'brain', and -- if you advocate the position that there is no difference -- what possible mechanisms account for intuition? On the first, 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? Let's look at a few candidates; are any of these either supported or disproved by current evidence? 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. The traditional technical and ethical constraints against breaking open that skull to measure it are only beginning to break down (the technical ones, that is!). I'll add one thing, then get off the box. I USE my intuition: I am willing to take ideas whether I can account for the source/process or not. However, I apply the usual rational processes to the intuitive notion before swearing to its truth: check for self-consistency, consistency with available data, and where possible set up "experiments" that might falsify the premise. The Son of Sam had the divine inspiration that he had to kill a few folks... =Ned= ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Jun 84 13:17:28 PDT From: Michael Dyer Subject: Intuition Those who are trying to argue that "intuition" is something that cannot be mechanized or understood in terms of computational structures and operations should try substituting the word "soul" everywhere for "intuition" and see if they still believe their own arguments. If they still do, then I ask them to re-read Minksy's comments on the "soul" a few digest issues back. The task of AI researchers is to show how such vague notions CAN be understood computationally, not to go around arguing against this simply because such notions as "intuition" are so vague as to be computationally useless at such at a bs level of discussion. It's like my postulating the notion of "radio" and then looking at each transistor, crystal, wire or what-have-you inside the radio, and then saying "THAT part can't be a radio; that OTHER part there can't be one either. I guess the idea of 'radio' can never be realized by the combination of such parts." I second the suggestion that amateur philosophers of mind read Hofstadter, or better yet, start building computer programs which exhibit aspects of "intuition" and then discuss their own programs. ------------------------------ Date: 22 Jun 84 8:41:28-PDT (Fri) From: hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccivax!band @ Ucb-Vax.arpa Subject: Re: Mind and Brain Article-I.D.: ccivax.171 In reference to Mr. Robison's comments: Is it possible that "intuition" is the word we use to explain what cannot be explained more formally or logically? I'm thinking of the explanation of evolution based on Natural Selection. An explanation based on probability is NOT an explanation at all. It is an admission that there is no logical or formal explanation possible. Of course, we still accept evolution as a fact of life, but we don't have any mechanic