Dariusz:
>I don't suppose animals visualize foods either.  They likely go by smell
>and taste.  Though they must equally likely manage to develop some sort
>of mental pictures for foods they might prefer or such (the word "prefer"
>isn't very good here; instincts shouldn't have preferences per se).  Now
>that I think of it, the whole issue of mental images seems to be too
>incompatible with the definition of IE to be considered as a valid method
>of food-selection.  Smell should be the key to success IMO.

It probably is more accurate than intuition--or perhaps smell and taste are
the only way to "verify" one's intuition. But in general, I think there is
a case to be made that if everything (mind/body, senses/feelings/cognition)
was _connected_ properly (not "split") we would probably visualize what we
need pretty accurately. In cases of illness or pregnancy (or the early
weeks of instincto), when metabolic needs may be more exaggerated, cravings
are sometimes very useful. If we were instincto-from-birth such cravings
would probably be more accurate, as might more mundane daily intuitions
regarding food needs.

But there is nothing completely sacred about smell and taste. For me,
garlic and liver usually smell very interesting but usually taste poor.
Other useful foods may have very little smell (grapes, fish bones, etc.)
but still taste good. And I have times when a food (bananas, sweet corn)
smelled nuetral but tasted great. In the case of the latter, they may
simply be oversweet foods, but even so they are the foods which are in our
markets, so relying exclusively on smell/taste for attractions and the
taste change for quantity can be problematic. What the solution is is an
open question--wide open...;)

Cheers,
Kirt