<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Dear Eric and
All,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">2023 10 26<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Thank </span>you
for thematizing the <u>challenge</u> 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 <u>mental work</u>. 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. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <i>one </i>variety, truth
comes in at least <i>two </i>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.<span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now the time has brought forward computers and the
possibility e.g. of generating all true sentences that state <i>a+b=c. </i>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. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The <b>liaison
collection of values </b>is also something that can be read off the tautomat.
The <b>geometric reading</b> 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 <b>economic reading, </b>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. <span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pedro: Problem solving is a regulatory problem. Feedback
loops and maintenance of ranges is observable in the inanimate world.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Answer: Yes, the transition between inanimate feedback loops
and functions of a finite automat is gradual. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric: Intelligence is a continuum from feedback loops to
spontaneous creativity.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Krassimir: Symbols within an intelligent system need to have
a context and a meaning<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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<i><sub>a</sub></i> coordinate (70,70,70), resp. Central
Element Left<i><sub>b</sub></i> at coordinate (67,67,67). Our usual,
traditional system based on <b>N</b> has no
central, but rather a Null element at coordinate (0,0,0). The context of the
information that <i>p </i><i>≠
q </i>in aspects <i>{b-a, 2a-b, 3b-2a, …
etc.} </i>with values <i>{l<sub>1</sub>=x<sub>1</sub>,
l<sub>2</sub>=x<sub>2</sub>, l<sub>3</sub>=x<sub>3</sub>, … etc.} </i>is the
comparison of the relevant values with the background of other cycles in which <i>p, q </i>are (a) member(s). The meaning is
the relation of the <i>p </i><i>≠
q </i>to one or both of the Central Elements. There is also a neutral,
objective, absolute meaning to <i>p </i><i>≠
q</i>, namely its relation to the Null element. (like vectors and weighted and
directed vectors.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric: It is not easy to learn completely new approaches.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <i>two </i>eyes and hear by <i>two </i>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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In abstract speech: <i>a+b=c
</i>shows us <i>two </i>ways of looking at
the sentence. Here, we discuss that part of the snapshot, in which <i>a,b </i>are separate. Not that their sum
would not add up to <i>c, </i>but that they
have not performed the transition into that state in which <i>c </i>can be established by counting so many uniform units of <i>1</i> as <i>c
</i>requires. On the left side, there are not as many uniform <i>1-s </i>available as make up a <i>c. </i>There, one finds two collections of
uniform <i>1s</i>, one aggregated into an <i>a, </i>and one aggregated into a <i>b</i>. There exists a separation symbol that
distinguishes the two heaps of <i>a times 1,
b times 1. </i>The disappearance of that symbol and the effort of homogenization
of <i>a-type 1s with b-type 1s </i>are
together the economic basis for the distribution of distances between units <i>(a,b) </i>of the etalon collection when
periodically subjected to differing orders. The order is the description of the
relative differences between <i>a-type 1s,
b-type 1s. <span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for engaging. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karl <span></span></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Do., 26. Okt. 2023 um 11:44 Uhr schrieb Eric Werner <<a href="mailto:eric.werner@oarf.org">eric.werner@oarf.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Dear Karl and All,</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Eric <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Dear All,<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="HU">Intelligence is a
wide subject</span> 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: <i>is there an inanimate
form of intelligence?, </i>which of the many layers of
the mental construct ‘intelligence’
we talk about, and to what ends.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Eric does not distinguish between
mechanical problem solving
(finding out one specific among many alternatives) and that
what comes after <i>cogito
ergo sum. </i>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. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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’. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <b>Temp < threshold<sub>low</sub>:
switch on, temp
> threshold<sub>up</sub>: switch off. </b>The general
idea is to trisect a continuum and apply consequences to the
perceived position on the continuum. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The paradigm
question is: where do you get any <b>thresholds </b>using
the Wittgenstein-type
rational logic, since it is based solely on <b>N</b>? 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 <i>a = 1 + 1 + 1+…+1</i>
