case, by referring to spatial arrangements
that are not the case, because the assembly is presently ordered under
different aspects. The tautomat delivers us – like a giant table of
ephemerides – coincidences of where is what, if that coincidence is based
on periodic changes, which make the coincidences predictable.


The *liaison collection of values *is also something that can be read off
the tautomat. The *geometric reading* of the tautomat gives us the relation
between what, where, when, and how predictably. (The dots of a sociogram.)
The liaison reading of the tautomat gives us the material content that is
segmented into realizations by the geometric content (which
attraction/repulsion is there between coincidences, the arrows of a
sociogram). The accounting work done on the liaison values gives us an
*economic
reading, *which determines what variants can further evolve from the
combined coincidences of geometric and liaison properties of the assembly
undergoing periodic changes. This is indeed a complicated set of relations
and interactions, with many thresholds, levels, translations, ranges and
equivalences. The challenge is comparable to learning a new programming
language. The objects are indexed differently, but otherwise it is all the
same.


Of the contributions so far, let me point out those which appear to me
steps in the process of understanding 1. The tautomat, 2. The liaison, 3.
The decision alternatives in the consistent collection (problem solving,
competent automat, intelligent system, wise system).

Pedro: Problem solving is a regulatory problem. Feedback loops and
maintenance of ranges is observable in the inanimate world.

Answer: Yes, the transition between inanimate feedback loops and functions
of a finite automat is gradual.

Eric: Intelligence is a continuum from feedback loops to spontaneous
creativity.

Answer: There has been ongoing research re Natural Intelligence. Before one
tries to build an Artificial Intelligence system, it might pay to take a
look at how intelligence is observed to be at work in its natural ways,
habits, methods, priorities, criteria.

Krassimir: Symbols within an intelligent system need to have a context and
a meaning

Answer: The geometry of the tautomat shows us two 3D Euclid spaces (being
transcended by 2 planes /that may well depict the electro-magnetic
fields/). These have Central Element Right*a* coordinate (70,70,70), resp.
Central Element Left*b* at coordinate (67,67,67). Our usual, traditional
system based on *N* has no central, but rather a Null element at coordinate
(0,0,0). The context of the information that *p **≠ q *in aspects *{b-a,
2a-b, 3b-2a, … etc.} *with values *{l1=x1, l2=x2, l3=x3, … etc.} *is the
comparison of the relevant values with the background of other cycles in
which *p, q *are (a) member(s). The meaning is the relation of the *p **≠ q
*to one or both of the Central Elements. There is also a neutral,
objective, absolute meaning to *p **≠ q*, namely its relation to the Null
element. (like vectors and weighted and directed vectors.)

Jixin: A system constructed by humans is inevitably mirroring properties of
its human creators. Better not to try to hide the human component in our
concepts of intelligence.

Answer: This wise insight echoes teachings by Anaxagoras (et al): “The
measure for all is the human.” We encounter intelligence at the latest at
birth (some say, already in the womb), when our not-yet-existing Self (by
the actions of its precursor reflexes) decides (finds out by series of
trial-error experiments) what to grab, what to suck and how to communicate.
To set the start of intelligent behavior at the onset of the oedipal
conflict is not free of arbitrary elements. The intelligent choice of the
infant needs to be recognizable and answerable by the caregivers, and this
usually happens in European culture at the development stage of the
infant’s wishes being understood, evaluated and reacted to, and the infant
has a fighting chance of having its wishes realized. Based on what we see
to be intelligently managed by an infant are relationships, and the name of
the first recognized instance of relationship communication forms and
challenges is termed oedipal conflict. It deals with alliances in a 3-way
consistent, cohesive group. This is the showpiece original of human
interactive intelligence, just like a thermostat is the showpiece original
of status maintenance by managing the signals in feedback loops.

Eric: It is not easy to learn completely new approaches.

Answer: The numbers are great mentors. Stick to the numbers, and you will
learn a lot about the world, said Pythagoras. You are about to learn
thinking in stereo. Seeing double pictures and hearing two different voices
in one’s own head are parts of normal life for quite many of our
population. One can make peace with the idea that we, in fact, see by
*two *eyes
and hear by *two *ears. It is our neurology that merges the original two
into one. There are snippets and overlaps when merging two variants of the
same thing into one. Nature uses the slight deviations between the two
versions. These are the diversities. Their extent is the extent of being
otherwise (relative to the other variant). Information is the extent of
being otherwise. Perception is based on contrasts. Intellectually, it is
relatively easy to recognize oneself to be a composite of two worlds, which
in composite give the objectively false, but convincing illusion of being
half-worlds of one seamless world. Unbelieve this fiction and understanding
memory and genetic is a pleasure.

In abstract speech: *a+b=c *shows us *two *ways of looking at the sentence.
Here, we discuss that part of the snapshot, in which *a,b *are separate.
Not that their sum would not add up to *c, *but that they have not
performed the transition into that state in which *c *can be established by
counting so many uniform units of *1* as *c *requires. On the left side,
there are not as many uniform *1-s *available as make up a *c. *There, one
finds two collections of uniform *1s*, one aggregated into an *a, *and one
aggregated into a *b*. There exists a separation symbol that distinguishes
the two heaps of *a times 1, b times 1. *The disappearance of that symbol
and the effort of homogenization of *a-type 1s with b-type 1s *are together
the economic basis for the distribution of distances between units *(a,b) *of
the etalon collection when periodically subjected to differing orders. The
order is the description of the relative differences between *a-type 1s,
b-type 1s. *

Thank you for engaging.

Karl

Am Do., 26. Okt. 2023 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Eric Werner <eric.werner en oarf.org
>:

> Dear Karl and All,
>
> Interesting link between expressibility of concepts in different formal
> and mental representations. To get a deeper coherent understanding of AI
> models and how to develop meta-AI (Genius, Artificial Wisdom) models, we
> need to come to grips with the very basic notions of how the self develops
> in a social setting. The formalism we use as Karl points out can hinder in
> the sense of putting inherent combinatorial and computational limits on
> what can be represented or can further the development of higher order AI
> systems.
>
> What has amazed me is the wide scope of possible formalism's and methods
> thought in the different contributors. To come up with a coherent mutual
> understanding is a challenge.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Eric
>
> 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!SgbqjziMtrLoV9Snds4Th096lh_-XwDkxySvXQnPT7rztfoiEaH8KgzFtEYZXXhtjpwIveyK92Qe9CkoYwdS2jZEVqA$ 
> <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!SgbqjziMtrLoV9Snds4Th096lh_-XwDkxySvXQnPT7rztfoiEaH8KgzFtEYZXXhtjpwIveyK92Qe9CkoYwdSyxHVGhw$ 
>> <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$>
>> <#m_-2520592209815335345_m_-9188411091358084838_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis en listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>> por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>> siguiente enlace:
>> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es
>> ----------
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing listFis en listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> * Dr. Eric Werner Oxford Advanced Research Foundation https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SgbqjziMtrLoV9Snds4Th096lh_-XwDkxySvXQnPT7rztfoiEaH8KgzFtEYZXXhtjpwIveyK92Qe9CkoYwdSFg1Purw$ 
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SgbqjziMtrLoV9Snds4Th096lh_-XwDkxySvXQnPT7rztfoiEaH8KgzFtEYZXXhtjpwIveyK92Qe9CkoYwdSFg1Purw$ > *
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20231026/59f4042f/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/20231026/59f4042f/attachment-0001.png>