ech@spuxll.UUCP (Ned Horvath) (06/21/84)
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=
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/22/84)
[from Ned Horvath:] > 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? > 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. Thanks, Ned, for putting together what I was trying to say about intuition in a clearer manner than I could. The three examples you cite sound like rationally feasible constructs to describe what we call intuition. As far as external possibilities (souls and deities), it seems sufficient to say that until we see a facet which internal biochemical physical processes cannot account for, there is no reason to presuppose the supernatural/external. -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr