based upon a geometric process which needed little elucidation, whereas the 

 second seemed highly empirical and based upon a fictional model derived from a 

 special group of described facts, quite independent from the general concept. 

 Obviously however, there is no difference between the reality or bases of these 

 two pieces of understanding but only in the degree of experience necessary to 

 establish them and in the degree to which they are related to a more general and 

 central model. It is apparent that intelligence without appropriate experience 

 has no opportunity to generalize the principle of conservation necessary for the 

 principle of light intensity to seem simple and logical. And further, neither of 

 these principles are more empirically based than the conception of the digit one, 

 which is a concept no intelligence would obtain without experience, although the 

 experience necessary is extremely simple and the concept seems inherent. 



Let us say, therefore, that, regardless of the degree of intelligence, 

 understanding is non-existent without experience. To a certain level of under- 

 standing, our unaided senses and motor abilities are capable of supplying a great 

 fund of experience. For instance, in the case of the intensity of light, a spot 

 of light shining through a hole, our hand moved closer or further from the hole 

 and our eyes to inspect the illuminated area are all the instruments and tools and 

 information which are necessary for our mind to formulate and roughly general- 

 ize the relationship between distance from a light source and intensity. This is 

 far from the case for the Pauli Principle, for no intelligence could arrive at this 

 concept with our unaided senses, and the instrumentation necessary to accumu- 

 late the supporting information is incredibly complex. 



What now is the relationship between the development of knowledge and 

 instruments? Historically they leap-frog one another in a somewhat haphazard 

 fashion. Intelligence, with a background of understanding and the ability to 

 theorize, generalize, and to extrapolate, thirsts for more information while in- 

 struments lag; then in one swift step, newly developed instruments begin to feed 

 information to the intelligence much more rapidly than it can be assimilated. 

 Sometimes this is information which substantiates expectations, often the dis- 

 closures of the prototype are much more complex than predicted by the mental 

 model, and hence many great and surprising disclosures (often in a field foreign 

 to the investigation) have been made by instruments that very generally probed 

 into the unknown and accepted all information about the particular subject rather 

 than those that by preconception disregard information that was not predicted in 

 the mental model. 



Thus we see intelligence accumulating understanding and desiring more, 

 instruments extending our senses and providing more information than intelli- 

 gence can immediately explain, and proceeding thus with protracted periods of 

 stagnation then dizzy advance -- toward a better disclosure of the universe. 



Let us consider in some detail the elements of this disclosure and the 

 pecularities of the components. 



The mind, which is characterized as the repository of the intelligence, 

 continuously attempts to construct a rational model which will explain all obser- 

 vations, then tests the model. * It attempts to provide an explanation for the 

 greatest number of facts with the simplest model. This process is greatly sav- 

 ing in total effort. Persons with defective minds, for instance, can be taught 



* - I am impressed by different racial attitudes on this point. Primitive 

 races and even advanced races like the Chinese display a great compulsion to 

 construct the model but little inclination to test it. Persons with certain reli- 

 gious attitudes not only fail to test their concept but actively avoid such tests. 



