Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
- [ ]
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: September 19th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
Albert Einstein said: 'The only valuable thing is intuition'
Intuition, whose etymology comes from intuitio ("act of seeing at a glance") among its antonyms, we find the words reasoning and concept. The intuitive is therefore separated from the rational in its sense.
However Albert also said that intuition is the result of our previous intellectual experiences. In a sense, wouldn't intuition represent a pre-conceptualization, an echo of our earlier reasoning?
Also, by its etymology, the word refers directly to the obvious. However, how do you even refer to something obvious without a reasoning even as underlying as it would be? The word seems full of controversy. It seems as useful in creating a simulacrum, subjective truth as it is in the quest for an objective truth. Because as Descartes said, "Can only be true that which is not just plausible but that is obvious, evident, intuitive."
Descartes himself takes the trouble to define what he means by 'intuition' in his work (Le discours de la méthode)
"[By intuition, I mean not the floating confidence that the senses give or the deceitful judgment of an imagination with bad constructs, but the concept that pure and attentive intelligence forms with such ease and distinction that there remains no doubt about what we understand" -René Descartes.
Note that he uses the word 'concept' to define intuition. Word that, you remember, is one of his antonyms.
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
I'd say "from the inferential". Many equate intuitions with instinctive or spontaneous beliefs or belief-dispositions, and "[a] more discriminating version of this sort of account holds that intuitions are beliefs with a suitable etiology. One such account, favored by many psychologists and philosophers with naturalistic inclinations, treats intuitions as beliefs without a conscious or introspectively accessible inferential etiology (…) as in[ ] wrote: ↑September 19th, 2019, 1:24 pmThe word intuition.
Albert Einstein said: 'The only valuable thing is intuition'
Intuition, whose etymology comes from intuitio ("act of seeing at a glance") among its antonyms, we find the words reasoning and concept. The intuitive is therefore separated from the rational in its sense.
[A2] S has the intuition that p if and only if S forms the occurrent belief that p without consciously inferring it from some other belief."
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/
If intuitions are irreducible to beliefs or belief-dispositions, being a kind of mental states sui generis (as postulated by epistemological rationalism), they are not "separated from the rational", because they are not "gut feelings".
"rational insight. The alleged direct or immediate grasp, without any appeal to experience, of the truth or necessity of a proposition. (Also referred to as rational intuition.) According to rationalism, such insight is the basic source of a priori justification and knowledge."
"rationalism. Broadly, the epistemological view that reason is a significant source or basis for knowledge (in the most extreme versions, now rarely if ever held, that it is the only such source or basis). As with empiricism, there are two main versions, one pertaining to the source of concepts and the other to the source of justification. A rationalist view of concept possession says that some or all concepts are innate. A rationalist view of justification says that some (a moderate version of rationalism) or all (an extreme version of rationalism) justification derives from rational insight, rather than sensory experience. Since the a priori justification of analytic claims does not require rational insight, this means that, in opposition to moderate empiricism, justificatory rationalists hold that some synthetic claims can be justified a priori."
(BonJour, Laurence. Epistemology: Classic Problems and Contemporary Responses. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010. p. 316)
Intuition as a source of belief-justification and knowledge sui generis is a sort of nonsensory perception: purely intellectual or rational perception ("vision") of facts/truths.[ ] wrote: ↑September 19th, 2019, 1:24 pmAlso, by its etymology, the word refers directly to the obvious. However, how do you even refer to something obvious without a reasoning even as underlying as it would be? The word seems full of controversy. It seems as useful in creating a simulacrum, subjective truth as it is in the quest for an objective truth. Because as Descartes said, "Can only be true that which is not just plausible but that is obvious, evident, intuitive."
Descartes himself takes the trouble to define what he means by 'intuition' in his work (Le discours de la méthode)
"[By intuition, I mean not the floating confidence that the senses give or the deceitful judgment of an imagination with bad constructs, but the concept that pure and attentive intelligence forms with such ease and distinction that there remains no doubt about what we understand" -René Descartes.
Note that he uses the word 'concept' to define intuition. Word that, you remember, is one of his antonyms.
- The Beast
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
Fascinating, thank you for the info.[ ] wrote: ↑September 19th, 2019, 1:24 pm The word intuition.