where the <i>number of how many times 1 </i>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. <i>sin(x) </i>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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Now we learn to look through the left
eyeglass. <span></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0cm" type="1" start="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">If you take a collection of symbols
which each are made up of 2 natural numbers, then<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">You have cohorts, in dependence of how
many variants of <i>a,b </i>you use, and<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">For deeper reasons [1] you play with a
cohort of <i>136 </i>individuals which are each a pair
of <i>(a,b), </i>namely <i>{(1,1),(1,2),(2,2),(1,3),…,(15,16),(16,16)}</i>,
then you have <b>Cohort 16</b>.;<span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">This etalon collection C16 can be
described by establishing the individuals’ linear place in
any of the sorting orders you subject the collection to; <span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">You will find characteristic names for
the individuals, which names are as good an identification
as naming them by their identifiers <i>(a,b), </i>namely
e.g. <i>{(stands near the middle in [</i><i>αβ]), (is way
off in [</i><i>γδ]), (at two-thirds in [</i><i>κλ]),
etc.}. </i><span></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal">The identification by association is
an alternative to counting so many 1-s on <b>N</b> that
identify the individual in a defined linear order. The
identification by <b>N</b> degenerates into a special
case of identification by sorting, but without referring
to its neighbors.<span></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <i>plusque </i>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. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the case that
the <b>three-way interdependence <i>diverse-similar-numbering</i></b><i>
</i>is at its mathematically possible limits, the ideal,
maximally cohesive cum
diverse arrangement of symbols on the etalon collection
shows <i>32, 97 </i>to
be thresholds that trisect the continuum, here in the form
of the number line. Outside
the thresholds <i>32, 97 </i>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.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">“Example: X is good
as {engineer, cook,
cartographer,…} but is risky because {no team leader, bad
husband, can’t economize,…}.”</span> 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. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AI needs something
to ponder about. Why not give it the task of tabulating
instances of <i>(a,b) </i>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 <i>(a,b)</i>, 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.)<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best:<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Karl<span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span lang="DE-AT">[1] <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.oeis.org/A242615__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WbIVI1muA-bUi2sgH-PQNJNVsNmMPNuD5KYiu88Bg8L3Hd7QUTl_gEoOmXRB7r5JyhkrMfVIXVDAv4subhcsC8gXSf4$" target="_blank">www.oeis.org/A242615</a><span></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14pt;line-height:107%" lang="DE-AT"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Do., 19. Okt. 2023 um
20:52 Uhr schrieb Pedro C. Marijuán <<a href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com" target="_blank">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As the themes fly so fast, I have mixed some of the
ideas previously circulated<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>--Pedro<br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>El 19/10/2023 a las 11:55, Eric Werner escribió:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Dear Yixin,</p>
<p>Can you be more specific what you mean by "change the
paradigm used in AI". It might help to give a specific
example. </p>
<p>*At present AI systems certainly behave as if they are
goal directed. <br>
</p>
<p>*AI systems appear to have wisdom in that they can
propose wise courses of action</p>
<p>* What do you mean by "pure formalism"? It seems one
of the powers of formalism is to understand AI and human
intelligence. <br>
</p>
<p>* 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. <br>
</p>
<p>* Why can't a machine understand human goals and
purposes if it gains a model of those from human data? <br>
</p>
<p>* Why can't an AI system have intentions? <br>
</p>
<p>My overall problem is understanding your specific
criticism of the present AI paradigm? This notion seems
to me to need clearer definition. <br>
</p>
<p>How would you overcome the present AI paradigm and what
specifically is different when you want to "change the
paradigm used in AI"???</p>
<p>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. <br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes,</p>
<p>Eric <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 10/19/23 8:48 AM, 钟义信 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Dear
Krassimir, Dear Eric, and Dear Colleagues,</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">The
discussion is going on well thanks to all your
efforts.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Here is a few
points I would like to mention (or re-mention).</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(1) The
purpose of the "declaration on Paradigm Change in
AI" is to make an appeal for <u>change the paradigm
used in AI.</u> </font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(2) There may
