From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:02:52 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1druajINNmfu@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

> This doesn't have anything to do with physics, but . . 

Very little, that is why I redirected the discussion to
`alt.sci.physics.new-theories'. However I think the lesson about intuition
and reason has a universal relevance and is central to the science
versus astrology question that is occasionally raised in `sci.physics'.

> In article <347@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> > [astrology is a path to intuitive thought]
> > The one sided emphasis of Western culture on intellectual approaches to
> > problems is one of our most serious handicaps. On this veterans day it
> > may be appropriate to recall that the Vietnam war was conducted by the `best
> > and the brightest'. It was an attempt to solve by intellectual means
> > a problem that could not be solved in that manner.
> 
> I would not term M-16s, Tanks, B-52s and Agent Orange "Intellectual means".

It was the management of the war that was primarily intellectual. Those
carrying it out were of course using other means.

> > One can argue that 60,000
> > Americans and a great many more Vietnamese died in part because of the one
> > sided intellectual approach to problems that dominates our culture.
> 
> The vietnam war was a solution to an emotional problem - Kennedy wanted
> to convince the Communists that we would not stand for further encroachment.
> It was perpetuated by Johnson and Nixon due to the emotional constraint of
> not being able to admit we did not accomplish what we intended.
> 
> In sum, the vietnam war was fought due to following emotional constraints,
> not intellectual ones. The difference between "intuitive" and "emotional"
> is non-existant in most people, so advocating an intuitive approach to
> life-and-death issues can be pretty close to criminal.

Emotion and intuition are not the same. Emotion is what moves or motivates
you. Reason and intuition are both processes we use to decide how to act
in response to conflicting motivations. Reason is primarily a linear process.
Intuition is more of a pattern search process. Rational processes are 
modeled by conventional single processor computers. Intuitive processes are
modeled by neural nets or associative memories. Of course the human processes
are for more complex than anything we can model in computers, but this
comparison can give one some idea of where the differences lie. According
to Jung intuition is the same processing as the pattern recognition in
sensation. Thus deeply intuitive people have trouble seeing
what is right in front of them. Their pattern recognition is focused on
what might be or how the situation will evolve not on sensing what is
here at the moment.

The Vietnam war was a complex issue. There is no simple explanation.
However the one sided emphasis on rational approaches is an underlying
problem of Western culture that touches on everything we do. I think
its effect was especially pronounced in Vietnam. The military managers
focus on body count and other objective measures of success proved
irrelevant to the final outcome.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories