Question about instinct and intuition?

[Guest ZAC D.]

Ok, but, how does this work for a person with say autism or memory loss? I just watched a documentry where this guy had memory loss (he couldn't remember something he was told 30 seconds ago) yet his personality remained the same. Thus, memory and personality are not correlated. Then there was the guy with autism who could look at architecture for about 20 mins and then draw exactly what he processed within those 20 mins perfectly onto canvas. How come his brain can do that automatically but other peoples can't?

Is it possible that some singers are just born with good voices? I could train my voice day and night and never be able to sing.

[JeffS]

I don't know. What does this have to do with emotions and intuition?

[freestyle]

I could train my voice day and night and never be able to sing.

Is that a fact?

[whYNOT]

I think LeGault just didn't read Gladwell very carefully. Gladwell doesn't argue that one can just go on their "gut instincts," but that seems to be the impression LeGualt got. Interestingly enough, I remember LeGault providing a bunch of unfounded conclusions himself. It's not a book I would recommend.

Emotions are physiological responses to some percept. When I see my wife, I feel happy. Why do I feel happy? Because she is a great value to me. When I see her, my brain makes the instantaneous comparison between her and all things which are not her. It also, instantaneously, evaluates all my values and recognizes her at the top of my heirarchy. It then signals my lymbic system to dump various chemicals into my blood stream - dopamine, serotonin, norepinephrine among them. It is these chemicals which are the percepts my brain reacts to and which I call the emotion "happy."

Although these chemicals were released when I first met her, through twenty years of our relationship my interpretation of those chemicals has changed. I still feel the sexual attraction that these chemicals first brought about, but there are now far more data points integrated into the evaluation of those chemicals.

I don't think intuition is any different. It is still a response to some chemical cocktail. Whatever that cocktail is, it is our perception of it that causes the "pit in the stomach." It is our perception of whatever causes the brain to demand this cocktail which causes the cocktail to be mixed up in the first place. Just as with my example above, over years of integrating multitudes of data points the brain comes to associate those data points with the cocktail. When those data points are perceived, the brain demands the cocktail. If those data points are not perceived, the brain has no reason to demand the cocktail.

If an expert views a forged DaVinci, his brain is not getting the data points associated with a real DaVinci; therefore, he doesn't get the cocktail; therefore, he doesn't get a "good feeling" about the painting. At that point, the rational thing to do is try to determine which data point is missing, or which data point is incorrect.

Conscious thoughts do take time, and emotions are instantaneous. However, emotions are not just a product of subconscious thought, they can also be a product of prior conscious thought. In either case, the time has already been spent in order to arrive at an instantaneous decision - or intuition. Over time, and after a multitude of experiences with a particular percept, the brain registers a percept as associated with certain actions, effects, causes, entities, whatever. It can make these percept/event connections without focus - as in someone who has an irrational phobia due to some experience in early childhood; or, the connection can be made with focus - as in someone who becomes an expert in a particular field through years of study.

In short, emotion and intuition are the same thing. They are both products of perceptual data either integrated purposefully or not. They are both perceptions of physiological changes to the chemical make-up of the bloodstream. Since they are so dependent upon body chemistry, they can't be trusted to provide knowledge. The rational course of action is to consciously identify what percept (or confluence of percepts) caused the brain to demand the chemical change. When a bear is chasing you, the percept causing your brain to dump adrenaline into your body and make you feel fear is not so difficult to identify. But when you're trying to determine why you don't like someone upon first meeting them, or why you don't think a particular sculpture is a Michaelangelo, then identifying the particular data point(s) might be more difficult.

I dunno Jeff- it seems you have diverged from your original position.

I don't think you are wrong yet, but I still view instinct as something "pre-emotional", if I can call it that.

Taking your analogy, I find pleasure in seeing my wife. Ok, an emotion, that came about from a complex cocktail of brain chemicals.

Two hours later, I have the sensation that something is wrong; I realise my wife was eliciting some signals that I didn't notice at the time.

So I back-track, trying to pinpoint her expressions, words, etc.

She was a bit cool... now what can it be?

Damn, I forgot her birthday!

(New emotion - terror.)

But the raw data was there, I observed it, but I did not identify it at the time.

This is why it appears self-evident that our senses since Early Man - and still existent in our pre-cortex - were geared to survival, by taking in all possible stimuli.

(See how long you survive if you forget your wife's birthday. )

This is going to take some more thought.

[Guest ZAC D.]

I don't know. What does this have to do with emotions and intuition?

I was thinking there had to be a difference in their emotions and intuition.

For another example: A psychotic has zero empathy about killing someone.

[Guest ZAC D.]

Is that a fact?

It is for me.

[JeffS]

Two hours later, I have the sensation that something is wrong; I realise my wife was eliciting some signals that I didn't notice at the time.

