From: Gordon Worley (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jul 03 2002 - 23:20:46 MDT
On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 10:29 PM, James Higgins wrote:
> At 09:31 PM 7/2/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>> Gordon Worley wrote:
>>> First, Ben, this is just a diction issue, but intuition, unless used
>>> in some technical sense, is a misleading word. The only reason a
>>> thought is an `intuition' is because your brain thought it up and
>>> only told you the answer, not the process involved in reaching the
>>> answer. Since we know that the only black box aspect of `intuitions'
>>> is that you don't have accesses to the specifics of how you reached
>>> an answer (though your interpreter will be happy to rationalize a
>>> reason for you), it's more accurate to say that this is simply what
>>> you think. Intuition constantly sounds to me like you're claiming
>>> you were divinely inspired in your thoughts (which may be possible if
>>> science isn't right, but AFAIK such a possibility is not readily
>>> within your world view).
>> Hmmm. Actually, science could be perfectly right and there could
>> still be intuition that was not from merely subconscious processing
>> within the brain. One way this could be true is if (short form) we
>> are in fact within a VR/sim and in certain modes we either have a
>> flash of access to or get bleed over from the underlying computational
>> matrix. This could also explain some mystical inspired states.
> A more likely cause (in my book at least) would stem from quantum
> mechanics. I'm defiantly no expect on this stuff but the little I do
> know about is pretty amazing. For instance, you can tangle 2 quantum
> particles together and they will then maintain exactly opposite states
> (switch one and the other switches). Then you can move these particles
> a very long distance and they still have this effect, and it is
> virtually instantaneous (ie: I believe can be faster than light).
The problem that I have with quantum theories of the brain (among other
problems, but this is my major problem with these theories) is that the
brain needs to be robust to work well. If every whim of a particle can
cause neuron firings, the brain probably wouldn't work at all. From
what I can tell, brains are much more like computers NASA builds to go
up in space: they can take a blast of radiation and keep on working.
As much as people like to think they have complete free will, the same
patterns of thought are evident in most people (most people includes me)
and unless you like to be mystical or believe in quantum mystics, it is
most likely that the brain is just really good at always getting the
same kind of answer all of the time. Even the parts we can rewire don't
change how we think so drastically that our minds become as alien as an
Besides, I assert there's no such thing as free will and it's just an
illusion of the interpreter, but that's another thread.
Also, I'm not sure that defiant non expectance is a good way to start
out presenting an idea. :^)
-- Gordon Worley `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty http://www.rbisland.cx/ said, `it means just what I choose email@example.com it to mean--neither more nor less.' PGP: 0xBBD3B003 --Lewis Carroll
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT