5 ms·

Obviously their actions are calculated, unless you pull in some notion of a non-materialist brain (some sort of strange "dualism" for which there is no evidence

by jlgreco 13y ago

Obviously their actions are calculated, unless you pull in some notion of a non-materialist brain (some sort of strange "dualism" for which there is no evidence), everything they do is calculated in the strict sense. Saying that is missing the point of what is being said though. He is saying that Carlsen does not perform some of these calculations at the same "level of consciousness". For instance, I know that if I have two apples, and give one away, I now have one apple. I also know that the prime factors of 87 are 3 and 29. One of those I "calculated" in my head, the other I know intuitively. Of course for both my brain performed calculations, but thinking of it like that is rather missing the point.

_delirium 13y ago
That part happens atop a huge logical base, though, a creative supplement that distinguishes the fine shades of world-class expertise among those with huge amounts of knowledge and analytic ability. Carlsen, like everyone who is competitive on a high level in chess, has spent a large amount of time accumulating vast stores of factual knowledge and analytical skills. He knows the opening books, he knows the end-game solutions, he knows basically all the heuristics that have been developed. On top of that, he makes some brilliant creative plays, but not in place of it. Someone who did not have a high-level grounding in rigorous chess theory as their basis would never make it anywhere in modern chess, no matter how intuitively brilliant.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I think you can say that, to various extents, for all forms of "intuition". The only reason I can intuitively bang through basic arithmetic is because I spent plenty of time as a child studying it, and doing it over and over again until the skill started to "become a part of me". Large amounts of practical experience or rigorous formal education both fill more or less the same role in creating a basis on which intuition about something can emerge. Anyway, I don't think that we disagree on the actual point here, that claiming that somebody has "intuition" isn't somehow attributing their proficiency to the occult.

by jlgreco 13y ago

_delirium 13y ago

That part happens atop a huge logical base, though, a creative supplement that distinguishes the fine shades of world-class expertise among those with huge amounts of knowledge and analytic ability. Carlsen, like everyone who is competitive on a high level in chess, has spent a large amount of time accumulating vast stores of factual knowledge and analytical skills. He knows the opening books, he knows the end-game solutions, he knows basically all the heuristics that have been developed. On top of that, he makes some brilliant creative plays, but not in place of it. Someone who did not have a high-level grounding in rigorous chess theory as their basis would never make it anywhere in modern chess, no matter how intuitively brilliant.

jlgreco 13y ago
I think you can say that, to various extents, for all forms of "intuition". The only reason I can intuitively bang through basic arithmetic is because I spent plenty of time as a child studying it, and doing it over and over again until the skill started to "become a part of me". Large amounts of practical experience or rigorous formal education both fill more or less the same role in creating a basis on which intuition about something can emerge. Anyway, I don't think that we disagree on the actual point here, that claiming that somebody has "intuition" isn't somehow attributing their proficiency to the occult.