Intuition: How does it work exactly?

[Speakpigeon]

Well, obviously, nobody really knows.

Still, as I see it, intuition works from a database of notions that the brain has previously integrated. The database is essentially what you've learnt through your life since birth. However, it's not knowledge as such. Rather, it's what you've learnt, which may well be bullshit.

When you're interested in a problem, the key point to let your intuition come into play, is to give your brain the time to integrate the new data. So, a good idea is to work for example two hours a day on this problem, so that your brain takes in the stuff and has the time to "integrate" the new information.

Another key point, is to diversify the points of view, the kind of data relative to the problem, because brains are really champions to establish correlations between apparently unrelated sets of data.

A third key point, is to articulate whatever ideas you've got so far. Your brain will also work on that, given the time to do it.

Intuition is probably the only intelligence we have. When we think, we toy with bits and ends literally without knowing what we're doing. It's only our intuition that will come into play to tell us that this bit and that end have to do with each other.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do.

A last point perhaps... Intuition is not just some idea that pops up in your mind as most people seem to believe. Intuition is really your brain insisting on telling you that something is the case or is true or is the solution. It tells you you should really pay attention to this one. If you feel that both A and not A are both possibilities, then neither is an intuition.

Still, remember your intuition works on whatever you've learnt, and this may actually be complete bullshit. So, perhaps another key point is to keep an open mind and resist dogmatism. Whatever pet theory you're working on, remember it may well be trash. It's still best to stand your ground as most people do, but that shouldn't prevent you from considering the possible value of the arguments other people put forward. Let your brain sort out which is true. This is the only fountain of truth you can trust you will ever have. You just need to give it the time to work its magic and to consider and learn the possibly relevant facts.
EB

 

[rousseau]

Still, as I see it, intuition works from a database of notions that the brain has previously integrated. The database is essentially what you've learnt through your life since birth. However, it's not knowledge as such. Rather, it's what you've learnt, which may well be bullshit.

I think you're pretty much on point here.

Intuition and prejudice (pre-judging) are likely interrelated. We encounter a situation and our brain has a mechanism to measure it up quickly based on our past experience / knowledge in case we need to make a quick decision. This (and long-term memory itself) allows us to make important decisions quickly based on limited information.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do

This sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

The unconscious and conscious mind have different functions (physiologically there would be no reason for them to do the same thing). The unconscious exists so we can act quickly based on pre-existing information, the conscious exists so we can direct our attention to our own knowledge and form it, along with new experiences, into new long-term memories to be used by the unconscious.

The unconscious may seem smarter, but it doesn't always have the answers, which is when the conscious would come into play. When our intuitions are strong enough this means we have wisdom, and the conscious isn't needed. But when our intuitions are weak the conscious needs to flail around until an answer is found.

 

[Rhea]

I agree that the conscious mind is needed to help undo the bias of the unconscious. Your brain will have a conclusion long before you do, but it should be viewed with deliberation.

 

[rousseau]

I agree that the conscious mind is needed to help undo the bias of the unconscious. Your brain will have a conclusion long before you do, but it should be viewed with deliberation.

That is true, although I didn't intend to look at prejudice in a negative sense, but rather just in the neutral 'pre-judging' aka 'judge before engaging conscious mind' sense. In that frame of reference it's the 'bias' that's keeping us alive. Your judgement may be incomplete, but overthinking it might get you eaten by the tiger.

But yea, if you have systemic, uninformed prejudices they are probably worth visiting with the conscious.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree that the conscious mind is needed to help undo the bias of the unconscious. Your brain will have a conclusion long before you do, but it should be viewed with deliberation.

OK. So, how would the conscious go about it? Why would it even see an intuition as wrong to begin with? Do you think people routinely challenge their prejudices? How do that happens?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Intuition and prejudice (pre-judging) are likely interrelated. We encounter a situation and our brain has a mechanism to measure it up quickly based on our past experience / knowledge in case we need to make a quick decision. This (and long-term memory itself) allows us to make important decisions quickly based on limited information.

Limited information? Not quite. If most of our intuition is based on experience, then acting on our intuition is acting on the basis of a lot of information. As I see it, much more information than we could possibly process in the short time of a quick decision. So, it's not so much the quantity of information that's limited but the time in which we may be required to decide what to do.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do

This sounds like a false dichotomy to me.

