Philosophy Discussion Forums

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 5:56 pm

Thinking critical wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 4:54 pm
Really, well considering it is the generally excepted expression of what is meant by intuition by the majority of philosophers, scientists and educational institutes through out history I would suggest it is quite the opposite.

Rubbish.
You view of intuition is that of old women.

Here's Kant for example

"An intuition is a kind of presentation, in which an object is presented to the human mind. More specifically, it is a cognition, a presentation with consciousness, which refers to objects (unlike sensation, which refers only to the mind, insofar as a sensation is a modification of the state of the mind).

Intuitions are characterized by contrast to concepts. There are two differences. First, intuitions are singular. An intuition refers only to a single object. Concepts of the understanding, on the other hand, have an extension or “sphere” of objects to which they refer. Second, an intuition refers to an object immediately, whereas a concept refers to an object through its characteristics. “An intuition refers directly to the object and is singular; a concept refers to the object indirectly by means of a characteristic that may be common to several things“ (A320/B377).

"

So intuition isn't the ability to play a piano without consciously thinking about the finger movements, thank you for confirming my point while simultaneously proving yourself wrong.

Felix wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 12:59 am I think it is a capacity that one must have experienced to believe in.

I tend to agree that intuition could be seen as a sixth sense in that it is a subconscious accumulation of information from our other five senses combined with the insight gained from previous experiences.

That would not explain precognition.

Precognition doesn't require an explanation as it is pseudoscience. As with all unfalsifiable claims precognition relies on ad hoc justification as a means to support it's own claims. Such claims have been debunked time and time again and can be demonstrated to be nothing more than mentalism, illusions and tricks.

Thinking critical wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 7:20 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 5:54 pm

I use my sight. I guide my feet.
This is absolutely NOT splitting hairs.
YOU called intuition a sense - it absolutely is not.

This is philosophy.

Sometimes ones own arrogance can result in the inflation of their ego, which consequently distorts ones ability to participate in a reasonable, rational and civil conversation.
You believe people don't rely on their senses to guide them, in other words your saying the sense of sight isn't required to guide someone around an obstacle, the sense of hearing doesn't guide someone to the ringing phone, the sense of smell to a bakery or sense of touch to guide us down a dark hallway at night.
TH insists that we are not guided by our senses?

Light weight.
Intuition is not a sense.
If you can't be bothered to use terms with precision you ought not to be doing philosophy.

There is a difference between Intuition - the faculty - and an intuition, that is a specific conclusion, insight, whatever. Kant, above is talking about the specific instance, what that instance is. And he, or really his translator, uses the word 'presentation'.

What Thinking Critical started the thread focused on was the faculty. That facet or process in us, what that is.

He is making a claim that the process is in some ways like a sense. He qualifies it with 'kind of like a sixth' sense.

I think that might be an ok description for some kinds of intuition, pragmaticly. IOW I am not sure that it is actually like having say, a sense that picks up magnetic fields such as some other animals have, but intuition in some situations might function like that, since the person seems to get information in some way others do not. They sense something is off in the way people are moving in a certain situation and realize something violent is going to happen.

I think there are other kinds of intuition where the use of the word sense works less well instrumentally. And I tend to think that it is a pattern recognizing facility working with information form the senses and also memory and more.

Oh, and I should have said, sometimes what is presented by intuition comes as an image or is presented as an image. In this sense it acts like a sense, though need not be. Instead of images coming through the eyes, they come via ? And this can happen while present with whatever it is one gains insight into. IOW not in eyes closed contemplation and imagination, but as if one could sense in another way. The instrumentalist in me can live with calling intuition 'like a sense' in many situations or categories really. Others less so.

Thinking critical wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 1:04 pmIntuition is commonly referred to as a "gut instinct".

This is usually not what philosophers mean by "intuition", for whom intuitions are either doxastic mental states, i.e. empirically ungrounded and logically uninferred (dispositions/inclinations to) beliefs, or non-doxastic mental states sui generis, i.e. intellectual, purely rational apprehensions or perceptions of (necessary) truths.

For more information, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 8:51 am Light weight.
Intuition is not a sense.
If you can't be bothered to use terms with precision you ought not to be doing philosophy.

If you took your time and cared to read posts properly you would have realised that I have already responded to this comment in saying:

Thinking Critical wrote:I definitely wasn't asserting that intuition is a sense, the use of sense was implied figuratively not literally.

Consul wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Thinking critical wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 1:04 pmIntuition is commonly referred to as a "gut instinct".

This is usually not what philosophers mean by "intuition", for whom intuitions are either doxastic mental states, i.e. empirically ungrounded and logically uninferred (dispositions/inclinations to) beliefs, or non-doxastic mental states sui generis, i.e. intellectual, purely rational apprehensions or perceptions of (necessary) truths.

For more information, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/

It's odd to me, that the focus is on a specific intuition, and not the faculty (or faculties).
intuition (n.)
mid-15c., intuicioun, "insight, direct or immediate cognition, spiritual perception,"
coming from theologians, and then, I presume, in everyday speech spreading out to be a kind of skill, faculty, ability, that some might use more than other, be better at or worse at....
This is closer to the first meaning above in Stanford, but more as an ability rather than a batch of beliefs or states.
If we focus on the individual states or beliefs, we get into certain epistemological discussions.
But if we focus on individuals with certain habits of trusting their intuition, we can actually come at it statistically, empirically.
Intuitions, as in a way of arriving at decisions/insights through at least no open empirically grouned or logically inferred process (iow it is black-boxed) can clearly be effective in some individuals.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 2:40 am It's odd to me, that the focus is on a specific intuition, and not the faculty (or faculties).
intuition (n.)
mid-15c., intuicioun, "insight, direct or immediate cognition, spiritual perception,"
coming from theologians, and then, I presume, in everyday speech spreading out to be a kind of skill, faculty, ability, that some might use more than other, be better at or worse at....

