Intuition

[Le Repteux]

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

Thank's Acme! It took me a few years until I decide to try, and since I have been here, I learn new words every day, like kudos for example, which I had never heard before.

 

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.....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.

Here is an interview of Hofstadter where lots of people left long comments. I read many of them to get an idea of what its conscience is really about, but all I get is the usual philosophic stuff that does not explain physically what it is. To me, that kind of thinking will never permit to understand our brain. We need to be more concrete about it if we want to reproduce it artificially. It is not just a software problem, it is also a hardware one. We first have to discover how a physical phenomenon can produce the kind of memory we have. I have my own idea about it, but it is only an intuition.

 

[Acme]

Thank's Acme! It took me a few years until I decide to try, and since I have been here, I learn new words every day, like kudos for example, which I had never heard before.

My pleasure. For English slang, try The Urban Dictionary

 

Here is an interview of Hofstadter where lots of people left long comments. I read many of them to get an idea of what its conscience is really about, but all I get is the usual philosophic stuff that does not explain physically what it is. To me, that kind of thinking will never permit to understand our brain. We need to be more concrete about it if we want to reproduce it artificially. It is not just a software problem, it is also a hardware one. We first have to discover how a physical phenomenon can produce the kind of memory we have. I have my own idea about it, but it is only an intuition.

I can not overemphasize that reviews are simply no substitute for reading the book. Hofstadter specifically covers your objections.

[Le Repteux]

My pleasure. For English slang, try The Urban Dictionary

Thank's! I use reverso.net as a french/english dictionnary, and when I do not face an invented word, it works very well.

 

I can not overemphasize that reviews are simply no substitute for reading the book. Hofstadter specifically covers your objections.

You probably have the impression that it covers them because I did not have time to explain all my theory yet. For instance, I think that our main memory mechanism depends on a self-sustained standing wave made of nervous pulses exchanged between the brain neurons, and that our intuitions come from the imprecisions that create a kind of a lottery out of that standing wave with time. That way, even if our resistance to change comes from each atom's own resistance to acceleration involved in the process, the outcome stays uncertain. Moreover, I draw your attention on the strange loop potential of that personal standing wave.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

Thank's! I use reverso.net as a french/english dictionnary, and when I do not face an invented word, it works very well.

 

You probably have the impression that it covers them because I did not have time to explain all my theory yet. For instance, I think that our main memory mechanism depends on a self-sustained standing wave made of nervous pulses exchanged between the brain neurons, and that our intuitions come from the imprecisions that create a kind of a lottery out of that standing wave with time. That way, even if our resistance to change comes from each atom's own resistance to acceleration involved in the process, the outcome stays uncertain. Moreover, I draw your attention on the strange loop potential of that personal standing wave.

All words are invented.

 

Yes I do understand what you are suggesting and yes Hofstadter takes such 'causative' phenomena into consideration. Again, I honestly don't understand the reluctance to actually read what Hofstadter writes. Also again, you aren't the only one to put up such resistance. I loaned my copy to one person and got it back 2 years later unread. Of the other 6 or so persons that I directly/personally recommended it to, only one read it and he had read Doug's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid and just didn't know that Doug had written a new book.

 

On this particular issue, you must not rely on your intuition.

 

Edit: While as with I Am A Strange Loop, reviews of Gödel, Escher, Bach -aka GEB- do not substitute for reading the actual book, here is part of the Wiki article I just linked to and which points to why I think it pertains.

...By exploring common themes in the lives and works of logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, GEB expounds concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence. Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself. ...

Edited June 24, 2014 by Acme

[Le Repteux]

All words are invented.

Of course, but all our words do not end up in a dictionary.

 

Again, I honestly don't understand the reluctance to actually read what Hofstadter writes.

I am not reluctant, I would read it if I had it, I only want to compare my own ideas to yours directly, without having to go through Doug's mind. Since you know his ideas, I though you could compare them to mine and tell me what you think of mine, but I guess it is too soon for you to do that.

 

On this particular issue, you must not rely on your intuition.

Since I think that intuitions rely on a lottery process, I always try not to hurt anybody when I implement them.

[Acme]

Of course, but all our words do not end up in a dictionary.

Pretty much all do that fall into common usage. So too those that have fallen out of usage and receive the nomination archaic. (Notwithstanding that many dictionaries leave out words due to a restriction on volume size.)

 

I am not reluctant, I would read it if I had it, I only want to compare my own ideas to yours directly, without having to go through Doug's mind. Since you know his ideas, I though you could compare them to mine and tell me what you think of mine, but I guess it is too soon for you to do that.

From what I have already read here and in your other threads, it is not too soon. The supporting material Doug gives for that quote that I have given twice already runs to several if not many chapters and I simply cannot repeat them here or summarize them any further. May I give the quote again? Yes; I must.

