I’m not sure what you mean by “dead end”. If you mean that we have no explanation for why non-locality works the way it does, then you’re right. We only know that it does, not why it does. Thus, any answer based on QM could go no farther than QM itself.

But I never bothered to think past the apparent similarities between lon-locality’s “instantaneous connection” and intuition’s “knowledge without ‘thought process’” because I don’t believe in the materialist viewpoint to begin with.

Now just for the sake of discussion, I don’t think that all the answers would necessarily already have to be stored in the brain. It could be that the reason intuition is as sporadic as it is, is that all the answers are not stored – only some of them are. And even then, an answer could be “developed” or “evolved” over time. It would not necessarily have to be there from the beginning – i.e. genetically coded into the DNA.

Just some ideas.

(double post deleted)

INTUITION:
You're interest in understanding intuition is really fascinating to me. You are definitely a creative thinker. Hey! But you know what? In life there are sheep, Sheppard’s, Sheppard dogs, and creative thinkers. You're the latter and I'm latter also. I'd like to take you on a journey of thoughts in regard to your thoughts about intuition. There are many different kinds of intuition. One person may have the type of intuition in which they physiologically feel a change in their metabolism when some event or thing is about to happen. I the intuition about people and their character, honesty and integrity. I can do it some online but I have a 90 percent correct ability. I can speak with a person for one minute or less and 10 years later instantly recognize them if I see them again. And there is the intuition of what you're speaking of, the damm I should have done it intuition LOL. We are all animals in our origin just like all the other animals. We just call ourselves "The Human Animal". Cave drawings in France and other areas of the world should support what I am saying here. At that time humans had a real since of smell, like dogs have a keener and more acute sense of hearing, like cats have, and a thing called instinct. These and other senses were more developed and functional during that time period. Most of us now have either lost completely, these abilities and functionalities or they are so underutilized they lay dormant and exist only as an undeveloped potential sense. Most of us have no real acute sense of smell, for example. Cognitively speaking our brains are merely recorders and reflectors of what was recorded. However we have the ability to compile and fabricate previous thought information into something unique and that applies to some new problem or event. I don't believe we are born with any pre-packaged data about the world outside the womb before we enter our current environment. I think other than that knowledge necessary for homeostasis and physiological functioning, we are born blank. There are many things that can affect brain development during our development. If a woman, drinks, smokes, and what she has consumed, influences brain development. I feel this is why some individuals are better learners than others, and why some individuals process information better and faster than others. Other factors that influence our cognitive development are the people we interacted with during our development, our physical environment, our cultural influences and upbringing, our desires, needs, ECT. What do you think an individual raised in Florida would know about snow plowing? For example. All of this has some fractional influence on intuition. How the rest of it works in each individual is different and based on the compilation of neurotransmitter chemical messages and how quickly, and precisely they are fabricated specifically for the particular stimulus that elicited those fabrications or response. Intuition is a sense we posses. We either understand that we have this sense or don't realize we have this sense. If we do realize it most of us don't develop it, and if we do develop it, it is generally of one type weakly, and none of the other types I mentioned previously.
Here might be a good example of a partially used human sense. If you press on your arm with your finger, you feel both the sense of touch, pressure and if you press hard enough, the sense of pain. Even slightly touching one hair we generally sense. In regard to pressure, if someone were to walk up behind you closely, given you didn’t hear them could you feel the pressure change they make? You can feel that change if you develop that specific sense and probably at some distance too. I think people with intuition are more focused on and acute to their environmental surroundings that individual that hasn’t developed it. I agree we all have it. I also believe the more we work with it the better developed and acute it will become. The blind have great intuition generally.

Thank you very much, Shadow7325!
I'm really honoured by your choosing my particular topic for your 1st response... I paricularly appreciate your viewing the process from the brain functionning perspective -- -- i.e. cognition!
But, although you precisely stated that ,
_______________________Nevertheless:________________________________
You cast quite a shadow upon the matter of Intuition:
The Intuition I'm referring to HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THE environmental surroundings -- for it is NOT PHYSICAL!!! (as most of the environmental surroundings) * * *
Besides, your example --
-- is referring to an almost direct phisical interraction, i.e. interracting with someone's bio-field. And that isn't exactly what I refer to as Intuition! Frankly, your example does not explain "THE SENSE OF BEING STARED AT" (although, I suspect it has something to do with the "mental waves" transmitted through the sight...)
And the example of recognizing somebody in 10 years -- after speaking with a person for one minute or less -- only indicates your excellent memory of past experiences... But, again, HAS NOTHING IN COMMON WITH THE PHENOMENON of BECOMMING AWARE OF, OR REALIZING THE ANSWER TO, THE PROBLEM AT HAND THAT HASN'T BEEN EXPERIENCED PREVIOUSLY -- has no logical/reasonable basis***
(i.e. everything I described in my post, which you, apparently, have missed, or misinterpretted...)
Though, I'm greatful for your input!

P.S.

