Intuition

[Acme]

Of course we need to be optimistic when we take a chance, this is why the word "good" always appears before the word "intuition", but I am interested in the way the brain produces chance, and in the usefulness of such a process in our minds.

 

When we look at the future, even if it is a speculative moove in itself, if we take a decision, it is always when we hope that it will work, never when we beleive that it will not. Any decision regarding the future has to be optimistic, otherwise we would never moove, isn't it?

I find the idea of taking a chance/risk interesting in relation to intuition. It seems to me that intuition is a development of experience in risk taking, whether one is bold or not-so-bold. A little searching found this article: >> The Evolution of Risk-Taking

 

...Weve made some progress, but much work remains to be done on the evolution of boldness in animals. We need a better understanding of the molecular genetics and the underlying neurobiology and endocrinology of this trait. We need mathematical models of risk-taking; these models are only just emerging in the growing animal literature on behavioral syndromes. We need a deeper understanding of the phylogeneticthat is, evolutionaryhistory of boldness. Almost nothing is known about this, though Alexander Weiss has some fascinating ideas about the relationship between the evolution of personality traits in humans and that of our closest living relatives (Weiss et al. 2011). ...

[Le Repteux]

Lee Alan Dugatkin Ph.D.

"...we don’t know much about the costs and benefits of risk-taking in natural settings, but it is knowledge of the costs and benefits of a behavior that allows us to use natural-selection thinking to understand evolutionary history and to make predictions about the future. We could remedy both problems by looking at the costs and benefits of risk-taking across many species. And that is what we have started to do."

I am not sure this is the right thinking. Humans take more risks than animals, which means to me that the risk taking nature is profitable to intelligence, not to instinct. "If we risk nothing we get nothing" only applies to humans. To me, an intuition is only a way for our mind to force us into action, because we are intelligent and we know that a risk is risky, but what we do not know is that it is more profitable to risk than not to risk, providing that the risk is not too dangerous. Scientists know that their intuitions might not work, but if a little voice tells them that they will, then they might try them, otherwise, we would not have all those discoveries and inventions that facilitate our lives.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

 

...Weve made some progress, but much work remains to be done on the evolution of boldness in animals. We need a better understanding of the molecular genetics and the underlying neurobiology and endocrinology of this trait. We need mathematical models of risk-taking; these models are only just emerging in the growing animal literature on behavioral syndromes. We need a deeper understanding of the phylogeneticthat is, evolutionaryhistory of boldness. Almost nothing is known about this, though Alexander Weiss has some fascinating ideas about the relationship between the evolution of personality traits in humans and that of our closest living relatives (Weiss et al. 2011). ...

I am not sure this is the right thinking. Humans take more risks than animals, which means to me that the risk taking nature is profitable to intelligence, not to instinct. "If we risk nothing we get nothing" only applies to humans. To me, an intuition is only a way for our mind to force us into action, because we are intelligent and we know that a risk is risky, but what we do not know is that it is more profitable to risk than not to risk, providing that the risk is not too dangerous. Scientists know that their intuitions might not work, but if a little voice tells them that they will, then they might try them, otherwise, we would not have all those discoveries and inventions that facilitate our lives.

 

Clearly you did not read the article beyond what I quoted of it. The article goes in depth to support the brief passage I quoted in keeping with copyright obligations. The obligation to read the full article before passing judgment is on you and the other dear tender readers.

[Le Repteux]

You are right Acme, I had not read all the article, but now I have, and I still think that humans take more risks than animals. The study shows that animals who take more risks are also more curious, which is a behavior that helps the learning process. But which animal can learn better than humans? Learning is a human affair, and if risk is associated to it, then humans take more risks. But how does it work? How the process of learning is associated with the way we take our risks?

[Acme]

You are right Acme, I had not read all the article, but now I have, and I still think that humans take more risks than animals. The study shows that animals who take more risks are also more curious, which is a behavior that helps the learning process. But which animal can learn better than humans? Learning is a human affair, and if risk is associated to it, then humans take more risks. But how does it work? How the process of learning is associated with the way we take our risks?