The unconscious and conscious mind have different functions (physiologically there would be no reason for them to do the same thing). The unconscious exists so we can act quickly based on pre-existing information, the conscious exists so we can direct our attention to our own knowledge and form it, along with new experiences, into new long-term memories to be used by the unconscious.

The unconscious may seem smarter, but it doesn't always have the answers, which is when the conscious would come into play. When our intuitions are strong enough this means we have wisdom, and the conscious isn't needed. But when our intuitions are weak the conscious needs to flail around until an answer is found.

As I see it, if your intuition doesn't have the answer, no amount of thinking will get you one. Instead, you'll have to find more relevant information and then think about that. But then, just being presented with and thinking about this new information won't be enough. You need to let the new information sink in so that a new intuition could form. The conscious mind seems to be essentially the linguistic sub-routine of your unconscious mind. It is its most effective means for communicating with people in the world outside your head. Effective in particular because, through other people, it gives our brain an access to formal knowledge. And there would be no other channel. So basically, all our abstract ideas either come from our intuition or from other people. We are the thing in between. Like the middle man with extortionist tariffs you can't get rid of.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well, obviously, nobody really knows.

Still, as I see it, intuition works from a database of notions that the brain has previously integrated. The database is essentially what you've learnt through your life since birth. However, it's not knowledge as such. Rather, it's what you've learnt, which may well be bullshit.

Our memories aren't stored in a database. It's a complete mystery how memories are stored.

When you're interested in a problem, the key point to let your intuition come into play, is to give your brain the time to integrate the new data. So, a good idea is to work for example two hours a day on this problem, so that your brain takes in the stuff and has the time to "integrate" the new information.

Another key point, is to diversify the points of view, the kind of data relative to the problem, because brains are really champions to establish correlations between apparently unrelated sets of data.

A third key point, is to articulate whatever ideas you've got so far. Your brain will also work on that, given the time to do it.

Intuition is probably the only intelligence we have. When we think, we toy with bits and ends literally without knowing what we're doing. It's only our intuition that will come into play to tell us that this bit and that end have to do with each other.

This is awfully confused. I see loads of errors in how you define this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

I recommend reading Daniel Khaneman's, Thinking fast and slow. Because there's so much confusion about how we think and neurology and the terminology, he just calls it the fast and slow thinking systems.

Our intuition is the fast system. The fast system takes in less information. It uses more stereotypes and old patterns. The reason why we think our intuition is more creative and free thinking is because we make more errors. Unless it's something we've done a million times. In which case our intuition (the fast system) can be more accurate than our slow system. It comes into play if you're a good driver and in an accident, the fast system can kick in and take over and save you. But this is a very special kind of intuition.

The slow system gets things right, much more. It's also the system we have to employ when learning new things. Our fast system sucks balls for learning anything.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do.

Your conscious mind does no thinking at all. That's not what the consciousness is for. So this statement makes no sense. Perhaps you mean the slow system of thinking?

A last point perhaps... Intuition is not just some idea that pops up in your mind as most people seem to believe. Intuition is really your brain insisting on telling you that something is the case or is true or is the solution. It tells you you should really pay attention to this one. If you feel that both A and not A are both possibilities, then neither is an intuition.

Still, remember your intuition works on whatever you've learnt, and this may actually be complete bullshit. So, perhaps another key point is to keep an open mind and resist dogmatism. Whatever pet theory you're working on, remember it may well be trash. It's still best to stand your ground as most people do, but that shouldn't prevent you from considering the possible value of the arguments other people put forward. Let your brain sort out which is true. This is the only fountain of truth you can trust you will ever have. You just need to give it the time to work its magic and to consider and learn the possibly relevant facts.
EB

This raises the question, how do you know all this? It's not like you can just introspect and figure this shit out on your own. Without experiments, double blind studies and so on you have no clue. It looks to me like it's all stuff you just figured out on your own. Is it?

 

[rousseau]

Limited information? Not quite. If most of our intuition is based on experience, then acting on our intuition is acting on the basis of a lot of information. As I see it, much more information than we could possibly process in the short time of a quick decision. So, it's not so much the quantity of information that's limited but the time in which we may be required to decide what to do.

The time that we're required to make a decision is what limits the information. Because we don't have time to gather data we have to make our best guess quickly, which is where our intuition our unconscious would come into play.

As an aside, with this in mind you would also expect our instinct and deepest neural systems to be oriented to avoid danger, by doing stuff like noticing biological movement, and avoiding things that are unlike us. We can run away from something 1000 times in delusion and still be alive. But the one time we don't is what's going to get us killed.