* WRONG! They're the ones who "are more focused on and acute to their environmental surroundings", i.e. they "simply" adapt to the environment! * * *

... in fact, I'd say Intuition is related to MIND READING!!!

Jane,

I dug a little deeper into the morphic fields link and found a series of MIND READING tests for people to take online. He claims an amazing degree of telepathy is proven in his tests. I know nothing about this guy or his tests but his theories and experiments mesh exactly with your intuition and mind reading comments.

Here is a summary of his online tests.

http://www.sheldrake.org/Onlineexp/results/



Begin Quote:
The statistical significance of this result is astronomical, with odds against chance of quadrillions to one.

There was a difference in the results in looking and not looking trials, which agrees with the pattern shown in previous research on the sense of being stared at.
For previous research paper Click here
People were more successful in the looking trials then in the not looking trials. In the looking trials the average success rate was 65.6%, and in the not looking trials 55.9% (Figure 1).

I think this difference arises because if we have a sense of being stared at, it is likely to work when we are actually be stared at, in other words in the looking trials. In the not looking trials, people are being asked to detect the absence of a signal, which is much harder to do, and under those conditions many people are just guessing.

Because these experiments took place under uncontrolled and unsupervised conditions, we cannot eliminate the possibility that some people were cheating, or that some starers were inadvertently giving clues to the subjects by the way they gave the signal for the beginning of the trial or by unintentional sounds that were different in the staring and the not staring trials.

However, this positive result is very encouraging and suggests that this experiment is well worth doing under more rigorous conditions. All those who take part should make sure that they use a beeper or a mechanical signal for indicating when the trials begin. If people give the signal by saying start or by using their voice in any other way, this could give unintentional clues to the subject.

End Quote:

I think it is interesting that there were numerical "odds against chance" given in that study.

The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Reseach study into Remove Viewing calculated their odds at 1:3x10^10, or three billion to one.

Considering that intuition, mind reading, an remote viewing all involve some apsect of being aware of something through no known logical means, I think it would be safe to assume that there is a similar component to all of them, as well as clairvoyance, precognition, and a host of other "paranormal" phenomena.

(double post deleted)

I don't pretend to understand how this "Sense of being stared at" works, but I gather the theory is that whatever is happening to make you know someone is staring at you is far more powerful than simple remote viewing. Not many people can claim to be "remote viewers". Many people, including me, have felt the "sense of being stared at". This guy's tests which show such dramatic results, claims that there is a testable difference. The brain does produce EM radiation. Maybe we can sense it.

I have heard that people who do surveillance professionally are well aware of this phenomenon and take it into account as a critical factor in the performance of their craft.

EM radiation? That's exactly what I meant back in 09/25/09 post, referring to it as Maybe that's just a certain frequency of "mental waves", rather than a "radiation"?

What's more is that almost every person also possesses the receiver for EM radiation (set at -- although, it seems, females tend to possess more a powerful ability to transmit than most of males:
I usually sense being stared at... but when I do the staring, the subject turns his head right away!

However, Intuition most often occurres naturally, i.e. no special training required. And that's quite different from Remote Viewing which doesn't occurre naturally and requires quite a training!!! Therefore, it makes no sense in sweeping Intuition under the same rug of "Unknown" together with the rest of the psychic phenomena!!! (i.e. although it is a mental (normal) phenomenon, but far from being categorized as a paranormal one!)

The EM radiation wouldn't be transmitted "through" the sight, just aimed by it. When I read your post it made me think of a sperm whale. A sperm Whale sees a fish. He forces air through a device to make sound waves. There is a special organ in his head that focuses sound waves so he can use them as a weapon. He directs a burst of sound waves at the fish and knocks it silly. He can then eat it without expending a lot of energy chasing it down.

Do you think humans can do the same thing with EM waves produced by the brain? Of course the process would be far more subtle. The EM would be produced by the brain but directed and focused from information received from the eyes. If so, there would not be anything really "paranormal" about it. It would just be a process not well understood.

Maybe this guy with his "Morphic Fields" is on to something... and you are too!

Well, I'm not as educated or intelligent as most of the folks here, so I don't even begin to pretend I could explain intuition. All I know is that it exists and I use it. And, when I ignore it, I usually regret it later.

Great viewpoint. If it works, it doesn't really matter how it works.

Its always nice to know the how and the why, but its not always necessary.

Still, I like threads like this where people do try to explain these things. I learn a lot.

Greate attitude, Ruth34611!!!
You don't have to be a scientist to quench your curiosity... (especially such a simple matter as an Intuition!)

Unfortunately, some people are well over the age of comprehending the "thirst" for knowledge! (they're content with the accidental occurrence of the phenomena -- if at all...)
But don't pay attention to them * * *

CreativeSoul:

Frankly, that's funny:
Only a twitching movement may be involuntary -- contrary to Intuition which always occurres in respose to the intensive thinking!

Yeah, I don't think intuition is always involuntary. I know people who are able to "find things" that are lost by others. It is totally voluntary and it fits the definition of "intuition" perfectly.