have different understanding on the concept of
paradigm. However, <u>the concept of paradigm for a
scientific discipline has been re-defined as the
scientific world view and the associated
methodology</u> 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).</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(3) The major
result of "paradigm change in AI" is <u>to change
the methodology used in AI, including the
principles of "pure formalism" and "divide and
conquer"</u>. This is because of the fact that <u>the
former principle leads to the ignoring the meaning
and value and thus leads to the loss of
understanding ability and explaining ability</u>
while <u>the latter one leads to the loss of the
general theory for AI</u>. Note that "no
explaining ability" and "no general theory" are the
most typical and also most concerned problems for
current AI.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(4) There is
<u>difference between human intelligence and human
wisdom</u>. 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. </font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">(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.</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">I wonder if
you agree or not. Comments are welcome!</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Best regards,</font></div>
<div>
<div><font size="4" face="SimSun,STSong"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Verdana;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div style="overflow:hidden">
<div style="float:left;height:100px;margin:35px 10px 10px 0px;padding:0px 10px 0px 15px;border-right:1px solid rgb(222,222,222)">
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><br>
</div>
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><br>
</div>
<div style="max-height:150px;overflow:hidden;margin:35px 0px 0px;float:left"><img src="https://exmail.qq.com/cgi-bin/viewfile?type=logo&domain=bupt.edu.cn"></div>
</div>
<div style="float:left;padding-top:35px;line-height:22px;color:rgb(160,160,160);zoom:1">
<h4 style="margin:0px;font-size:14px;font-weight:bold;line-height:28px;color:rgb(0,0,0);zoom:1">Prof.
Yixin ZHONG</h4>
<div>AI School, BUPT</div>
<div>Beijing 100876, China</div>
<p style="margin:0px"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin:0px;line-height:22px;color:rgb(160,160,160)"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<div style="font-size:12px;font-family:"Arial Narrow";padding:2px 0px">------------------ Original ------------------</div>
<div style="font-size:12px;background:rgb(239,239,239);padding:8px">
<div id="m_-2520592209815335345m_-9188411091358084838menu_sender"><b>From:
</b> "Krassimir Markov"<a href="mailto:itheaiss@gmail.com" target="_blank"><itheaiss@gmail.com></a>;</div>
<div><b>Date: </b> Thu, Oct 19, 2023 03:32 AM</div>
<div><b>To: </b> "fis"<a href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank"><fis@listas.unizar.es></a>;
</div>
<div><b>Subject: </b> Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol
105, Issue 12</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Yixin, Eric and FIS
colleagues,
<div>Let me present some thoughts about </div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><b>The “Intelligence”
Paradigm</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">With
regard to the paradigm of "intelligence"
we have a similar situation. We have at
least two opposing paradigms based on two
opposing postulates.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">The
first, let's call it the "flat
intelligence postulate", was well
articulated by Yixin in his post:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">"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."</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif""><span style="line-height:115%"> </span></p>
<img src="cid:18b6c1e6175ef322dfc1" alt="image.png" width="472" height="359"><br>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif""><span style="line-height:115%"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><span style="line-height:115%" lang="BG"></span><span style="line-height:115%" lang="BG"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"" align="center"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,"sans-serif"">To
be continued ...</p>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre>----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<div id="m_-2520592209815335345m_-9188411091358084838DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:13px"><a href="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$" target="_blank"><img src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" width="46" height="29"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:12px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre
de virus.<a href="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$" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#m_-2520592209815335345_m_-9188411091358084838_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus
datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
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.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
----------
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: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
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.
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div>-- <br>
<i>
Dr. Eric Werner <br>
Oxford Advanced Research Foundation <br>
<a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SgbqjziMtrLoV9Snds4Th096lh_-XwDkxySvXQnPT7rztfoiEaH8KgzFtEYZXXhtjpwIveyK92Qe9CkoYwdSFg1Purw$" target="_blank">https://oarf.org</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>