Albert Einstein said: 'The only valuable thing is intuition'
Intuition, whose etymology comes from intuitio ("act of seeing at a glance") among its antonyms, we find the words reasoning and concept. The intuitive is therefore separated from the rational in its sense.
However Albert also said that intuition is the result of our previous intellectual experiences. In a sense, wouldn't intuition represent a pre-conceptualization, an echo of our earlier reasoning?
Also, by its etymology, the word refers directly to the obvious. However, how do you even refer to something obvious without a reasoning even as underlying as it would be? The word seems full of controversy. It seems as useful in creating a simulacrum, subjective truth as it is in the quest for an objective truth. Because as Descartes said, "Can only be true that which is not just plausible but that is obvious, evident, intuitive."
Descartes himself takes the trouble to define what he means by 'intuition' in his work (Le discours de la méthode)
"[By intuition, I mean not the floating confidence that the senses give or the deceitful judgment of an imagination with bad constructs, but the concept that pure and attentive intelligence forms with such ease and distinction that there remains no doubt about what we understand" -René Descartes.
Note that he uses the word 'concept' to define intuition. Word that, you remember, is one of his antonyms. :shock: :mrgreen:
- h_k_s
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
- Location: Rocky Mountains
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
I think of intuition as inspiration from the mind that randomly arises from the mind's consideration of all likely and unlikely possibilities. As such it is a part of the rational thinking process.The Beast wrote: ↑September 21st, 2019, 12:20 pm The apology of what is not transcend into a space; an area of creativity wrestling with concepts such as syncronocity. “ The intensity of the transference relationship is always equivalent to the importance of its content to the subject.” Jung. I see a distinction in before the fact and after the fact. Examples of before the fact: consider the oracles and after the fact the innumerable examples of accidental discoveries. So, unconscious causality vs conscious thought. Hence, the ideas of persecution or the pursue of meaning in language and symbols. Moreover, is there a standing relationship between unconscious random causality and reality? Isn’t true that one begot the other? Anyway, I wonder if they speak the same language. But, I consider naming this relationship intuition. Whatever words we use in its description is only a translation of the standalone facility of each individual brain.
- frailRearranger
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 17
- Joined: May 31st, 2019, 8:06 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
Our intuition about a phenomenon is all the impressions, feelings, and ideas which spring to mind regarding that phenomenon. It is our overall understanding of the phenomenon. We may not have reflected deeply or analytically on that phenomenon, and so, our intuition may simply be wrong.
After we have studied a phenomenon more deeply, reflected on it, analysed it with reason, examined the evidence, etc, we will begin to form rational ideas about it. As our rational understanding becomes more complete, it all comes together and we form a rational intuition about the phenomenon.
e.g., we might look at a mathematical algorithm or proof, and intuitively, it seems wrong. Then we spend days struggling with it, analysing it, working it out, testing it, and at last we understand it. Now, looking at the same equation, we have an intuitive sense of what it means, how it works, that it is true, and why it is true.
Indeed, my intuition of what the word "intuition" meant was once different from what it is now. My understanding of the word changed when I observed the way mathematicians seem to use the word.
- Bluemist
- Posts: 129
- Joined: November 15th, 2009, 10:11 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
The perceived issue was that it is logically impossible to discover novel abstract objects from either deduction or induction from lower level concrete instances. Yes, abstractions can be related and expanded within their own logical realm, but how can we discover entirely new abstractions?
Plato struggled with 'dialectic' methods to explain Forms throughout the dialogues with very limited success. His answer unsatisfactorily defaulted to transcendental recall of Forms from the eternal world of the Soul.
For mathematicians, Forms look like this:
https://twitter.com/NYTScience/status/1 ... 4278628352
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
That's why, as frailRearranger noted, "intuition is something that is improved by learning", although to some extent that happens when one is sufficiently conditioned to operate on "auto pilot", allowing for flow states that use intuition.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
As you say, we're bombarded with way more data than we can manage. I think our current understanding is that most of it is discarded, some makes it to consciousness, and I haven't read anything about the data which don't make it to consciousness, but also aren't immediately discarded....
