Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.philosophy,net.rumor,net.misc,net.junk
Subject: Re: Intuition
Message-ID: <773@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Jun-84 16:58:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.773
Posted: Fri Jun 22 16:58:21 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Jun-84 00:57:56 EDT
References: <3971@utzoo.UUCP> <510@spuxll.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 31

[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