I think where RJ is coming from is the notion that, when you look deep down, everything is 'logic' or 'science', and than if we don't know how exactly we arrive at a certain conclusion, its only because we don't look deep enough into our own thinking process. If we did, all we would find would be pure logic. If we looked even deeper, all we would find is a hustle and bustle of itsy-bitsy neurons. And if we look even deeper, we would find out that we are all doing only what we are pre-programmed to do. And so on, all the way to big bang.

It is the same theory which states that there are no accidents, just imperfect information. If we have the full information and the right tools to analyze it, we could predict the future.

It is hard to argue with such theory... especially if I have to admit - it has some of merit. Theoretically.
But, as we know - in theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice however... well, you know.

Bottom line:
Our thinking processes are (for now) too complex for us to fully understand (i.e. mathematically describe.) Just like the game of Go is too complex to fully envision the game tree from the first move to the last. Given this shortcomings - where does it leave us? I think it leaves us with making 'educated guesses' - which basically means making decisions based on insufficient data. Those who, on average, make such decisions better, are said to have a better intuition. There is no logic to it - there cannot be since the information is missing and yet the decision needs to be made.

This is how I see the distinction.

PS>
In Go terms, I have been saying for a long time that "Go Strategy is just a crutch for lacking reading ability." After all - Go is a full information Game, and there should be no need for 'strategy' if one can read deep enough. Paraphrasing that to stay with the theme: "Go strategy does not exist."

And yet RJ seems to be writing books and making statements about non-existing 'Go Strategy.'
Go figure...

To me, the logic/intuition and the strategy/reading arguments are the same. In both cases the 'perfect' means might be forever out of our grasp. Thus we are stuck both with strategy and the intuition. I think Go would be boring otherwise, just imagine...

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Unlike the impression hyperpape tries to create, the available truths for go theory are not just trivialitities of extremely specialised and therefore useless cases. There are reasonably mighty truths about, e.g, these topics:

- late endgame (see Conway, Guy, Berlekamp and his study group)
- ko and dame endgame: http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/kodame.pdf
- some basics of life and death (see papers by Landman, Wolf, Nakamura, Jasiek)
- some ko evaluation (see Berlekamp, Spight et al, Nakamura)
- definitions of quite a few go terms up to strategic concepts (see Jasiek)
- status of all basic capturing races (see Capturing Races 1)
- more on capturing races (see Wolf et al)
- computer go, complexity theory and combinatorics (various contributors)
- rules and related theory (Jasiek, Berlekamp et al)

Bantari, I do not view the human mind or the future as solely deterministic.

Decision-making made due to incomplete information is not "intuition" but is "decision-making made due to incomplete information", which is based on logic as far as one bothers to notice.

Go strategy is not just an excuse for lacking reading ability but a means to replace low level reading by high level reading. Currently, the replacement is not always necessarily correct, but researchers are working on making it correct in more cases.

Besides writing about tactics, I write about strategy because it is very efficient to think in terms of strategy. E.g., the strategic advice "a strong, stable nakade equals 1 eye" is much more efficient than each time reading the up to about (n+1)! possible move-sequences in a nakade of n intersections (+1 because pass or tenuki is an option). You don't read them all each time, don't you? You apply strategic knowledge.

Intuition is not the complement of strategy, but is an excuse for not wishing to understand the complement better.

Hi RJ,
Not to start another discussion (and against my own good advice) - let me just make a few quick comments before calling it a night.
Sorry for the long post. Too tired to try to put it all into more condensed form. So just let me ramble.




You say potato...I say patato... or whatever. You either arrive at a conclusion by consciously logically deriving it from known axioms or you don't. You still need to decide. And sure, everything can be drilled down to science/logic or to flow of electrons, or wherever we draw the line. Thing is - this is not how (most) people think, and so your approach might or might not be all that helpful. What's more, it is not demonstrated that purely conscious/logical thinking beats the one we (or most of us) think of as 'intuitive' approach.

The division into intuitive and logical/scientific players is nothing new - this idea has been floating around for centuries, or even longer. There are some extremely strong players out there who are considered in this category. In chess Tal would come to mind, from what I read about him. There are some extremely strong players in the 'logical' school as well (Botwinnik), but the approach is clearly different.

As a matter of fact, from some of the statements you made in the past led me to think that you do not think the Go pros know why they play the way they play - they have no 'logical/scientific' basis for their moves and cannot explain them. Yet I hope everybody can agree that they are pretty darned strong. Some if it might be luck... or a subconscious stream of high-level logic... or we can just call some of it 'intuition' and move on to discuss more important things.