Are you contending that this is a point of intuition; that the "sensation" you get here is different from the feeling/sensation you felt when you saw your wife two hours ago, and different from the sensation (terror) that you feel when you realize what is wrong?

If so, I say both are the same thing and originate in the same way. The "something is wrong" sensation is just another emotion. It's your brain telling you that a data point should elicit a response from you.

I think why you believe I've diverged from my original position is because you asked if this was an innate feature of the brain. My answer meant to convey that we are what we are, and we're the product of millions of years of evolution. Clearly, brains which could collect and manage large quantities of percept data won the evolutionary race against brains which could not. In that sense, our ability to collect large quantities of percept data, and focus on those which we choose, is an innate feature of our brains; it is an ability which has helped us to survive. I believe it's a higher brain function in that it's not part of our so-called "reptilian" brains. Volition, including the ability to choose what percepts we focus on, requires a more complex brain.

You don't know your wife is mad until you learn to recognize the signs that she is mad. You don't know you should feel terror that she's mad until you've had some experience with her being mad. Another person will get the same perceptual data, but feel no sensation that "something is wrong," and get no feeling of terror. This is learned behaviour, not something "pre-emotional."

As another example, children have no fear of bears or other dangerous animals. If it's cute and cuddly, they'll want to hug it. They need to be taught to fear dangerous animals and not hug them. Their brains need to be taught to associate "cute, cuddly animal" with "could kill me." Then, when their senses deliver all the perceptual data of "cute, cuddly animal" the appropriate chemical cocktail can be mixed up to encourage them to run.

I was thinking there had to be a difference in their emotions and intuition.

For another example: A psychotic has zero empathy about killing someone.

Well, sure, there can be problems with the wetware. Not just in physically damaged individuals, but also in normally rational people. The chemical composition of the body is almost always in constant flux - you don't get the same feelings from looking at a nice, juicy steak when you're hungry as when you're stuffed. That's just one reason why emotions and intuition can't be relied upon as knowledge. They can be used for directing our search for knowledge, but they are not knowledge in and of themselves.

[Guest ZAC D.]

If there can be problems with certain individuals brains then everything you said can't apply to all people correct? If that is the case then objectivism won't work for these people right? Does that mean Objectivism is not totally wrong but at the very least flawed?

I'm just trying to understand if objectivism and neuroscience can correlate or if indeed they can't.

Edited October 6, 2010 by ZAC D.

[whYNOT]

Jeff,

I still maintain that our instincts/intuition are raw , unprocessed information - millions of data points - to use your terminology.

They can be the cause of an emotion, uneasiness, something is wrong, etc., but are not the emotion itself.

Why I say pre-emotional, is because in the case of my wife, signals, information or 'data points', were being recognised by me at that moment of seeing her - but only sub-consciously.

Only then came the emotion (guilt, fear), which in turn, prompted me to focus consciously on the original data.

Actually, without the corresponding emotion, the initial sensations would not be recalled at all, I think.

Importantly, that's where the two DO conflate.

"Sensations, as such, are not retained in man's memory, nor is man able to experience a pure isolated sensation." (ITOE)

So only via emotions, those instantaneous value-judgements, are a few of the millions of random data remembered.

[JeffS]

If there can be problems with certain individuals brains then everything you said can't apply to all people correct? If that is the case then objectivism won't work for these people right? Does that mean Objectivism is not totally wrong but at the very least flawed?

Check your premises. The standard in Objectivism isn't "the un-flawed human being." The standard in Objectivism is the organism as it is, and since we're the only organisms philosophy pertains to, the standard in Objectivism is we as we are. A color-blind man judges what is good for him as a color-blind man. He might have a flaw in his visual sense receptors, his brain might be receiving "flawed" data, but he should still live his life rationally and with the goal of his own life and happiness.

Why I say pre-emotional, is because in the case of my wife, signals, information or 'data points', were being recognised by me at that moment of seeing her - but only sub-consciously.

Only then came the emotion (guilt, fear), which in turn, prompted me to focus consciously on the original data.

Would anyone who does not know your wife as well as you do recognize the signals? If not, why not? If our intuitions are innate, unlearned, then shouldn't everyone get the same signals from your wife? She's presenting the data, their senses (assuming they're not flawed) should receive that data, the only thing left is to interpret the data. If the knowledge is innate, anyone should interpret the data the same way.

Actually, without the corresponding emotion, the initial sensations would not be recalled at all, I think.

Importantly, that's where the two DO conflate.

You seem to be in a "chicken or the egg" paradox here. Which is it? Do the emotions come first, or the intuitions?

[Guest ZAC D.]