As I see it, if your intuition doesn't have the answer, no amount of thinking will get you one. Instead, you'll have to find more relevant information and then think about that. But then, just being presented with and thinking about this new information won't be enough. You need to let the new information sink in so that a new intuition could form. The conscious mind seems to be essentially the linguistic sub-routine of your unconscious mind. It is its most effective means for communicating with people in the world outside your head. Effective in particular because, through other people, it gives our brain an access to formal knowledge. And there would be no other channel. So basically, all our abstract ideas either come from our intuition or from other people. We are the thing in between. Like the middle man with extortionist tariffs you can't get rid of.
EB

Yea this is along the lines of what I was saying.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Limited information? Not quite. If most of our intuition is based on experience, then acting on our intuition is acting on the basis of a lot of information. As I see it, much more information than we could possibly process in the short time of a quick decision. So, it's not so much the quantity of information that's limited but the time in which we may be required to decide what to do.

The time that we're required to make a decision is what limits the information. Because we don't have time to gather data we have to make our best guess quickly, which is where our intuition our unconscious would come into play.

As an aside, with this in mind you would also expect our instinct and deepest neural systems to be oriented to avoid danger, by doing stuff like noticing biological movement, and avoiding things that are unlike us. We can run away from something 1000 times in delusion and still be alive. But the one time we don't is what's going to get us killed.

There's quite a bit beyond this. The information stored in our unconscious mind isn't a record bit for bit. The brain integrates the information and this takes time. Learning doesn't happen in a day. It goes on and on and on, and like this since your birth. It would be impossible to store all this information as is. Instead, what the brain does is build a particular kind of abstract model, a model that keeps evolving as you learn more about the real world.

As I see it, if your intuition doesn't have the answer, no amount of thinking will get you one. Instead, you'll have to find more relevant information and then think about that. But then, just being presented with and thinking about this new information won't be enough. You need to let the new information sink in so that a new intuition could form. The conscious mind seems to be essentially the linguistic sub-routine of your unconscious mind. It is its most effective means for communicating with people in the world outside your head. Effective in particular because, through other people, it gives our brain an access to formal knowledge. And there would be no other channel. So basically, all our abstract ideas either come from our intuition or from other people. We are the thing in between. Like the middle man with extortionist tariffs you can't get rid of.

Yea this is along the lines of what I was saying.

OK.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Our memories aren't stored in a database.

database
n
1. (Computer Science) a systematized collection of data that can be accessed immediately and manipulated by a data-processing system for a specific purpose
2. (Communications & Information) informal any large store of information: a database of knowledge.

Bad hair day?

This is awfully confused. I see loads of errors in how you define this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

I recommend reading Daniel Khaneman's, Thinking fast and slow. Because there's so much confusion about how we think and neurology and the terminology, he just calls it the fast and slow thinking systems.

How would that clear up the confusion? Most items in the list he provides according to your own link can be done by both intuition and thinking. The list in itself is rather misleading, confusing and contains mistakes. And yet I have to assume you agree with it.

He asserts that the "fast system" solves 2+2 and the slow one solves 17 × 24... Does that mean the man believes you can't train yourself to solve 17 × 24?!

He says digging into your memory to recognise a sound is something the slow system would do. Well, it can sure do it but intuition does it to and faster. So? where's the difference? If you could explain...

Come up with a good chess move (if you're a chess master)... Yes. So? Can you explain where this bit would show my "error" or my "awful confusion"? If you could explain...

And there's also a really big factual mistake: determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning (slow system). That's only true of complicated logical reasoning, such as found in mathematical proofs. As to complex logical relations, logical intuition beats any reasoning. Even today, mathematical logic itself couldn't validate complex relations intuition validates in a fraction of a second. Further, you could train yourself to be able to validate intuitively complicated formulas just like you can train to speak a foreign language or read a score.

The fast system takes in less information.

Not true.

It uses more stereotypes and old patterns. The reason why we think our intuition is more creative and free thinking is because we make more errors. Unless it's something we've done a million times. In which case our intuition (the fast system) can be more accurate than our slow system. It comes into play if you're a good driver and in an accident, the fast system can kick in and take over and save you. But this is a very special kind of intuition. The slow system gets things right, much more. It's also the system we have to employ when learning new things. Our fast system sucks balls for learning anything.