Since non-human animals take the ultimate risk of death, then it is baseless to say humans take more risks than other animals. Moreover, learning is learning no matter to what degree and learn 'better' is an arbitrary and subjective phrase that explains nothing.

 

If you read the article then you know that the 'how' humans and animals evolved risk-taking behavior is unknown and just beginning to be investigated. I found that article searching evolutionary advantage to risk taking and the search returns many other hits that you can investigate.

[Le Repteux]

Animals and humans take instinctive risks since they both have instincts, but only humans take conscious risks. Animals do not speculate with their money when they know they can loose it for example. This is what I meant by taking more risks, though I admit risk taking is hard to measure. For the same reason, learning is different for an animal or for a human. Learning needs a constraint and a reward: animals need those concretely and immediately, whereas humans can imagine them in the future. Imagination and conscience have something in common, they both concern what we intend to do in the future, and they both concern risk taking. How come? Is it the same phenomeneon, and if so, why two names?

[Acme]

Animals and humans take instinctive risks since they both have instincts, but only humans take conscious risks. Animals do not speculate with their money when they know they can loose it for example.

Wolves hunting in a pack consciously judge the risks of attacking large prey and work as a group to reduce those risks.

 

This is what I meant by taking more risks, though I admit risk taking is hard to measure. For the same reason, learning is different for an animal or for a human. Learning needs a constraint and a reward: animals need those concretely and immediately, whereas humans can imagine them in the future. Imagination and conscience have something in common, they both concern what we intend to do in the future, and they both concern risk taking. How come? Is it the same phenomeneon, and if so, why two names?

I do not contend that non-human animals have all the same capabilities as humans, but that does not mean non-humans animals do not share some characteristics. This is why rats learning mazes are used in experiments.

[Le Repteux]

Wolves hunting in a pack consciously judge the risks of attacking large prey and work as a group to reduce those risks.

Are you sure they do that consciously? If they did, I suppose that they would have to learn it, no? But birds know how to build a nest without having to learn it, it is instinctive.

 

I do not contend that non-human animals have all the same capabilities as humans, but that does not mean non-humans animals do not share some characteristics. This is why rats learning mazes are used in experiments.

Rats learn by immediate reward too, if there is no reward at the end of the maze, they do not have anything to learn. You cannot tell a rat that it will be rewarded tomorrow and demand that it learns something now. Only humans can do that. I still think that it takes a human to imagine taking a risk for a future reward, even if he also can accept an immediate one. To learn something, we have to imagine a reward, which manifests itself through a good feeling or a pleasure, and to take a risk too. If it has never been done, a future move is always risky, and we need a little push to decide ourselves, what we call a good intuition, which might not be as good as we had expected, but if the risk is not too large, trying new things might be more helpful than not to. But there is more to it, because if it works a bit, then we will be motivated to repeat the new move, which means that we will be able to improve it, and if we repeat it many times, we will not have to think about it any more, which means that it has been automated. This is how I think that we proceed to learn or to try new things, we need a good intuition and we need that this good feeling coincides with the feeling we have when we execute what we had imagined. What do you think of that idea Acme?

[Acme]

Are you sure they do that consciously? If they did, I suppose that they would have to learn it, no?

That's right; they learn it. And that learning is how they develop intuition just as humans do.

 

But birds know how to build a nest without having to learn it, it is instinctive.

Yes, but birds learn other things like where & how to find food and how to avoid predators. And again, this learning allows them to develop intuition.

 

Rats learn by immediate reward too, if there is no reward at the end of the maze, they do not have anything to learn. You cannot tell a rat that it will be rewarded tomorrow and demand that it learns something now. Only humans can do that.

