
Originally Posted by
John Galt
I am addressing your specific point that says that intuitions appear from nowhere. At no point, prior to this, have you said you were only discussing successful intuitions. Indeed the reverse is true - you are arguing that some of these intuitions are faulty, since you say they are subject to a form of natural selection.
I always said that our intuitions were neutral, like mutations, and that they had to be selected by the milieu to be certified as good, but I add that we also have the impression that all of them are good, otherwise we could not call them intuitions. Nobody talks about his bad intuitions because we never have any. To me, an intuition is a good feeling about a particular combination or change that happens by chance on our ideas. An intuition necessarily seems interesting, but it might not be at all once tested. Why does it have to seem interesting? Because we would not try any if it wasn't so, and we would thus not be so efficient, so intelligent. The good feelings that we get from our intuitions make us creative despite our consciousness. If our crazy ideas did not produce pleasure, we would never try them.
Completely irrelevant. We are discussing how the intuitions appear, not how they are sorted, tested, or selected. Please stop making these illogical statements: it doesn't make your argument look good and its is mightily frustrating for the reader.
This subject is about chance production in the brain, which I consider specific to humans, so it is about the human brain mechanism, the one that produces intelligence. At this point in the discussion, you may get the impression that it is irrelevant to talk about the whole mechanism, but I know that it is not. I intend to demonstrate a whole new concept about thinking, so please be patient.
You mean it makes you uncomfortable when someone shows that you are mistaken.
Yes, and especially when I think that he is mistaking. To me, it is no use telling people that they are mistaken, it is better that the two parties give their arguments and let the readers decide which ones are better.
Please tell me why you think I am not correct. I have given you the sequence of events with which I can consistently generate intuitive solutions to problems. You appear to deny that this can occur. You now need to justify that.
I answered
here, but you commented about "testing" only. I said that you probably used random process to fire many crazy ideas at first, and that you also probably used it in the morning since the solution to your problem appeared naturally, which means without effort, thus without thinking for a long time, exactly as our intuitions come out. And to put a funny accent on the idea that our intuitions were not facts, I suggested that you test it before taking it for granted.