You don't seem to realise there aren't two systems to begin with. We only have one brain. So, since you've read the book, tell me what's the actual difference between the unconscious process that somehow produces intuition and the conscious process that does the deliberate thinking. Should be simple, you've read the book.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do.

Your conscious mind does no thinking at all. That's not what the consciousness is for. So this statement makes no sense. Perhaps you mean the slow system of thinking?

???

When I think in a deliberate way, I'm certainly conscious of a process and we call this process "thinking". That's all there is to it. Whether the conscious process of thinking would be in fact somehow produced by an unconscious process that's possible but we just don't know. And since thinking is obviously produced by some part of the brain, I see no reason whatsoever to assume a priori that the conscious mind plays no part in the process or not the most important part. Me, I think it does.

This raises the question, how do you know all this? It's not like you can just introspect and figure this shit out on your own.

Please give examples of the things these people found that I didn't mention.

Without experiments, double blind studies and so on you have no clue. It looks to me like it's all stuff you just figured out on your own. Is it?

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a best-selling book published in 2011 by Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate Daniel Kahneman. It was the 2012 winner of the National Academies Communication Award for best creative work that helps the public understanding of topics in behavioral science, engineering and medicine. The book summarizes research that Kahneman conducted over decades,

My post is also summarising research I conducted over decades. Introspection doesn't quite cover what I did but broadly yes.

Basically, I used my intuition, and then I thought about it some.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

... So, perhaps another key point is to keep an open mind and resist dogmatism. Whatever pet theory you're working on, remember it may well be trash. It's still best to stand your ground as most people do, but that shouldn't prevent you from considering the possible value of the arguments other people put forward. Let your brain sort out which is true. This is the only fountain of truth you can trust you will ever have. You just need to give it the time to work its magic and to consider and learn the possibly relevant facts.
EB

I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Bad hair day?

It's still a term from the computer world. The informal definition uses the computer database as a metaphor. That's not at all how our memories work. The metaphor is fundamentally broken.

In a database the information is retrieved, cleaned from noise and stored unmolested and it stays unmolested until retrieved, at which point it is processed. If the data has deteriorated to the point where it can't be reconstituted the data is useless. That's not how our memories or brains work. We are acting on deteriorated data all the time. In fact, our ability to store data accurately sucks balls.

Neurology isn't advanced enough for us to figure out exactly how we retrieve stored information. Best guess so far is that it's a kind of neural net. But that leaves us (ie science) exactly nowhere when it comes to figuring out how memories are retrieved. And we certainly haven't proven the brain is a neural net. We're still working on that.

We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.

This is awfully confused. I see loads of errors in how you define this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

I recommend reading Daniel Khaneman's, Thinking fast and slow. Because there's so much confusion about how we think and neurology and the terminology, he just calls it the fast and slow thinking systems.

How would that clear up the confusion? Most items in the list he provides according to your own link can be done by both intuition and thinking. The list in itself is rather misleading, confusing and contains mistakes. And yet I have to assume you agree with it.

He asserts that the "fast system" solves 2+2 and the slow one solves 17 × 24... Does that mean the man believes you can't train yourself to solve 17 × 24?!

He says digging into your memory to recognise a sound is something the slow system would do. Well, it can sure do it but intuition does it to and faster. So? where's the difference? If you could explain...

Come up with a good chess move (if you're a chess master)... Yes. So? Can you explain where this bit would show my "error" or my "awful confusion"? If you could explain...

And there's also a really big factual mistake: determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning (slow system). That's only true of complicated logical reasoning, such as found in mathematical proofs. As to complex logical relations, logical intuition beats any reasoning. Even today, mathematical logic itself couldn't validate complex relations intuition validates in a fraction of a second. Further, you could train yourself to be able to validate intuitively complicated formulas just like you can train to speak a foreign language or read a score.

He's only the world's foremost leading expert on human decision-making... what would he know?

Yes, he explains how intuition/the fast system can be trained to beat the slow system. But it only works better if you are calculating things you've calculated many times already. But in novel situations your intuition will never beat the slow system. At least if the goal is to make intelligent decisions.

The take away is that a person who acts on intuition will stay in old patterns, use stereotypes heavily, will filter reality to match what you remember of the world. Put bluntly, people who act on intuition alone will be the idiots of the world. The rule of thumb is, the less you act on intuition the better decisions you'll make. People who are very stressed will act more on intuition which is why they make so many mistakes.

The fast system takes in less information.

Not true.

Nice of you to assert this. But we have measured this in labs. When acting on intuition your senses take in the same amount of information. But when you're acting on intuition you get a kind of cognitive tunnel vision. So any peripheral or novel information collected is simply rejected by your mind. And is not stored.

Any increased "clarity of vision" you get in this mind state is an illusion. And simply the result of you noticing less things.

It uses more stereotypes and old patterns. The reason why we think our intuition is more creative and free thinking is because we make more errors. Unless it's something we've done a million times. In which case our intuition (the fast system) can be more accurate than our slow system. It comes into play if you're a good driver and in an accident, the fast system can kick in and take over and save you. But this is a very special kind of intuition. The slow system gets things right, much more. It's also the system we have to employ when learning new things. Our fast system sucks balls for learning anything.

You don't seem to realise there aren't two systems to begin with. We only have one brain. So, since you've read the book, tell me what's the actual difference between the unconscious process that somehow produces intuition and the conscious process that does the deliberate thinking. Should be simple, you've read the book.

His division between a fast and a slow system is just a metaphor. To help us understand how the brain works better. Reality is of course messier than this. It's a rough division. It can also be tracked in a CAT scan. When we use the slow system more of the brain lights up. When we are using our intuition we are using much less of the brain. When we're NOT using our intuition we're going down thought paths rarely tread, trying new possibilities, using our brain power heavily, learning new things. When we're using our intuition we're only going down well travelled neural paths. Ie, your brain is learning very little.

Thus, our unconscious brain is probably more intelligent than our conscious mind. It's clear for example that when you're trying to solve a problem, your brain may find the solution perhaps several days before you. And it will give you the solution through intuition, i.e. you're thinking about a problem and there it is, you suddenly have the intuition something you're thinking is the answer. Sometimes the brain may have the solution, or part of the solution, years before you finally get round to it, if you ever do.

Your conscious mind does no thinking at all. That's not what the consciousness is for. So this statement makes no sense. Perhaps you mean the slow system of thinking?

???

When I think in a deliberate way, I'm certainly conscious of a process and we call this process "thinking". That's all there is to it. Whether the conscious process of thinking would be in fact somehow produced by an unconscious process that's possible but we just don't know. And since thinking is obviously produced by some part of the brain, I see no reason whatsoever to assume a priori that the conscious mind plays no part in the process or not the most important part. Me, I think it does.

It's an illusion. All thinking is unconscious. Your consciousness isn't doing any thinking what so ever. Your consciousness is informed after decisions have been taken elsewhere. For some reason your brain constructs a logical but fictional story of how you reached the conclusions you reached. This is then placed in the consciousness. That's why we can be so frustrated with taking decisions that we know we shouldn't be doing, yet do. Anybody who has struggled with addiction can relate. The story you told yourself on how you reached a conclusion probably wasn't the real story. In reality is was most likely a hell of a lot messier.

BTW, this is based on Libet's old experiment. But it's been validated many times over by modern neurology.

We know, with science, that your consciousness isn't thinking. It's still a mystery what it's for. There's competing theories. But we're far from having reached scientific consensus. It probably has something to do with communication, social cohesion, self identity or a combination.

But we know that the brain creates an illusory sense of self and creates a consciousness to create an illusory story the self can tell itself about how it's in control of the brains thinking. But it's not.

This raises the question, how do you know all this? It's not like you can just introspect and figure this shit out on your own.

Please give examples of the things these people found that I didn't mention.

I thought I did?

Without experiments, double blind studies and so on you have no clue. It looks to me like it's all stuff you just figured out on your own. Is it?

Thinking, Fast and Slow is a best-selling book published in 2011 by Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureate Daniel Kahneman. It was the 2012 winner of the National Academies Communication Award for best creative work that helps the public understanding of topics in behavioral science, engineering and medicine. The book summarizes research that Kahneman conducted over decades,

My post is also summarising research I conducted over decades. Introspection doesn't quite cover what I did but broadly yes.

You're a confident guy. I'll give you that. Daniel Kahneman is the most sought after speaker at neurological conferences and has been his entire academic career. He's a super star in his field. He's the mostest super star. You're not.

Basically, I used my intuition, and then I thought about it some.

Hmmm....

Another great book is Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction, by Susan Blackmore. I highly recommend it. Another great one is The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.

Both of these are mostly just a summary of the latest research so far.

 

[steve_bank]

My intuition, mental data base, and experience says I should avoid these kinds of threads.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.

Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's still a term from the computer world. The informal definition uses the computer database as a metaphor. That's not at all how our memories work. The metaphor is fundamentally broken.

What is it you don't understand in the expression "any large store of information"?!

Database
2. (Communications & Information) informal any large store of information: a database of knowledge.

Maybe you think our memories isn't a large store of information?

In a database the information is retrieved, cleaned from noise and stored unmolested and it stays unmolested until retrieved, at which point it is processed. If the data has deteriorated to the point where it can't be reconstituted the data is useless. That's not how our memories or brains work. We are acting on deteriorated data all the time. In fact, our ability to store data accurately sucks balls.

Yeah, I would assume therefore that News organisations don't have any large store of information either...

Neurology isn't advanced enough for us to figure out exactly how we retrieve stored information. Best guess so far is that it's a kind of neural net. But that leaves us (ie science) exactly nowhere when it comes to figuring out how memories are retrieved. And we certainly haven't proven the brain is a neural net. We're still working on that.

Sure, and I haven't specified any detailed mechanism for our intuition. You're merely going after a red herring.

We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.

Sir, you couldn't possibly be wronger here.

My personal impression and I'm dead certain I'm right, and I'm on record on that, is that the brain is sort of magnitudes above anything the current computer technology can do and it's not going to change any time soon.

Specifically, just to give you the scale of the gap, computer technologies exist broadly since the second world war, science broadly since 300 years ago with Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, mathematics broadly since 2,300 years ago with Euclid, or maybe 2500 years ago with Pythagoras, formal logic since 2,400 years ago with Aristotle and the Stoics... So, a couple of thousands of years and overall less than a million people who've worked on it. The human brain? No, doesn't matter. Think instead how long the cells precursors or our neurons have been around: I understand, broadly, it's 525 million years... Million years! And this is a low estimate. How many cells and systems of cells do you think? Me, I wouldn't risk being proved ridiculous by advancing any figure at all. And think how they have been tested: broadly over the entire biomass on the surface of the Earth, in the oceans, in the air and a few metres underground, and in a myriad of configurations in terms of the interaction with the environment of the cell or system of cells. Computers just look pathetic. And the claims of the AI business look pathetic.
EB

 

[Brian63]

I have nothing of substance to offer directly on the topic itself---but just want to ask that the tone of the discussion be calm. Good topics like this are very interesting (to some of us) and can be very educational and helpful in our lives. So everybody please do not ruin it by turning it into a back-and-forth flame war.

Thanks.

 

[Treedbear]

I agree, and also that it seems one can petition the subconscious for the answer to problems. I'll often do that when there's an interesting problem I'm curious about but don't have the time to investigate or feel I need a new perspective on. I'll just ask my subconscious to think on it and some time later something related will trigger an inspiration. Of course there can't be too many other pressing issues going on. And I've been wondering whether this is in some way the reason theists pray. "God" is just a metaphor for the subconscious that we typically only have access to through feelings. Something "feels" like it's right or it's wrong when that feeling indicates the level of harmony or discord going on in the background within certain quarters of the mind. When an answer comes out of the blue it seems like it must be from God. But I think the conscious experience is simply due to these processes as they relate to this model of the self. Which is of course the largest concern going most of our waking lives. Consciousness isn't just about communicating and language capability. That's only one aspect of the self.

Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
EB

For all its pitfalls monotheism does provide some advantages. Its focus is on establishing a relationship with an entity they call God. The way I see it the self (actually anything at all) is defined by its relationships. While I see the self as a model created by the model-creating brain, I try to include the subconscious mind as one part of that model. It's my way of attempting to take ownership of its functionality. So that's one distinction from prayer and theism. But it seems the subconscious undertands language well enough. And when it comes down to it the brain is just trying to maintain an overall level of harmony between these models.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Very good point about God. Haven't thought about that. Communication with God reduced to intuition! And, the particular impression that comes with proper intuitions could indeed be construed as God-given warranty. And it's inexplicable enough that it should come from God. Though if it's indeed God, I'm not sure why I need to work really hard on the problem before I can at all expect an answer... Ah, I know, God wants me to deserve it! It all figures.

I also agree about petitioning the unconscious. I don't actually do it deliberately but I'm aware whenever I'm sort of waiting for an answer!
EB

For all its pitfalls monotheism does provide some advantages. Its focus is on establishing a relationship with an entity they call God.

