mxtsptlk, thank you for a valuable input.

However, as have been mentioned before, Intuition -- although similar -- is not quite the same as an instinct which operates consciously (while the former operates on a purely subconscious level).

Also, as mentioned on page 2, instead of having a great intuition, most of the blind have greatly adapted to the surrounding environment -- rather than having a "great intuition". Their remaining senses are quite intensified -- making it appear as though they possess some kind of Extra sensory perception...

Have you ever placed a bet for the outcome of the unknown competition -- the one you're not familiar with enough to make an educated guess -- just following your gut feeling?
*** That's the kind of intuition I'm talking about!!!

This not any kind of argument for or against anything, just relating an instance of what might be considered "intuition".

Setting: Las Vegas casino - slot machines.

I was just killing time with a handful of quarters and decided to try and "feel" a winning maching. This process led me to a machine where the frist quarter I put in, won a $40 jackpot. So I decided to try it again. The next machine - $40 on the third quarter. And again. Next machine $40 on the second quarter. So I cashed in. (Lost it all the next day though. )

Now it is not outside the realm of probablility to hit three $40 jackpots with only six quarters, but the odds are REALLY big against it. Add that to the fact that I was consciously trying to "feel" the winning machines, at the exact same time, and the odds become astronomical.

Wanna go to Vegas?

I'd call it a lucky fluke! I don't mean to diminish your intuitive abilities, but the fact of your Loosing it all the next day would indicate your lucky strick had nothing to do with intuition (unless you forgot to consciously trying to "feel" the winning machines the next day)!

What I usually do:
Before I sit down at the table -- to play Black Jack or Poker -- I select the dealer, i.e. I stand behind a player and play along:
if the player needs a certain card (which I mentally ask the dealer to draw) and he does (not just once, but a couple of times), only than I sit down at the table...

However, the casinos are aware of such a mental influencing -- therefore, they keep on shuffling the dealers from one table to another!!!

I've tried that, and I was never any good at picking the right machines when I really tried.

But every time I approach gambling with an "I don't care.." detached attitude.. I usually always win. Getting and keeping that detached attitude with money is not easy though.

I find that a new dealer, just learning to deal, (usually found down town not on the strip) is easier to win money from. I don't know why exactly.

I will admit that I was in a totally different "mental and emotion place" the next day. WHich would only help to support the idea that intuition, being as subjective as it is, had something to do with it.

Sure! Come pick me up and we can fly there on you broomstick and break the bank!

That actually makes sense in some ways. For one thing, such a dealer would tend to be less “set in his ways” than a more experienced dealer, and thus might be more receptive/less resistant to any sort of "mind over matter" phenomena.

Just an idea.

My personal experience is that your mental and emotional state have everything to do with it. Emotions, in particular. And, you have to have the intention to do it. At least that's my experience.

Be right there!

Actually, you're quite right:
Inexperienced dealers are too preoccupied with performing the mechanical duties. Therefore, they don't have enough will for getting involved in the game (and affecting the outcome).
The experienced dealers, who can do their duties with the closed eyes, do usually play along -- therefore affecting the outcome to some degree!

_______ INTUITION NOTES 1 ______

A sign at Albert Einstein's office:
" Nothing that can be counted counts,
and everything that counts can be counted.

Intuitions, or gut feelings, are sudden, strong judgments whose origin we can't immediately explain. Although they seem to emerge from an obscure inner force, they actually begin with a perception of something outside—a facial expression, a tone of voice, a visual inconsistency so fleeting you're not even aware you noticed.

**** Long dismissed as magical or beneath the dignity of science, intuition turns out to muster some fancy and fast mental operations. The best explanation psychologists now offer is that intuition is a mental matching game.

We think of intuition as a magical phenomenon—but hunches are formed out of our past experiences and knowledge. So while relying on gut feelings doesn't always lead to good decisions, it's not nearly as flighty a tactic as it may sound.

Thinking occurs not onstage but offstage, out of sight. Studies of automatic processing, subliminal priming, implicit memory, heuristics, right-brain processing, instant emotions, nonverbal communication and creativity unveil our intuitive capacities.

Thinking, memory and attitude operate on two levels: the conscious/deliberate and the unconscious/automatic. "Dual processing," researchers call it. We know more than we know we know. * * *

This idea—that much of our everyday thinking, feeling and acting operates outside conscious awareness—is a difficult one to accept. * * * * * * * * * *

“Intuitive thinking is perception-like, rapid, effortless," notes Princeton University psychologist Daniel Kahneman.

Discoveries made at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory have shown that human intention and group dynamics can influence the behavior of quantum electronic devices known as Random Event Generators (REGs).

---Essentially, the PEAR research showed, under very controlled conditions, that
** human consciousness has the ability to interact with physical devices through an unknown mechanism. Further study will be required to understand the effects in more detail, but there is no question that the results have profound implications for science and society.

Good post Jane. The PEAR research was largely ignored but the results stand anyway. The implications are enormous. If we can make an electromagnet by wrapping a bar of iron with wire flowing with electricity, and make it stronger by more wraps, what needs to be done to amplify the effects shown by PEAR?

Excellent question Metal.

I'm just taking a shot in the dark here, but because of the hows and whys of PEAR evolving into "The Science of the Subjective", it seems that it must involve in some way increasing the subjective aspect.

Which indicates to me that that would require something along the lines of "increasing subjective certainty".

Just an idea.

Every journey begins with a single step. The first step here researched by PEAR was "Does it happen?" and apparently proved that it does indeed happen. The next step would be something like "How does it happen or why does it happen? At some point it moves to "Can we make it happen? and on to "Can we control it?" Of course that will lead to "Should we control it? and "Who should control it?"