robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (06/20/84)
References: I'm not comfortable with Rich Rosen's assertion that intuition is just the mind's unconscious LOGICAL reasoning that happens too fast for the conscious to track. If intuition is simply ordinary logical reasoning, we should be just as able to simulate it as we can other tyes of reasoning. In fact, attempts to simulate intuition account for some rather noteworthy successes and failures, and seem to require a number of discoveries before we can make much real progress. E.g.: I think it is fair to claim that chess players use intuition to evaluate chess positions. We acknowledge that computers have failed to be intuitive in playing chess in at least two ways that are easy for people: - knowing what kinds of tactical shots to look for in a position - knowing how to plan longterm strategy in a position In backgammon, Hans Berliner has a very successful program that seems to have overcome the comparable backgammon problem. His program has a way of deciding, in a smooth, continuous fashion, when to shift from one set of assumptions to another while analyzing. I am not aware of whether other people have been able to develop his techniques to other kinds of analysis, or whether this is one flash of success. Berliner has not been comparably successful applying this idea to a chess program. (The backgammon program defeated thew world champion in a short match, in which the doubling cube was used.) Artists and composers use intuition as part of the process of creating art. It is likely that one of the benefits they gain from intuition is that a good work of art has many more internal relationships among its parts than the creator could have planned. It is hard to see how this result can be derived from "logical" reasoning of any ordinary deductive or inductive kind. It is easier to see how artists obtain this result by making various kinds of intuitive decisions to limit their scope of free choice in the creative process. Computer-generated art has come closest to emulating this process by using f-numbers rather than random numbers to generate artistic decisions. It is unlikely that the artist's intuition is working as "simply" as deriving decision from f-numbers. It remains a likely possibility that a type of reasoning that we know little about is involved. We are still pretty bad at programming pattern recognition, which intuitive thinking does spectacularly well. If one wishes to assert that the pattern recognition is done by well-known logical processes, I would like to see some substantiation. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison
band@ccivax.UUCP (06/22/84)
In reference to Mr. Robison's comments:
Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we
use to explain what cannot be explained more
formally or logically?
I'm thinking of the explanation of evolution
based on Natural Selection. An explanation based
on probability is NOT an explanation at all.
It is an admission that there is no logical or
formal explanation possible. Of course, we
still accept evolution as a fact of life, but
we don't have any mechanical (or dynamical in the
sense of physics) model for it.
Perhaps the same is true of our experience of
intuition. Something is going on when we have
a flash of insight, but we don't have any
dynamical model that can be used for prediction.
I think that Mr. Robison is correct when he says
that we just don't know much about how our
mind/brain system works. We need to keep asking
any and all questions that come to mind (pun not
intended) -- that's what science is all about.
--
Bill Anderson
...!{ {ucbvax | decvax}!allegra!rlgvax }!ccivax!bandpsuvm%gms@psuvax1.UUCP (06/22/84)
With regard to chess masters and intuition I would add the following. A
paper by Chase and Simon (1973??, I can't remember the journal) explained
the strategies of chess masters in terms of greater chunking of possible
moves in a given situation. This is to say that chess masters, by virtue
of their years of study of chess moves and countermoves, are able to
relate to a game in terms of groups of moves rather than in terms of
single moves. This chunking ability helps to explain not only the apparant
differences in thought processes between experts and novices, but also
explains the apparant conflict with Millers notion of a processing
buffer limit ("Magic Number 7 Plus or Minus 2") to the human information
processing system.
The point I am trying to make here is that I feel that it is unwise to
attribute the strategy development of a chess expert (or any other kind
of 'expert') to the notion of 'intuition'. In fact I would further propose
that the problem of 'intuition' is really a problem of perspective.
As a long-standing programmer I have learned to adopt certain heuristics in
approaching ill-structured problems. The heuristics may be thought of as
generalized rules of thumb which serve to reduce the search space of
the problem at hand. (a hacker mentality) To an observer it may appear
that I am intuitively reaching certain conclusions about the problem and
the potential solutions. I would maintain that in actaulty my mind,
(in terms of the HIP paradigm), is using a combination of chunking and
heuristic strategy in an attempt to solve the problem. Whether this
process can be called 'logical' or not is a moot point at this stage.
Not enough is really known about the memory processes that are undoubtedly
involved to determine this with certainty.
I think also that part of the problem here is one of perspective. Many of
us have had an experience whereby our conscious minds were doing one thing
while our unconscious minds were doing something else (apparantly). As
an example, being so lost in thought while driving a car that one is not
consciously aware of the last few miles of travel while in fact all of the
turns were made correctly and all traffic laws were obeyed. An 'intuitive'
awareness of ones destination and current physical circumatances (ie other
traffic, etc . . .) could be used as a simple explaination. I think the
real basis for an explaination of this kind of process will hinge on
a number of cooperative underlying mental processes producing a cumulative
effect that gives the illusion of a master, 'ill-defined', process. I would
further propose that the state of self-awareness is also such an illusion
of perspective. I have no doubt (unless a homunculous-like feature such as
a human spirit or soul is discovered) that the eventual explaination
will turn out to have a physical reality that can be (although expensively)
be simulated.
The same problem surfaces in pattern recognition. It may be that no simple
explainations of certain types of pattern recognition have been found
because the real underlying mechanism involves a number of separate but
cooperating processes that we, because of our perspective, interpret as
being one all-encompassing (although ill-defined) process. Check out
the book Mind Design by John Haugland for more discourse (abiet somewhat
philosophical) on this area.
Gerry Santoro GMS @ PSUVM (bitnet)
Micro. Inf. & Support Center !decvax!mcnc!idis!santoro (UUCP)
Penn State University
(814) 863-4356rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (06/22/84)
The distinction between conscious and subconscious components of the mind is an important one. The substrate for consciousness is basically cortical, which implies that it has access to language and reasoning processes, but only some of the information about emotional states processed primarily in lower brain centers. To restate it: consciousness can monitor only a fraction of the activity of the brain, and can effectively control only a fraction of our behavior. The example of body language not being conscious is a good one (although trained observers can learn to make conscious interpretations of some of these signals). >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. > ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) There is a variety of evidence that human memory is content addressable. The results of the association process whereby different memories are compared or brought together are accessable to consciousness, and indeed may even make up a significant component of the "stream of consciousness". The "sanity checks" are the conscious, rational evaluation of the associations. A lot of intuitions and ideas get junked... The control of this association process is not rational: how many times have you known that you knew a fact, but were unable to produce it on the spot? There may well be an element of randomness to this process (Hinton at CMU has suggested a model based on statistical mechanics), but there are also constraints on the patterns to be matched against. You don't generate lots of inappropriate associations, or you would not be very successful in competing for survival. And that is the force that shaped our brain and thought capacity. --Rich Goldschmidt cbosgd!rbg a former brain hacker (now reformed?)
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/26/84)
> "subconsious", "mind", etc -- what DO these words mean? More > importantly, do these things exist? > I assert they do not. I take the behaviorist philosophy that what > you call "mind" is a thing invented by Plato or some dead Greek > person which is just as mystical and unreal as "the Gods" or > "magic." > What you have is a brain. What you do is behavior. You are an > organism that responds to AND IS CHANGED BY your environment. > That's all. The rest you've made up or assumed was true because > some dead greek person said it was there. > Show me your "mind" -- demonstrate its existence. I dare you. BRA-VO!!!!!!! -- It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr