Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!akgua!psuvax1!psuvm%gms
From: psuvm%gms@psuvax1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <899@psuvm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Jun-84 11:07:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvm.899
Posted: Fri Jun 22 11:07:36 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Jul-84 01:41:38 EDT
Lines: 59


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) 863-4356