Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!Larry
From: Larry E. Carroll
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intuition and intelligence (was emergent properties)
Message-ID: <10097@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 24 Oct 90 21:57:48 GMT
References: <15238@venera.isi.edu>> <1990Oct23.165301.9813@riacs.edu <1990Oct24.174143.20918@riacs.edu>
Sender: news@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab, AEG/FIST
Lines: 54

>                               It [is] a facinating question of how these
>two processes (automatic,conscious) interact and how one can be a benefit
>to the other.  Obviously if nothing were "automated" then we would have
>to "think" about every step we took.  This does not take advantage of the
>parallelism in a nervous system.
>     I introduced the idea of automatic responses in this discussion to 
>counter the trend of over-reliance on the "rational" and "logical" facets
>of human thought.
>     It has been said that Einstein relied on an almost kinesthetic sense
>to guide him in his research.  This "intuitive" or non-logical component
>	Douglas G. Danforth   		    (danforth@riacs.edu)

In fact, most thinking is done unconsicously.  For instance, someone asks me
to go dancing at Marcela's.  Immediately several processes are initiated that
seem to operate in parallel: my energy level is checked & it is high, my
emotions are checked & I'm a little depressed, I've been wanting to practice
my Salsa & it's Salsa night, knockout Joan said last week she was going to
start Salsa & she'll probably be there, Berta may be there & I don't want to
see her, I just paid my auto insurance & my money's a bit low, I really
should go see Gwynn & see how she & her girls are doing, Sherwin & Bonita
want me to go to Norah's to do the Argentine tango & I owe them for giving me
the birthday party, I should stay late & get that Motif menu fixed, I really
want to reply to the emergence thread, ...

Each of these processes delivers a positive or negative motive, some of them
with large weights, some of them small.  These are summed together & I decide
yes or no.  Then I come up with a reason for my decision: Joan sounded very
friendly the last time I danced with her; I can't let this opportunity go by.

Further these are just the top-level processes that will go into the decision.
Each one of them may be based on a similar multiplicity of sub-processes.  

There are several points I want to make about this.  

(1)   Few of the decisions are truly irrational.  Sexual motives are the basis
for the continuance of the race; an urge to keep our obligations in balance
helps make society work; and so on.  Further, the decisions follow a logical
process.  The checking of one's energy level, for instance, can be described
formally & implemented electronically (or, when our bioengineering improves,
organically).

(2)   Decisions are made & justified so rapidly that we assume that the
justification is the "real" reason.  But the justification may have had only
a small weight in the decision process.  And it may not have contributed at
all, especially if my justification isn't acceptable to society, or would
hurt my ego.  Then I'll create a public reason, something that sounds
virtuous: the exercise will do me good; my friends come first.  And I may
even convince myself that my public reason is the "real" reason.

I've several more points, but this is getting too long.  Maybe I'll say more
later.
			Larry Carroll
			"Takes-us" (correct pronunciation of Texas)
			Dancin' Fool