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
I think it is processes peripherally. You won't read anything about it because I worked it out via logic and intuition :)Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 12:39 pmAs you say, we're bombarded with way more data than we can manage. I think our current understanding is that most of it is discarded, some makes it to consciousness, and I haven't read anything about the data which don't make it to consciousness, but also aren't immediately discarded.... 🤔
Intuition isn't based on magic, not plucked from thin air. All it can be based on is the information gathered by the senses. Yet we can have a sense of things unsupported by our conscious thoughts. It's obviously behind-the-scenes processing.
BTW, I read your earlier post about being HF autistic. Me too. There might be a few of us here.
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
True, but only if combined with critical reasoning. Intuitions can be false just as much as people can lie without meaning to. Even Einstein's intuition failed him a few times. Intuition is definitely not the only 'valuable thing' especially when proven colossally wrong.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
When we humans are not certain - i.e. almost all of the time - but we feel we need an answer anyway, we guess. I think intuition is our name for the result(s) of such guesswork. And I think it's an unconscious thing, as in unconscious mind, the larger - and maybe more capable? - part of the human mind. When we just don't know enough for conscious rationality to serve, we (unconsciously) apply intuition, and we guess. Our guesses are based on fragments, snippets, and the like. The sort of stuff an analytic philosopher would sneer at, and refuse to dignify with the label 'evidence'. But that's the whole point. There is often little or no evidence, but we do this subconscious guessing stuff, and it's surprisingly effective. Astonishing, even.Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 5:15 pmI think it is processes peripherally. You won't read anything about it because I worked it out via logic and intuition Intuition isn't based on magic, not plucked from thin air. All it can be based on is the information gathered by the senses. Yet we can have a sense of things unsupported by our conscious thoughts. It's obviously behind-the-scenes processing.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 12:39 pm As you say, we're bombarded with way more data than we can manage. I think our current understanding is that most of it is discarded, some makes it to consciousness, and I haven't read anything about the data which don't make it to consciousness, but also aren't immediately discarded....
What do you think?
Nice to meet you! Would anyone else care to 'out' themselves?
The "HF" bothers me a little, though. High and low functioning are labels originally coined by, and for the use of, medical practitioners who deal with autists and autism. It allowed them to differentiate between those of us who need educational (and other) support, from those who don't. A simple and practical distinction.
But the general population has adopted these labels, and applied to them the meanings they intuit ( ), or sound like they should have. The result is not great. High functioning has come to mean not really autistic, or even disabled; able to function in the world without special assistance; more a lifestyle choice than a disability. Low functioning, its complement, therefore refers to a disabled and deeply disturbed individual; more or less mindless; more like an animal than a person, really. I'm exaggerating, of course, but there are occasional real-world examples that approach my cynical rant quite closely.
But you didn't mean all that sh*t. You were just being friendly, and this is just (my) autistic rant. Pleased to meet you!
-
- Posts: 1719
- Joined: February 23rd, 2012, 3:06 am
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
It also operates in the dream state, not as directly as when one is conscious but more through symbol and metaphor.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 11:32 am
There is often little or no evidence, but we do this subconscious guessing stuff, and it's surprisingly effective. Astonishing, even.
What do you think?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14997
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
The entirely of human knowledge throughout history can be described as "best guesses". However, when the guesses disagree the stalemate can theoretically be broken with science - testing and recording. In practice, however, most times when people disagree these days they engage in media campaigns and treat science as equivalent to pre-testing guesswork. Therein lie the seeds of the fall of the west.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 11:32 amWhen we humans are not certain - i.e. almost all of the time - but we feel we need an answer anyway, we guess. I think intuition is our name for the result(s) of such guesswork. And I think it's an unconscious thing, as in unconscious mind, the larger - and maybe more capable? - part of the human mind. When we just don't know enough for conscious rationality to serve, we (unconsciously) apply intuition, and we guess. Our guesses are based on fragments, snippets, and the like. The sort of stuff an analytic philosopher would sneer at, and refuse to dignify with the label 'evidence'. But that's the whole point. There is often little or no evidence, but we do this subconscious guessing stuff, and it's surprisingly effective. Astonishing, even.Greta wrote: ↑September 26th, 2019, 5:15 pm
I think it is processes peripherally. You won't read anything about it because I worked it out via logic and intuition :) Intuition isn't based on magic, not plucked from thin air. All it can be based on is the information gathered by the senses. Yet we can have a sense of things unsupported by our conscious thoughts. It's obviously behind-the-scenes processing.