Well you can't tell a rat anything so that's a weak argument. As I said I'm not claiming human's aren't unique in many ways; I'm just saying other animals have [some] analogous behaviors when it comes to learning and intuition. Keep in mind humans evolved long after other animals were learning and being intuitive. Evolution simply happened to gift us with some enhanced abililities.

 

I still think that it takes a human to imagine taking a risk for a future reward, even if he also can accept an immediate one.

Well, I think you misjudge what wolves are doing then.

 

To learn something, we have to imagine a reward, which manifests itself through a good feeling or a pleasure, and to take a risk too. If it has never been done, a future move is always risky, and we need a little push to decide ourselves, what we call a good intuition, which might not be as good as we had expected, but if the risk is not too large, trying new things might be more helpful than not to. But there is more to it, because if it works a bit, then we will be motivated to repeat the new move, which means that we will be able to improve it, and if we repeat it many times, we will not have to think about it any more, which means that it has been automated. This is how I think that we proceed to learn or to try new things, we need a good intuition and we need that this good feeling coincides with the feeling we have when we execute what we had imagined. What do you think of that idea Acme?

I think many animals do this; it is not unique to humans.

[Le Repteux]

Well you can't tell a rat anything so that's a weak argument. As I said I'm not claiming human's aren't unique in many ways; I'm just saying other animals have [some] analogous behaviors when it comes to learning and intuition. Keep in mind humans evolved long after other animals were learning and being intuitive. Evolution simply happened to gift us with some enhanced abililities.

OK, let us take for granted that animals also have intuitions, and let us try to describe the process more precisely. Let us assume also that intuitions serve to initiate new actions in the perspective of learning how to execute them properly by means of a trial and error process. Now, if those intuitions are not issued from such a process, and that the only other thing that mind is able to do is execute automatic actions, like memorization or calculations, where do these intuitions come from? Could they for instance come from a random process that mind would have developed while evolving to face the future changes in its natural environment?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

OK, let us take for granted that animals also have intuitions, and let us try to describe the process more precisely. Let us assume also that intuitions serve to initiate new actions in the perspective of learning how to execute them properly by means of a trial and error process. Now, if those intuitions are not issued from such a process, and that the only other thing that mind is able to do is execute automatic actions, like memorization or calculations, where do these intuitions come from? Could they for instance come from a random process that mind would have developed while evolving to face the future changes in its natural environment?

The exact processes are still unknown as I earlier noted. This is where rats make sense because to find out what is going on chemically in learning it is often necessary to chop open the brain, put it in a blender, and then make a chemical analysis. Newer brain imaging technologies show some promise for non-invasive study of humans and other animals, but it does take time for researchers to propose, design, and carry out such studies.

 

If you want some insight into the philosophical and/or organizational aspect of self-awareness and thinking, I recommend reading Doug Hofstadter's I Am A Strange Loop.

[Le Repteux]

Hofstader's Strange loop makes sense to me, but his explanation is too philosophical for me (I did not read all the book either, but only comments and critics). To explain it, I need something more physical, something like the action/reaction process we observe when we manipulate a body. To say it frankly, I think that the consciousness process is due to the resistance to change of our automatisms. Here is what I said about that resistance on another topic. Tell me what you think of it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83736-look-ma-no-mind/

[Acme]

Hofstader's Strange loop makes sense to me, but his explanation is too philosophical for me (I did not read all the book either, but only comments and critics). To explain it, I need something more physical, something like the action/reaction process we observe when we manipulate a body. To say it frankly, I think that the consciousness process is due to the resistance to change of our automatisms. Here is what I said about that resistance on another topic. Tell me what you think of it.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83736-look-ma-no-mind/

You need to read it all and not rely on comments & critics. His underlying interest is AI and mathematics and while the philosophical aspect comes into play of necessity -and style- Dougie's math and logic puts you between the hammer and the anvil. People of small souls should not attempt it.

 

I'll have a look at the reference.

.

Hi everybody,

... But what kind of mechanism could produce chance in our brain, and what would be the use for such a mechanism in an intelligent brain? Could it be inherent to intelligence? Could it be the secret that explains its unpredictability?

