Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!mcnc!ncsuvx!news
From: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intuition and intelligence (was emergent properties)
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.201851.12731@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu>
Date: 24 Oct 90 20:18:51 GMT
References: <3499@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <1990Oct3.183522.17076@riacs.edu> 	<3549@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <45348@apple.Apple.COM> 	<3560@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <4152@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> 	<15238@venera.isi.edu> <1990Oct23.165301.9813@riacs.edu> <BURLEY.90
Sender: news@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: fostel@eos.ncsu.edu (Gary Fostel)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Lines: 66


  There seem to be a number of assumptions made in many discussions
  of intuition, rationality, logic, thought, consciousness.  For
  example, it seems to usually be assumed that the conscious thoughts
  are the ones which are logical, and the thoughts which are not
  conscious (trying to avoid several value laded terms) are not logical,
  but automatic, programmed ...etc.  For example, James Woods, at RIACS,
  noted that Einstein may have
  
      relied on an almost kinesthetic sense to guide him in 
      his research.  This "intuitive" or non-logical component
      gave him direction.

  Is there a reason that thoughts which are not conscious are
  assumed to be thoughts which are not based on logic?  Certainly,
  from an introspective point of view, there is no way to be able 
  to tell if ones thoughts which are not conscious are following the
  principles of logic, but then again, I have no reason to feel that
  ANYONES thoughts, conscious or otherwise, are following such 
  processes since I do not have access to the set of observations
  they have of their own conscious activities.  Never-the-less, I
  am usually willing to agree that another persons thoughts are
  logical (at least at times :-) based on the observations I do
  have, e.g. things they say to me, actions they take etc.

  If I apply the same standard to my own thoughts which are not
  conscious, I would need to conclude that indeed these thoughts
  must at times be following sound logical processes.  The most
  striking example is probably chess, where the intense logical
  process of find a good move is, for most experienced players,
  not a conscious activity.  Many top level players have observed
  that they can tell quickly (not by conscious means) what the best
  move is but spend their clock time consciously verifying that
  the non-conscious process has not made an error.

  One reaction is to go with the S/R, behaviorist, connectionist
  flow and say that this supposed logical process that is not
  conscious is not really a logical process at all. The best move
  is determined in some other way altogether.  Another reaction
  is to say that the process of logical thought is not inextricably
  bound to the process of conscious awareness.  A crude computational
  metaphore might be that the logical process is farmed out to another
  processor with capabilities quite similar to the one which supports
  the conscious thought process -- except of course that support 
  processor does not have what it takes to support conscious awareness
  of its working.

  There are several reasons why this would be an efficient design.
  The logical process might proceed more rapidly without the extra
  overhead of awareness, and it might be possible to have more than
  one such process concurrently working, all without awareness.  

  If memory serves me, this is one of the ideas woven into Minski's
  Society of Mind book.  Perhaps it is also the reason he and others
  remain skeptical and critical of connectionists who try to squeeze
  symbolic, logical thought processes into non-symbolic, non-logical
  models.  Connectionists may be too readily combining introspective
  evidence that some processes are divorced from conscious awareness,
  with the assumption that only conscious processes are logical and
  prematurely concluding that something else must be going on.  

----GaryFostel----                    Department of Computer Science 
                                      North Carolina State University