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.

See how that quote ends with "give one MORE example"? That's because he has give several chapters worth already. It's also because it is not an intuitive concept and requires deep thought to understand and/or appreciate the truth of it. Your atoms pushing around may be responsible, but they are irrelevant.

 

Since I think that intuitions rely on a lottery process, I always try not to hurt anybody when I implement them.

But I am hurt. I am hurt that you ask for my judgment and when I give it, you conclude it is not for you without giving it fair consideration. That judgment is apparently an intuitive one. If you were to read the book and come back with arguments on some particulars in it which you constructed through rational means, I would get happy.

 

Just to revisit my earlier accounting of intuition, lottery has nothing to do with intuition. Intuition arises out of experience and is not to be confused with instinct.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Acme

[Deepak Kapur]

I was talking to a person who told me that the day her sister met with an accident, the same day he felt extremely nervous, had awful butterflies in his stomach, felt sth wrong was going to happen to her sister, called her (her house was about 700 miles away) and got the news of her accident from her husband....

 

Is this intuition....Is this similar to the nervousness of animals before an earthquake.....

[Le Repteux]

If intuitions are about having the impression that a new idea is not going to hurt, then having the impression that something wrong is going to happen is not an intuition, but a premonition. I think that we have premonitions and intuitions all the time, but I also think that they come from our mind being able to speculate about the future, which is a good thing if we can verify that our previsions do not hurt, but useless if we cannot, and it can even become dangerous for us if we believe in them before having had time to verify them.

See how that quote ends with "give one MORE example"? That's because he has given several chapters worth already. It's also because it is not an intuitive concept and requires deep thought to understand and/or appreciate the truth of it. Your atoms pushing around may be responsible, but they are irrelevant.

I know that atoms are not directly responsible for what we think, but what I meant is that the phenomenon that produces motion between the atoms also produces evolution between our ideas. This phenomenon does not only explain how we think, but it also explains how the brain works physically, which Doug's ideas could not explain since, from what I had read of them, they are only about logics. As I said, if the small steps are right, understanding intelligence will not be a problem of software, but a hardware one.

 

But I am hurt. I am hurt that you ask for my judgment and when I give it, you conclude it is not for you without giving it fair consideration. That judgment is apparently an intuitive one. If you were to read the book and come back with arguments on some particulars in it which you constructed through rational means, I would get happy.

I do not conclude that it is not interesting, but I conclude that it will not help us to understand the physical mechanism that produces ideas. On the other hand, if I consider that the small steps are real, I realize that it was no use trying to understand intelligence without knowing about the physical mechanism underlying memory and feelings and intuitions.

Just to revisit my earlier accounting of intuition, lottery has nothing to do with intuition. Intuition arises out of experience and is not to be confused with instinct.

If instinct is about invariable automatisms, then intuition must be about variable ones. Since automatisms are difficult to change by definition because they are unconscious, what a better way to change them than without any conscious suggestion? An intuition gives the impression of coming from nowhere, and we certainly cannot produce one intentionally, then why not consider that it happens by chance?

Edited June 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

...

I know that atoms are not directly responsible for what we think, but what I meant is that the phenomenon that produces motion between the atoms also produces evolution between our ideas. This phenomenon does not only explain how we think, but it also explains how the brain works physically, which Doug's ideas could not explain since, from what I had read of them, they are only about logics. As I said, if the small steps are right, understanding intelligence will not be a problem of software, but a hardware one.

No, atoms are 100% responsible; but they are also irrelevant.

 

I do not conclude that it is not interesting, but I conclude that it will not help us to understand the physical mechanism that produces ideas. On the other hand, if I consider that the small steps are real, I realize that it was no use trying to understand intelligence without knowing about the physical mechanism underlying memory and feelings and intuitions.

Let me try my own analogy. (Doug, if I blow this I'll buy you a dinner.) So you could know everything there is to know about motor vehicles. Valves, alloy of engines, fuel injectors, yada, yada, yada, everything. But none of that will tell you anything about traffic. Motor vehicles are 100% responsible for traffic, but their underlying physical mechanisms are irrelevant to traffic. The underlying physical mechanisms of memeory, feelings, and intuitions are also irrelevant.

 

If instinct is about invariable automatisms, then intuition must be about variable ones. Since automatisms are difficult to change by definition because they are unconscious, what a better way to change them than without any conscious suggestion? An intuition gives the impression of coming from nowhere, and we certainly cannot produce one intentionally, then why not consider that it happens by chance?

Because that consideration adds nothing to understanding intuitions. Why not consider that intuitions happen by fairies?

[Le Repteux]

No, atoms are 100% responsible; but they are also irrelevant.

If you wish, but what about the hardware problem? How do neurons produce memory for instance?