Yeah, I'm myself rather forbearing with the faithful. We shouldn't forget that many if not most bright minds up to the Enlightenment didn't seem to feel uncomfortable at all with at least some notion of God. As I see it, there will always be some idea of God that's logically possible given whatever we may come to believe about reality on the basis of the empirical evidence available to us.

The usefulness of a belief in God is definitely something that would be very difficult to assess since there are also very serious inconveniences. My personal assumption is that diversity will always be best.

Still, an interesting question is which part of the mind is responsible for the error of making us believe in God. Intuition seems the ideal culprit given what I have just said myself that it's probably really tempting to interpret our intuition as somehow the voice of God within us. Yet, I don't think our unconscious mind sees itself as the voice of God and even less as God Himself. It's really the conscious mind that comes to believe God is there somehow. Other possibility, there may be different parts in our unconscious mind and one part might see another part as the voice of God within, and suggests this idea to us. Seems like a difficult question to me. Let our intuition work on it for a few days and we might get some kind of answer.

The way I see it the self (actually anything at all) is defined by its relationships.

"Anything at all" sounds like a stretch to me. Try to use dictionary definitions to arrive at a logically consistent formal expression of your own understanding of reality. I would say myself that there is something fundamental that's not to be defined. It just is. And then, anything else can be defined through its relationships with the fundamental, or the other things already defined.

Still, I agree the self is defined by its relationships to other things.

While I see the self as a model created by the model-creating brain, I try to include the subconscious mind as one part of that model. It's my way of attempting to take ownership of its functionality

Yes, I agree that's the way to do it.

As I think of it, my unconscious mind is like a very large and effective supercomputer I have for myself to use. I only need to try and use it as best I can. My conscious mind by comparison seems like the idiot who is trying to figure out how to use the computer. A crucial point, though, is that my conscious mind has access, through linguistic communication, to what other people say and do, and not only now, but what people said and did throughout history. For example, and crucially, Aristotle's own words translated from Greek as to his own notion of logical validity. So, my conscious mind has the strategic position of being the middle man between my unconscious and potentially 7 billion human beings and some.

So that's one distinction from prayer and theism. But it seems the subconscious understands language well enough.

Whether the subconscious understands language is the crucial point but this is also a very ambiguous formulation, and I think precisely because, as I see it, maybe the conscious mind is essentially language while the unconscious mind is understanding and some. If so, the unconscious clearly understands language, but maybe not quite like you meant it. Still, this idea would require redefining how the conscious mind is traditionally pictured in the literature.

And when it comes down to it the brain is just trying to maintain an overall level of harmony between these models.

I would assume it's an organisational problem. How is the brain organised so that there's no deadlock and not too much waste of energy doing contradictory or useless things? One possibility is that the conscious mind is the locus of the decision: you definitely have to know what you want. But, clearly, the process by which the decision is arrived at is, at least most of the time, essentially unconscious. You get to know the outcome and you usually don't dispute the decision. You just do it. If you feel like scratching an itch, you scratch the itch, that sort of things. Still, clearly, the conscious mind seems to be, not exactly in charge of, but crucially involved in, the decision process when it comes to arbitration between possibly conflicting actions and from there to the long-term planification of our actions. That's essentially what thinking looks like to me and arbitration and planification are perhaps essentially the first functions of thinking and the original activity from which the whole of our way of thinking evolved to end up to what we do now. The kind of thinking we do now, since the Ancient Greek at least, is obviously very, very abstracted from this notion of planification, but thinking about metaphysical questions for example, including God, may be best understood as a very upstream part of the process of planification. Think about how mathematics, though so mindbogglingly abstract, can be and are intensively used in all sort of very practical and crucial activities.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

What is it you don't understand in the expression "any large store of information"?!

Maybe you think our memories isn't a large store of information?

Then say that instead of using the term "database". Since it's misleading. There's no point using fancy words unless it increases clarity. If it makes it harder to understand what you mean, I suggest not using them.

We have a bad habit of using whatever is the most advanced technology as a metaphor for how the brain works. We need to stop doing that. The purpose is obvious. It's self aggrandisement. We think humans are the tits. So whatever technology is the tits must be how human brains work as well. Erm... no.

Sir, you couldn't possibly be wronger here.

My personal impression and I'm dead certain I'm right, and I'm on record on that, is that the brain is sort of magnitudes above anything the current computer technology can do and it's not going to change any time soon.