I would say that strategy is an attempt at approximation, nothing more. I grant you that perfect strategy should be on par with perfect reading - but I highly doubt that such perfect strategy will every be developed. If I am right - strategy will always lose to sufficiently deep reading. The best we can hope for, I think, that the differential will be beyond the horizon of our perception. In other words - strategy will develop to a point that our reading will not be deep enough to beat it. But I doubt that - it did not happen in chess which appears much simpler game, so it will probably not happen in Go.

I am not sure if I agree with you about the replacement of low-level reading by high-level reading. Its not just a set of bigger lego blocks. It looks to me that it more likely narrows low-level reading - which allows the player to read slightly deeper because the tree is pre-prunned by strategical rules. But there is no replacement - just targeting.

The problem with strategy is that - by nature - it has to generalize. It has to deal with sets of 'similar' positions and present some rules for them. But there will always be the loophole of how different similar positions are and what it means. I think this is why Pros, from what I see, don't bother all the mach with deriving strategy principles in the sense you understand them. When one reaches a high enough level, one might realize that EACH position is different, and that the tiny differences between seemingly similar positions of the same 'set' are actually important.

Anyhow - this is just my theory.



Hmm... not to put a too big of a point here, but "a strong, stable nakade equals 1 eye" is more of a tactical issue than strategy, and has mostly local connotation. An example of strategic thinking would be, to me "It might be ok to create a weak group here because I have a strong wall there." The fact that I can memorize things like "Group needs two eyes to live" does speed my reading by allowing me to skip the tedious calculations each time, you are correct - but this is trivial. I hope you do not hope to degrade the whole game into such 'strategies'.

It might be we are thinking about different things when talking about 'strategy'.

Anyways - it seems this is another one of those issues. We can be dancing around each other forever arguing it.
So I just let you have a final word, and lets call a truce for now, yes?

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

Evidence? One can as well claim the opposite, and there would also be no evidence.



1) As long as you use claims towards "most", you will meet my demand for evidence.

2) By using the word intuitive, you do not provide evidence that intuition exists. It can also be that it is, e.g., guesswork.

3) A demonstration in general (that purely conscious/logical thinking would always beat other thinking) is not available indeed. In fact, there are potential counter-examples, such as those related to religion or to emotion. Note that neither equals intuition (for the sake of those assuming its existence).

4) A demonstration for many (in case of Go: so far only quite a few) particular purposes has been provided.



I have said that by far most of those I have talked to do not know.



OC not. By doing so, one loses the potential of seeking explanations. By not doing so, I could reveal explanations.



There is nothing more important in Go theory than correct explanations.



Weak strategy is only that. Strong strategy relies on proven knowledge.



Perfect reading is not enough; one also needs perfect decision making applied to perfect reading to let it succeed. (Same for strategy.)



IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED for particular classes of cases, see an earlier message.



You are wrong, see before.



This is one application. Another application is: strategy can be used where tactics are performed equally well.



I not responsible for chess players;)



Hear, hear;(



Narrowing: yes, superfluous reading is recognised. You might misunderstand pre-pruning. The purpose of strategy is NOT to declare good tactics invalid.



Wrong, see an earlier message.



It is not a problem, but a characteristic of solution.



There is no loophole in perfect strategy. Strategy is not a shape database.



Your message shows that you did not understand my sense in understanding strategic principles.



Wrong (in the meant strategic sense), see an earlier message.



True strategy knows this.



Even strategy has to start with basics.



This is higher level strategy and so far always true strategy is indeed not available for such a level - yet! (Note: if, at such a level, you wanted to express the same in terms of purely tactical reading, you would already need a brain greater than the universe.)



For non-trivial strategic theory, see an earlier message.



I apply also higher levels of strategy.



Not forever. Just await always true higher level strategy...

Do you refute the common sense position that most people do not consciously employ strict logic when making decisions?

Do you believe that for every decision all information necessary to make it is available?
If so, do you believe that humans can process all of it?
If so, do you believe that they do so?



Best perhaps to offer a definition of intuition before deciding whether it does or doesn't exist. Here is one from the free dictionary:

"The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition."

Wikipedia continues by saying:

" Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot justify in every case."

Again:

do you believe that it is possible to rationally justify every decision?
do you believe that humans do so?

Is it not the case that even those who attempt to rationally justify their decisions necessarily reach a point at which they cannot know if more relevant information exists and thus must make their decision on the basis of incomplete information? Would you call the process of evaluating potential information rational?

Do you believe that this is what people do?

I would guess that you reject the relevance of your beliefs to this discussion, but I claim that the burden of proof is on you to refute the common sense claim that most people rely on their intuition to make decisions.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

I doubt - doubt, not refute (because currently I do not have evidence) - the claim that most go players - go players, not human beings in general - in go - go, not arbitrary human thinking - would use more - more, not exclusively - non-logical decision making than logical decision making.