Chance is inherent in our sensorial experience, but our intelligence is about what we do with and make of those experiences. This is the strange loop Doug explicates as a hierarchy of recursion in which the paradox is that while it is founded on low order occurrences such as atoms & such, it is not controlled by them. I'm paraphrasing there and will check for exact wording later; I'm actually re-reading the book these last few weeks and this is a good test of my recall and grokkage.

 

I did well enough me thinks.

pg. 42 I Am A Strange Loop

The Strange Irrelevance of Lower Levels

This idea -- that the bottom level, though 100 percent responsible for what is happening, is nonetheless irrelevant to what happens -- sounds almost paradoxical, and yet it is an everyday truism. Since I want this to be crystal-clear, let me illustrate it with one more example.

...

Edited June 20, 2014 by Acme

[Le Repteux]

Again, the excerpt from Hofstadter's book fits with my own definition of conscience, except for its physical part. If you link conscience to the resistance a material body offers to any change in direction or in speed, then you realize that the brain is made of molecules that resist the same way, and that their atoms and components also resist the same way. The difficult part is to link this physical phenomenon to a psychological one: our own resistance to change. This is what I do in the topic that I wanted you to consult, and I suggest that you consult the following one too if you want to understand the whole thing.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83590-look-ma-no-maths/

Edited June 20, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

Again, the excerpt from Hofstadter's book fits with my own definition of conscience, except for its physical part. If you link conscience to the resistance a material body offers to any change in direction or in speed, then you realize that the brain is made of molecules that resist the same way, and that their atoms and components also resist the same way. The difficult part is to link this physical phenomenon to a psychological one: our own resistance to change. This is what I do in the topic that I wanted you to consult, and I suggest that you consult the following one too if you want to understand the whole thing.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83590-look-ma-no-maths/

I did consult it, and in fact quoted from it here. You may have missed it as the forum software joins multiple posts made within a short time period into one post.

 

It is the physical part not being relevant to consciousness even though the physical part is responsible that is at the heart of Hofstadter's argument. He goes to great length to give examples of why this is the way things actually happen. I again encourage you to read the whole book. I cannot quote more than snippets in accordance with forum & copyright rules as well as out of respect to Doug. Read the whole book as it is one argument; it is self-similar to its thesis. Hard as some parts may be, you just gotta suck it up and power through.

...It is the physical part not being relevant to consciousness even though the physical part is responsible that is at the heart of Hofstadter's argument. He goes to great length to give examples of why this is the way things actually happen. I again encourage you to read the whole book. I cannot quote more than snippets in accordance with forum & copyright rules as well as out of respect to Doug. Read the whole book as it is one argument; it is self-similar to its thesis. Hard as some parts may be, you just gotta suck it up and power through.

I went back to my re-reading and found some self-satisfaction at how a modicom of Doug's words & ideas have stuck in my careenium since my first read several years back. The following is a slight redaction illustrating that point and on the topic of this thread --more-or-less.

 

 

Chapter 8: pgs. 111-112

...the study of pattern (mathematics) and the study of paradoxes (metamathematics). ... Although over the course of the next couple of decades I lost essentially all of my faith in the notion that these disciplines contained (even implicitly) the answers to all these questions, one thing I never lost was my intuitive hunch that around the core of the eternal riddle "What am I?", there swirled the ethereal vortex of Gödel's elaborately constructed loop.

It is for that reason that in this book, although I am being driven principally by questions about consciousness and self, I will have to devote some pages to the background needed for a (very rough) understanding of Gödel's ideas -- and in particular this means number theory and logic. ... So please fasten your seat belt, dear reader. We're going to be experiencing a bit of weather for the next two chapters.

