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