Specifically, just to give you the scale of the gap, computer technologies exist broadly since the second world war, science broadly since 300 years ago with Copernicus, Tycho Brahe and Kepler, mathematics broadly since 2,300 years ago with Euclid, or maybe 2500 years ago with Pythagoras, formal logic since 2,400 years ago with Aristotle and the Stoics... So, a couple of thousands of years and overall less than a million people who've worked on it. The human brain? No, doesn't matter. Think instead how long the cells precursors or our neurons have been around: I understand, broadly, it's 525 million years... Million years! And this is a low estimate. How many cells and systems of cells do you think? Me, I wouldn't risk being proved ridiculous by advancing any figure at all. And think how they have been tested: broadly over the entire biomass on the surface of the Earth, in the oceans, in the air and a few metres underground, and in a myriad of configurations in terms of the interaction with the environment of the cell or system of cells. Computers just look pathetic. And the claims of the AI business look pathetic.
EB

Why compare them at all? Computers and human brains think differently. Brains work with much less information. Neurons are sloooooooow by comparison. Human brains come pre-programmed with a lot of the world. It compares what is stored in memory with what is coming to it and if enough information is the same it just ignores outside stimuli. When you open your eyes and look at the world nearly everything you see isn't information coming from the eyes. It's stuff brought up from memory. Especially true in places where you spend a lot of time. Stuff pre-programmed to be ignored we will never react to. Which is why we feel so safe when travelling on a motorbike at 200 km/h. Computers on the other hand will process every damn single little thing that comes in their way. Meticulously. If it doesn't understand the input the whole computer grinds to a halt.

They're not remotely similar.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Then say that instead of using the term "database". Since it's misleading. There's no point using fancy words unless it increases clarity. If it makes it harder to understand what you mean, I suggest not using them.

"Database" is a perfectly legitimate term to use in the sense I used it, as it is evidenced by the definition I exhibited, a definition I took from English dictionaries.

I meant a large store of information and "database" is an appropriate, convenient and very effective term to express this idea.

It is probably your English which is not good enough. Sorry, but I'm not going to downgrade my English just for you. You need to learn to check English dictionaries before criticising the terms I use.

Why compare them at all? Computers and human brains think differently.

I didn't use "database" to compare brains to computers. I have just explained to you there's no meaningful comparison. The human brain is magnitudes above computers.

Brains work with much less information.

Not true. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. The brain process at each instant a huge flow of information coming through our senses. You are probably referring to the information that come through linguistic communication. But even there, the brain does much more that you seem to credit it for because the brain also process all the information relevant to context: the voice of the speaker, the circumstance of the message, the overall situation, data about the speaker, both remembered and perceived, etc. etc. etc.

Neurons are sloooooooow by comparison. Human brains come pre-programmed with a lot of the world. It compares what is stored in memory with what is coming to it and if enough information is the same it just ignores outside stimuli.

How can the brain decide to ignore any data without first assessing it?

When you open your eyes and look at the world nearly everything you see isn't information coming from the eyes. It's stuff brought up from memory.

I think you may be using the term "memory" in a very unusual way here. Literally, what we see is entirely something inside our brain. The tree I am looking at, the house, the landscape, the Sun, the whole sky, even the distant stars in the night sky. All this is literally nothing but the visual representation of the physical world around me, as produced by my brain. So, sure, what you actually see, literally, is information produced by your brain. Yet, that's not what we call "memory" at all. The proper term I think is "percepts". And then, to produce these percepts, the brain has to receive a huge flow of information from outside, information that it has to process to produce percepts.

Especially true in places where you spend a lot of time. Stuff pre-programmed to be ignored we will never react to.

We were talking about the brain, and now you are talking about the conscious mind. Sure, we are only consciously aware of a small amount of information, at least compared to the information the brain has to process to produce it. You are moving the goal posts.

Which is why we feel so safe when travelling on a motorbike at 200 km/h. Computers on the other hand will process every damn single little thing that comes in their way. Meticulously. If it doesn't understand the input the whole computer grinds to a halt.

They're not remotely similar.

Exactly my point, thank you.

So, where did I say they were, even remotely, similar? Just by using the word "database"? Whoa. All this just because you don't understand the word database in English and you can't be bothered to look it up?

And look up databas in a Swedish dictionary, I'd be very surprised if it doesn't include something like någon stor butik med information)!
EB