[Le Repteux]

To me, Goëdel's theorem means that the universe has no special meaning, that we can give it one if we wish, but that we will never be able to prove it. Applying it to the mind is not completely wrong if we consider that life has thus no particular meaning either, but it does not permit to discover the principle of intelligence, which should be comprehensible even if it is the intelligence who tries to comprehend itself. It is not possible to comprehend infinity because we cannot observe it and thus study it, but it is possible to comprehend things that we can observe, even if it is ourselves, and this is what I am trying to do while associating conscience to resistance to change, because observing their resistance is the easiest way of observing things at work. Did you throw a glance at the topic about mass that I initiated?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Deepak Kapur]

A scientist is eating his breakfast with a cool mind.....not thinkin anything specific........

 

Suddenly, a thought comes to his mind that says to him that he should add a particular chemical to his petridish in order to obtain a particular result he has been aiming at for the last one month....

 

The scientist leaves his breakfast, goes to his lad, adds the chemical that his thought told him to add and gets the desired result.

 

Can this thought be called intuition?

[Acme]

A scientist is eating his breakfast with a cool mind.....not thinkin anything specific........

 

Suddenly, a thought comes to his mind that says to him that he should add a particular chemical to his petridish in order to obtain a particular result he has been aiming at for the last one month....

 

The scientist leaves his breakfast, goes to his lad, adds the chemical that his thought told him to add and gets the desired result.

 

Can this thought be called intuition?

Because the scientist was not thinking about her problem, I would call the thought an epiphany and not intuition.

 

To me, Gödel's theorem means that the universe has no special meaning, that we can give it one if we wish, but that we will never be able to prove it. Applying it to the mind is not completely wrong if we consider that life has thus no particular meaning either, but it does not permit to discover the principle of intelligence, which should be comprehensible even if it is the intelligence who tries to comprehend itself. It is not possible to comprehend infinity because we cannot observe it and thus study it, but it is possible to comprehend things that we can observe, even if it is ourselves, and this is what I am trying to do while associating conscience to resistance to change, because observing their resistance is the easiest way of observing things at work. Did you throw a glance at the topic about mass that I initiated?

I don't think that you give an accurate accounting/application of Gödel's theorem(s). I have read some of your thread and its replies and I don't see anything there to apply to this topic.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Acme

[Le Repteux]

Hi Deepak,

 

To me, intuitions happen by chance, so yes, I think that your description of what struck the mind of the scientist fits my definition, but not what happens after, because intuitions do not necessarily work each time you have one, at least for me.

 

I don't think that you give an accurate accounting/application of Gödel's theorem(s).

Maybe I did not give a good definition of the theorem, but I applied it to my proper definition of the mind the same way Hofstader did, without the maths though.

 

I have read some of your thread and its replies and I don't see anything there to apply to this topic.

It is a fundamental link: my definition of consciousness comes from the definition of mass, which is resistance to acceleration and inertial motion. But since I think that mass is due to the interaction between the atoms, then I infer that the resistance to change of our automatisms and their constancy is due to the interaction between the neurons, which, like the atoms of my animation, proceed to stay synchronized together even when a change in their frequency occurs. If you do not understand what happens to the small steps between the atoms when they undergo a change in their frequency, you will probably not be able to understand what an intuition is for me.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

...

Maybe I did not give a good definition of the theorem, but I applied it to my proper definition of the mind the same way Hofstader did, without the maths though.

 

It is a fundamental link: my definition of consciousness comes from the definition of mass, which is resistance to acceleration and inertial motion. But since I think that mass is due to the interaction between the atoms, then I infer that the resistance to change of our automatisms and their constancy is due to the interaction between the neurons, which, like the atoms of my animation, proceed to stay synchronized together even when a change in their frequency occurs. If you do not understand what happens to the small steps between the atoms when they undergo a change in their frequency, you will probably not be able to understand what an intuition is for me.

I understand that your definition of mass is unsupported and contrary to the standard definition of matter. By extension I expect your application of that definition to intuition is unfounded.