I think the ability to master our intuitions depends on how in tune we are with our own sub conscious experiences. By this, I am referring to the basic data/information we overlook during our day to day experiences.

Thinking critical wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 7:26 amSo intuition isn't the ability to play a piano without consciously thinking about the finger movements, thank you for confirming my point while simultaneously proving yourself wrong.

Indeed, intuitions aren't automatic/automatized skills.

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 5:56 pmHere's Kant for example
"An intuition is a kind of presentation, in which an object is presented to the human mind. More specifically, it is a cognition, a presentation with consciousness, which refers to objects (unlike sensation, which refers only to the mind, insofar as a sensation is a modification of the state of the mind).

Intuitions are characterized by contrast to concepts. There are two differences. First, intuitions are singular. An intuition refers only to a single object. Concepts of the understanding, on the other hand, have an extension or “sphere” of objects to which they refer. Second, an intuition refers to an object immediately, whereas a concept refers to an object through its characteristics. “An intuition refers directly to the object and is singular; a concept refers to the object indirectly by means of a characteristic that may be common to several things“ (A320/B377)."

The German word used by Kant is "Anschauung", and its English translation—"intuition"—is not linguistically but philosophically misleading unless one is familiar with Kant's specific terminology. The basic etymological meaning of the German verb "anschauen" is "to look at sth", and this is also the basic etymological meaning of the Latin verb "intueri", from which the Latin noun "intuitio" and the English noun "intuition" are derived.
Now, the important point is that there are two different kinds of Anschauung:

1. sinnliche Anschauung = sensuous intuition = perceptual intuition = sensory perception

2. unsinnliche Anschauung = non-sensuous intuition = intellectual intuition = non-sensory perception (in the rationalist sense, not to be confused with extra-sensory perception in the parapsychological or mystical sense)

Kant uses "Anschauung" in sense 1!

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 10:07 amThere is a difference between Intuition - the faculty - and an intuition, that is a specific conclusion, insight, whatever.

There is a faculty-act-object ambiguity:

1. intuition as the (cognitive/epistemic) power to intuit something
2. intuition as the act (event) of intuiting something
3. intuition as the the object of intuiting, as what is intuited: an intuited truth/fact

Consul wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 10:36 am

ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑August 10th, 2018, 5:56 pmHere's Kant for example
"An intuition is a kind of presentation, in which an object is presented to the human mind. More specifically, it is a cognition, a presentation with consciousness, which refers to objects (unlike sensation, which refers only to the mind, insofar as a sensation is a modification of the state of the mind).

Intuitions are characterized by contrast to concepts. There are two differences. First, intuitions are singular. An intuition refers only to a single object. Concepts of the understanding, on the other hand, have an extension or “sphere” of objects to which they refer. Second, an intuition refers to an object immediately, whereas a concept refers to an object through its characteristics. “An intuition refers directly to the object and is singular; a concept refers to the object indirectly by means of a characteristic that may be common to several things“ (A320/B377)."

The German word used by Kant is "Anschauung", and its English translation—"intuition"—is not linguistically but philosophically misleading unless one is familiar with Kant's specific terminology. The basic etymological meaning of the German verb "anschauen" is "to look at sth", and this is also the basic etymological meaning of the Latin verb "intueri", from which the Latin noun "intuitio" and the English noun "intuition" are derived.
Now, the important point is that there are two different kinds of Anschauung:

1. sinnliche Anschauung = sensuous intuition = perceptual intuition = sensory perception

2. unsinnliche Anschauung = non-sensuous intuition = intellectual intuition = non-sensory perception (in the rationalist sense, not to be confused with extra-sensory perception in the parapsychological or mystical sense)

Kant uses "Anschauung" in sense 1!

That does not follow from the translation.
Kant's "intution" is not a sense, in the meaning of English such as the five senses.

Consul wrote: ↑August 12th, 2018, 10:42 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑August 11th, 2018, 10:07 amThere is a difference between Intuition - the faculty - and an intuition, that is a specific conclusion, insight, whatever.

There is a faculty-act-object ambiguity:

1. intuition as the (cognitive/epistemic) power to intuit something
2. intuition as the act (event) of intuiting something
3. intuition as the the object of intuiting, as what is intuited: an intuited truth/fact

None of which are a sense of a legitimate sense.

Kant's intuition is a thing achieved by a neural process upon sense data. It is not a sense. It is not a perception, more of a reception of that perception.
For example when I see a building with a roof and a door with four windows, I "intuit" a "home" or a house. Without the knowledge I have of building the object would be so much geometry.
Like an Amerindian failing to see Galleon; but seeing only an object on the water made of a complex construction of wood, and cloth.
Intuition is what the brain does with objects that, as Heidegger would have said are "ready to hand".
What we have received and unconsciously through our senses becomes unmeshed in our continuously pre-defined conception of the world we have constructed conceptually.