Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!decwrl!world!burley From: burley@world.std.com (James C Burley) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Intuition and intelligence (was emergent properties) Message-ID: Date: 26 Oct 90 10:42:40 GMT References: <1990Oct24.174143.20918@riacs.edu> <10097@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <10106@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Sender: burley@world.std.com (James C Burley) Organization: The World Lines: 71 In-Reply-To: Larry E. Carroll's message of 25 Oct 90 17:50:53 GMT In article <10106@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> Larry E. Carroll writes: >I wouldn't agree that your sample set of thoughts is done "unconsciously", >based on the fact that you are so able to elucidate them. > James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@world.std.com The rest of your post makes sense to me, but I disagree with this comment. I believe it was Whitehead who said (something like): We advance, not by becoming more aware of the elements of our thinking, but by automating & then ceasing to be aware of them. Thus allowing us to think at successively higher levels of abstraction. Ok, let me try to elaborate: I consider "consciousness" to be a relative term, in that one being may be more conscious that another, but "unconsciousness" to be fairly absolute in that it connotes no amount of "consciousness". (Kind of like the terms "interesting" and "uninteresting".) So what I meant is that because you can think consciously about your thought processes, I don't consider them unconscious even though I certainly agree they are less conscious than your thoughts about those processes. Further, those thought processes are more conscious than, say, the processes that lead you to find another being attractive if you find it more difficult to usefully examine those processes (which mankind has tried for millenia and, basically, failed). And those processes (the ones determining attractiveness) are more conscious than the ones that form dream images during your sleep. And those are more conscious than the ones that keep your heart beating. My point is that the ultimate process I talk about above clearly is unconscious. I gather most scientists view dreaming as essentially an unconscious process, also. (Note that just because you are aware of, or can review the events of, a process, does not mean the process is conscious, just that your awareness of it can be. What I am interested in here is whether you can be conscious of the subprocesses of the process, which we have never been able to do in any serious, consistent way with hearbeats or dreams.) Some people would argue that being attracted to someone else in that "indescribable" way (i.e. based on considerations one can't understand, as versus "well, he's obviously quite handsome" or "she's obviously quite rich") is an unconscious process also. Here, however, one is far more capable of modifying, or at least inhibiting, the process than the lower processes of dreaming and certainly keeping one's heart beating. (Yes, I know there are people who claim to be able to modify those processes also, but typically only on the short term and with much less flexibility.) So my argument is that "undefinable attractiveness" might be an example of a borderline case between unconscious and (some degree of) conscious thought. Now in a case like the one you mention, where you are answering a question as to whether you want to go to a dance Friday night, even though you feel you answer the question without conscious thought, the very fact that you have so much awareness of the subprocesses of that thought (and, in my opinion, accurately so, and more so than many other people, which might help define your intelligence or at least self-awareness relative to others) suggests that it cannot be an unconscious thought-process. Especially since I think you'll agree that depending on a large number of possible variations on the situations (other people present, time of day, other plans, and such), you are capable of using highly conscious thought to exert control on or even override this somewhat lower thought-process of weighing typical considerations you review when deciding whether to go dancing. You can't exercise nearly that much control over whether you are attracted to another person, whether or what you dream, or how your heartbeat works. This is why I suggest that the should-I-go-dancing thought-process isn't unconscious at all. It is merely somewhat less conscious that other thought-processes, such as those you use to analyze your own thought-processes. And therefore I'd guess that the should-I-go-dancing thought-process is not encoded in base-level brain architecture (neural nets), but in higher-level architectures. Attractiveness, dreaming, and heartbeating, I am guessing, will all be found to be implemented at successively lower layers of architecture in the brain. Of course, this is all just some hair-brained theory! (-: James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@world.std.com