"Check your premises. The standard in Objectivism isn't "the un-flawed human being." The standard in Objectivism is the organism as it is, and since we're the only organisms philosophy pertains to, the standard in Objectivism is we as we are. A color-blind man judges what is good for him as a color-blind man. He might have a flaw in his visual sense receptors, his brain might be receiving "flawed" data, but he should still live his life rationally and with the goal of his own life and happiness."

Well in that case what if the psychopath is how he is? He has a flaw in his brain where some part of it (I can't remember the name of this part of the brain) is smaller than the same part in a normal brain. This doesn't make them any less rational or intelligent than folks with a normal brain. eg. Joel Rifkin has an IQ of 120. However, what if the goal of his own life and happiness is to kill people? Should he still live this life because it is what is proper for him? Or does the non-aggression principle apply?

Ayn rand: "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

Edited October 6, 2010 by ZAC D.

[dream_weaver]

Which is precisely why an individual who pursues killing people is retaliated against. The proper role of government in the described instance is to make it safe for those who do not intitiate the use of physcial force by removing via physical force, those who do inititiate its usage.

Is this a further development of trying to grasp intuition?

[JeffS]

However, what if the goal of his own life and happiness is to kill people? Should he still live this life because it is what is proper for him? Or does the non-aggression principle apply?

Then he's not thinking rationally and will neither find happiness nor likely have much time to seek it.

Let me clarify something: Objectivism "works" for all people who choose to live as people - not perfect people, not flawless people, not as sensory complete (whatever that would mean) people - but as rational animals. If someone is incapable of rational thought, then Objectivism won't be of any use to them. At that point, it's as pointless discussing his emotional and intuitive faculties as it would be discussing my dog's emotional and intuitive faculties.

[Guest ZAC D.]

I hear what you are saying and it makes alot of sense to me, but psychopaths like Joel Rifkin are rational animals. He knew what he was doing was wrong and he knew he could go to jail for it but he did it anyway. He thought it all out. The difference is his brain doesn't emote like our brain does, his happiness isn't the same as our happiness, he feels indifferent after murdering someone. The Zodiac killer was able to rationalize so well they've never caught him.

I'm not trying to be argumentive just to be argumentive, but I do think it is a mistake to say these type of psychopaths aren't rational.I think the problem here is that psychopaths have a less emotive state than us which stems from that part of the brain I told you about earlier, but is also 50% environmental. I would image to these type of psychopaths killing people is a feeling of indifference to them like a hunter killing animals is a feeling of indifference to them.

[Eiuol]

The difference is his brain doesn't emote like our brain does, his happiness isn't the same as our happiness, he feels indifferent after murdering someone. The Zodiac killer was able to rationalize so well they've never caught him.

Fortunately, no one is arguing that one should make decisions based upon emotional states alone. Intuition is an emotion too, what JeffS has already explained should still be helpful.

[JeffS]

He thought it all out.

Clearly, he did not - he's in prison right now. How can that be rational? If your goal is to live as an animal in a cage, then you're not a rational being - you're an irrational animal.

You're familiar with the Rand Lexicon, so I recommend you read through the entries on rationality and what "rational self-interest" means.

The Zodiac killer was able to rationalize so well they've never caught him.

And probably spent his life constantly looking over his shoulder wondering when the cops were going to catch him. Again, you must understand what type of animals we are - we are rational animals. We must use our rational capabilities in order to survive; nothing is given to us automatically. This includes knowledge. Which means we have no mechanism that provides us automatic knowledge. Which means emotions and intuition can't be mechanisms of automatic knowledge. They can give us insight into what perceptual data is reaching our brains, but they are not knowledge.

If psychopathic killers are rational, then they would examine why they believe it is in their rational self-interests to act on their irrational desires to kill. They would examine any emotions which urge them to kill when they're getting the same perceptual data everyone else is getting yet the vast majority of rational animals are not killing each other.

[freestyle]

There are a bunch of things that Rand never really discussed in depth. Like instinct and intuition, which sometimes goes against logic and reason. I think her characters use their intuition when making decisions but she never really discusses it.

Zac D., Let me try to circle back to the original point of the post...

Are you suggesting that if we (or scientists in 2010) cannot identify or articulate the logical reason behind a particular human action, it must mean that the action is illogical? In effect, assuming the action was not a product of the person's conscious choice or exercising of free will, and not being explainable by biology, the source for the action would be "supernatural"?

By the way, there is some discussion of this in Ayn Rand's "The Art of Fiction" - Tangentially perhaps, but she discusses the phenomenon of how writers can sometimes feel like a book is "writing itself" at times. I can't remember precisely how she phrases it, but she goes into some discussion about how when your conscious premises' are sound, they are therefore integrated even on the subconscious level. (Like I said, I can't remember off the top of my head, but it was the explanation for how things could seem to flow out of you without you consciously thinking of them.)