[Le Repteux]

A theory is unfounded by definition, it only has to cope with observations, and I think that mine does, but I did not find a way to prove it for the moment. The way it applies to our own resistance to change is nevertheless surprising, and to biologic evolution too. It means that our resistance to change is not a psychological issue, but an intrinsic phenomenon affecting any material body. By the same token, it means that mind and the conscience that comes with it is a material phenomenon. But can we say that intuition and imagination, the only two functions that can change our ideas, are also material, since they depend on hazard to manifest themselves? If we compare with mutations, their biologic counterpart, it seams that we could answer yes, because mutations are real, but the dreams that our imagination induces are so unreal that it is difficult to believe that they come from a real phenomenon.

[Acme]

A theory is unfounded by definition, ...

No; a theory is founded in observations and meant to explain what was observed.

 

... it only has to cope with observations, and I think that mine does, but I did not find a way to prove it for the moment.

As I said, a theory doesn't have to 'cope' with observations, it is meant to explain them.

 

The way it applies to our own resistance to change is nevertheless surprising, and to biologic evolution too. It means that our resistance to change is not a psychological issue, but an intrinsic phenomenon affecting any material body. By the same token, it means that mind and the conscience that comes with it is a material phenomenon. But can we say that intuition and imagination, the only two functions that can change our ideas, are also material, since they depend on hazard to manifest themselves? If we compare with mutations, their biologic counterpart, it seams that we could answer yes, because mutations are real, but the dreams that our imagination induces are so unreal that it is difficult to believe that they come from a real phenomenon.

The fundamental phenomenon of nature is change; resistance is futile and you will be assimilated.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Le Repteux, please do not use other threads to advertise your own.

[Le Repteux]

No; a theory is founded in observations and meant to explain what was observed......As I said, a theory doesn't have to 'cope' with observations, it is meant to explain them.

I was using the term cope in the sense of supporting the observations, but my english is poor since I do not use it often. What I meant is what you said.

 

The fundamental phenomenon of nature is change; resistance is futile and you will be assimilated.

If our resistance to change comes from the atom's one, then the principle of action/reaction should apply, which means that resistance to change implies permanent change, since atoms that undergo an acceleration acquire a permanent change even if they resist to it.

!

Moderator Note

Le Repteux, please do not use other threads to advertise your own.

Hi Hype,

It was not my intention to advertise myself, I just wanted to explain where my idea about intuition came from, but if you mean that I should not refer myself to my own speculative topics to argue on a scientific topic on psychology, I shall stick to speculative topics.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

I was using the term cope in the sense of supporting the observations, but my english is poor since I do not use it often. What I meant is what you said.

Acknowledged. Your English is doing well enough; kudos for being French and using English anyway.

 

If our resistance to change comes from the atom's one, then the principle of action/reaction should apply, which means that resistance to change implies permanent change, since atoms that undergo an acceleration acquire a permanent change even if they resist to it.

This is the application that Hofstadter shows is fallacious. While the following quote -which I earlier gave- gets to the point, it is in the body of the book that Hofstadter outlines the supporting evidence.

pg. 42 I Am A Strange Loop

The Strange Irrelevance of Lower Levels

This idea -- that the bottom level, though 100 percent responsible for what is happening, is nonetheless irrelevant to what happens -- sounds almost paradoxical, and yet it is an everyday truism. Since I want this to be crystal-clear, let me illustrate it with one more example.

...

You won't be the first one that I have recommended this book to that balks at actually reading it. I think that whether it applies as I suggest or not, you would enjoy it in a general way given your interests expressed here in the forum.

.

PS

...Hi Hype,

It was not my intention to advertise myself, I just wanted to explain where my idea about intuition came from, but if you mean that I should not refer myself to my own speculative topics to argue on a scientific topic on psychology, I shall stick to speculative topics.

For what it's worth I think the mod criticism of your reference was misplaced. It was no less appropriate than if you had linked to a Wiki article in support of your argument, whether or not the specific reference was speculative/questioned/challenged or not.