 

Let me try my own analogy. (Doug, if I blow this I'll buy you a dinner.) So you could know everything there is to know about motor vehicles. Valves, alloy of engines, fuel injectors, yada, yada, yada, everything. But none of that will tell you anything about traffic. Motor vehicles are 100% responsible for traffic, but their underlying physical mechanisms are irrelevant to traffic. The underlying physical mechanisms of memory, feelings, and intuitions are also irrelevant.

Good try! (Here comes your dinner Doug) When we talk about mind, it is the mind that talks about itself, but a car cannot think, so it can certainly not think about itself. If it could, it might ask itself why it exists and what it is meant for, and then it could realize that knowing how it works might explain part of those questions. I say "part of" because I think that we will never find the end of it, but I also think that it will always be interesting to discover new things.

 

Why not consider that intuitions happen by fairies?

Because biologic mutations also happen by chance, that they get useful to the species by chance, and that we know that fairies do not produce them.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Le Repteux

[Acme]

If you wish, but what about the hardware problem? How does neurons produce memory for instance?

 

Good try! (Here comes your dinner Doug) When we talk about mind, it is the mind that talks about itself, but a car cannot think, so it can certainly not think about itself. If it could, it might ask itself why it exists and what it is meant for, and then it could realize that knowing how it works might explain part of those questions. I say "part of" because I think that we will never find the end of it, but I also think that it will always be interesting to discover new things.

Knowing how neurons produce memory doesn't tell you anything about intuition or how people think or how self awareness arises. The autos are just an analogy and suggesting I meant that they think is a strawman. Traffic and self awareness are emergent properties; higher level abstractions in a hierarchy of emergent properties.

 

Because biologic mutations also happen by chance, and that they get useful to the species by chance.

That doesn't explain intuition, it just describes the circumstance under which it arises.

[Le Repteux]

Knowing how neurons produce memory doesn't tell you anything about intuition or how people think or how self awareness arises.

It might not tell you anything, but it does to me. I already said that I suspected the neurons to entertain a standing wave between them to stock their informations, what do you think of that idea? Isn't it similar to Doug's strange loop? How about discussing how that wave absorbs, changes, and returns an information to its environment?

 

The autos are just an analogy and suggesting I meant that they think is a strawman.

It was my idea, sorry if it looked as if it was yours. I used it to show that the way cars move was not comparable to the way our ideas evolves.

 

Traffic and self awareness are emergent properties; higher level abstractions in a hierarchy of emergent properties.

Yes but to be comparable, the two phenomenon should be self-induced, and traffic is not.

 

That doesn't explain intuition, it just describes the circumstance under which it arises.

To me, it mainly explains that hazard might have something to do with the efficiency of our intelligence, which is quite different than what we thought it was. Isn't it to you?

[Acme]

It might not tell you anything, but it does to me. I already said that I suspected the neurons to entertain a standing wave between them to stock their informations, what do you think of that idea?

It sounds sketchy to me, but I haven't studied neurons enough to really say. Here's an introductory page on memory that you can peruse for current thinking on the matter. >> The Human Memory: What it is, How it works, and how it can go wrong

 

Isn't it similar to Doug's strange loop? How about discussing how that wave absorbs, changes, and returns an information to its environment?

You know what I'm going to say, right? Well, here it is; read the book and judge for yourself.

 

It was my idea, sorry if it looked as if it was yours. I used it to show that the way cars move was not comparable to the way our ideas evolves.

 

Yes but to be comparable, the two phenomenon should be self-induced, and traffic is not.

I don't get the 'looked as if' bit, but no matter. No, the two do not need to be self-induced for my analogy.

 

To me, it mainly explains that hazard might have something to do with the efficiency of our intelligence, which is quite different than what we thought it was. Isn't it to you?

I don't quite get that, but it may be the language barrier. Anyway, human intelligence is an entirely different matter than intuition and probably better left to a thread on that specific topic. I would however agree that hazards affect behavior.

 

Adieu.

[Le Repteux]

So long then, and chance be with you and with your intuitions!

[Acme]

So long then, and chance be with you and with your intuitions!

Chaos favors the prepared imagination.

[Acme]

To me, Gödel's theorem means ...

J'ai couru à travers cette citation de Godel sur l'intuition; profiter.

 

L'intuition n'est pas la preuve; c'est le contraire de la preuve. Nous n'analysons pas l'intuition de voir une preuve mais par l'intuition nous voyons quelque chose sans preuve. ~ Kurt Gödel source

[Le Repteux]

Hi Acme,

 

To me, an intuition is a good feeling about an embryo of an idea, which may or may not be right, so that it still has to be proven. It is thus not the contrary of a proof, it is just that it has to be proven, but if Gödel means that we know that the idea is right before proving that it is, I do not agree with him.