For every go theoretical decision, if information is incomplete, then decision making can still be logical or can be guesswork - but is not intuition (because intuition is only an illusion).



Not applicable questions.



Good idea.



This is not a definition I share.

My definition of intuition:

Decision making (or judgement) under the (right or wrong) assumption of independence from (actual or principally possible) rationalisation.

The cited definition would be better if it were written like this:

The act or faculty of immediate cognition without knowing or sensing the use of rational processes.

The cited definition implies the absence of possible rationalisation; the modified version implies its existence.



Each go theoretical decision, provided the complexity does not require more than the universe's available storage time-space.



Human thinking is mostly rational, although many do not regularly perceive it.



For go theory, the existence of more relevant information on not yet generall true statements is trivially given by the complete game tree [under a given and well-defined ruleset].



Of course. I have never denied the existence of the [frequent] possibility of decision making based on only incomplete information. I deny that that requires the existence of intuition [under my definition].



No. I would call a rational pocessing rational and an irrational processing irrational.



People do either (rational or irrational), but they do not use intuition (they only delude themselves that it would be intuition).



Both sides of the argument have an equal burden for their claim.



Where is the evidence that such a claim would be "common sense"? Why not keep things simpler and "only" claim that most people rely on their intuition to make decisions? It is unncessary to add yet another level of complexity by requiring that to be "common sense".

My example is a sort of standard philosophical example to someone who conflates "known truths" with "truths" as it immediately demonstrates that there are truths that are unknown. We use a simple example to avoid complications, not to imply that all such examples are simple. Had we used a complex example (i.e. the Goldbach conjecture), we might have run into questions of provability and incompleteness, muddying the waters.

Of course I grant that there are non-trivial truths about go theory, your first example of endgame research being one fine example. Nothing I wrote should have given you the opposite impression. So please, stop speculating about my intentions, since you seem to do rather poorly at it.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I would like to point RJ toward Bell's Theorem:

"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of Quantum Mechanics."

... As an example that not all complex systems can be explained by the existence of variables that we don't have the power to observe.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Go theory does not have quantum mechanics. - The human brain's objects are big enough so that quantum mechanics or ray impact do not play a significant role on decision making. (Intense radiation, alcoholics etc. can affect the overall ability on making decisions at all.)

Quantum mechanics and brain uncertainty. - Macgregor RJ.

Source
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado, 38 Rock Ridge Dr. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87122-2007, USA. ronaldjmacgregor@msn.com

Abstract
This paper argues that molecular governing structures (such as receptors, gating molecules, or ionic channels) which operate pervasively in the brain, often with small number particle systems (as, for example, at the surfaces of membranes, synaptic clefts, or macromolecules), may plausibly be vehicles for the transmutation of quantum mechanical fluctuations to normal-level neural signaling.

Interesting, thanks!:)

The esteemed mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has argued that to understand human consciousnous we need to understand quantum gravity. Now that Robert has established this is not the case I look forward to him publishing his research on the matter so that civilisation's understanding of this fascinating and profound subject is advanced.

Since, without explicit statements, one is not always understood here, let me state: Now I am convinced that quantum effects might have a relevant impact on the lowest levels of human thinking. However, then they affect all parts of the brain and so would have an effect similar to a noise generator. What is the relevance for consciousness? "I think therefore I am." - not: "Noise is my foundation."

I am picturing an advertising campaign for a Cartesian 4g network: "Can I hear me now?"

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556

Penrose's views of consciousness are special.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I appreciate your explanation, that there are truths in go only they are unknown, and your example as well, which is a computational problem, like factoring large primes. Factoring large primes is a game. If you knew how to factor any prime then you could essentially hack any system you wanted, since most encryption is based on people not being able to factor large primes. It isn't that the perfect information to do so isn't there, it is just that it would take even current state of the art computer systems a very long time to do so. So again not a logical game, maybe a computational game.

I also read Penrose's [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind"]book[/url]. The claims you refer to are only speculations, call it intuitions. I think RJ can pospone his publishing until RP has backed up his hypothesises with some more evidence.

BTW I liked most parts of the book but were sceptical towards the theories you refer to.

So here's an experiment to see how logical/intuitive players are.

Here's a go problem. Please time yourself. How long did it take you to solve? How strong are you?

Black to play and live.

Click Here To Show Diagram Code

[go]$$B
$$ ------------------------
$$ . . . . X . . O X X . . .
$$ . O . O X . . X O . O O .
$$ . . . O X O O X O . . . .
$$ . . . O X O X X O . O . .
$$ . . . O X X X . O . . . .
$$ . . . O O O O O . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . .[/go]

About 3 seconds, but I've seen similar problems before.

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...