What do you think?
Individually, we take in oodles of information. Regardless of the details recorded in memory, this would form general impressions of cause and effect.
Given that all animals intuit, I find the human capacity for scientific proofs more astonishing, like determining star distance using parallax error. Then, to expand range, they use the converged views of telescopes located on either side of the globe. It breaks my heart to see the empowerment of clueless dimwits who undermine the mind boggling work of scientists.
Rant away. As a long term forum addict and mod, I have read and perpetrated more rants than I care to count. It's amazingly ineffective, of course. Online, any block of text deeper than a centimetre is often seen as greyspace as readers move on.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 11:32 amNice to meet you! 👍 :) Would anyone else care to 'out' themselves? :wink:
The "HF" bothers me a little, though. High and low functioning are labels originally coined by, and for the use of, medical practitioners who deal with autists and autism. It allowed them to differentiate between those of us who need educational (and other) support, from those who don't. A simple and practical distinction.
But the general population has adopted these labels, and applied to them the meanings they intuit ( :P ), or sound like they should have. The result is not great. High functioning has come to mean not really autistic, or even disabled; able to function in the world without special assistance; more a lifestyle choice than a disability. Low functioning, its complement, therefore refers to a disabled and deeply disturbed individual; more or less mindless; more like an animal than a person, really. I'm exaggerating, of course, but there are occasional real-world examples that approach my cynical rant quite closely.
But you didn't mean all that sh*t. :) You were just being friendly, and this is just (my) autistic rant. :wink: Pleased to meet you! :) :) :)
If you don't add the "HF" these days then people you argue with will claim you are not mentally competent. Ethics in this overpopulated world are breaking down everywhere and the low blow has become the norm. Look at how Greta Thunberg's (amazingly HF) autism is referred to, or intimated, as a mental illness by political opponents. The implication is, as you suggest, that we are more like animals or children than the Dunning-Kruger examples who misrepresent us.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Intuition is NOT an intuitive word.
The point about our guessing is that we do it when there's nothing better available. So no, such stalemates cannot be broken with science. If there was enough evidence for science to reach a conclusion, we'd've used it. If there isn't (enough evidence), we guess.Greta wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 5:34 pmThe entirely of human knowledge throughout history can be described as "best guesses". However, when the guesses disagree the stalemate can theoretically be broken with science - testing and recording. In practice, however, most times when people disagree these days they engage in media campaigns and treat science as equivalent to pre-testing guesswork. Therein lie the seeds of the fall of the west.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 11:32 am When we humans are not certain - i.e. almost all of the time - but we feel we need an answer anyway, we guess. I think intuition is our name for the result(s) of such guesswork. And I think it's an unconscious thing, as in unconscious mind, the larger - and maybe more capable? - part of the human mind. When we just don't know enough for conscious rationality to serve, we (unconsciously) apply intuition, and we guess. Our guesses are based on fragments, snippets, and the like. The sort of stuff an analytic philosopher would sneer at, and refuse to dignify with the label 'evidence'. But that's the whole point. There is often little or no evidence, but we do this subconscious guessing stuff, and it's surprisingly effective. Astonishing, even.
What do you think?
Individually, we take in oodles of information. Regardless of the details recorded in memory, this would form general impressions of cause and effect.
Given that all animals intuit, I find the human capacity for scientific proofs more astonishing, like determining star distance using parallax error. Then, to expand range, they use the converged views of telescopes located on either side of the globe. It breaks my heart to see the empowerment of clueless dimwits who undermine the mind boggling work of scientists.
Can't argue with that!Greta wrote: ↑September 27th, 2019, 5:34 pm If you don't add the "HF" these days then people you argue with will claim you are not mentally competent. Ethics in this overpopulated world are breaking down everywhere and the low blow has become the norm. Look at how Greta Thunberg's (amazingly HF) autism is referred to, or intimated, as a mental illness by political opponents. The implication is, as you suggest, that we are more like animals or children than the Dunning-Kruger examples who misrepresent us.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023