Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site spuxll.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!whuxle!spuxll!ech
From: ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.philosophy,net.rumor,net.misc,net.junk
Subject: Re: Intuition
Message-ID: <510@spuxll.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Jun-84 16:30:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: spuxll.510
Posted: Thu Jun 21 16:30:56 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jun-84 07:24:30 EDT
References: <3971@utzoo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, South Plainfield NJ
Lines: 40

We have a couple of different issues here: is there a distinction between
'mind' and 'brain', and -- if you advocate the position that there is no
difference -- what possible mechanisms account for intuition?

On the first, I will (like others) recommend "The Mind's I".  The issue
is addressed until ANYBODY will get confused.  You may come away with the
same belief, but you will have DOUBTS, regardless of your current position.

As for "intuition," we are (so far) using an inaccurate picture: those
"leaps of imagination" are not necessarily correct insights!  Have you never
had an intuitive feeling that was WRONG in the face of additional data?

Let's look at a few candidates; are any of these either supported or
disproved by current evidence?

1. Intuition is just deduction based on data one is not CONSCIOUSLY aware of.
   Body language is a good example of data we all collect but often are not
   aware of consciously; we may use terms like "good/bad vibes"...

2. Intuition is just induction based on partial data and application of a
   "model" or "pattern" from a different experience.

3. Intuition is a random-number-generator along with some "sanity checks"
   against internal consistency and/or available data.

I submit that about the only thing we KNOW about intuition is that it is
not a consciously rational process.  Introspection, by definition, will not
yield up any distinctions between any of the above three mechanisms, or
between them and the effects of a soul or divine inspiration.  The traditional
technical and ethical constraints against breaking open that skull to measure
it are only beginning to break down (the technical ones, that is!).

I'll add one thing, then get off the box.  I USE my intuition: I am willing
to take ideas whether I can account for the source/process or not.  However,
I apply the usual rational processes to the intuitive notion before swearing to
its truth: check for self-consistency, consistency with available data,
and where possible set up "experiments" that might falsify the premise.
The Son of Sam had the divine inspiration that he had to kill a few folks...

=Ned=