Ornamental - If I understand you correctly you are saying that intuition can only be known intuitively. So if I am correct this is the primary debate between science and religion (as knowledge by faith). Ultimately one's view of intuition is derived from a person's basic assumptions about the knowledge of and acquisition of knowledge as well as what is meant by knowledge in the first place.
-----Original Message----- From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 11:00 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition I find the analysis of intuition by analytical cognition a strange and unproductive exercise at best. We can only know what intuition is through its use/application/experience. On Feb 21, 6:02 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm much more interested in Molly than Bernstein. It's obvious some > people's brains work differently. Definitions of intuition are very > shaky though - in Kant it more or less replaces perception. We have > something of a tendency to make it into something very special when > what's actually going on probably isn't. I can remember being > regarded as something of a 'savant detective' when all I was doing was > thinking when others couldn't. Classically, cops get to think they > are smart when all they are doing is routinely expecting people to be > liars because most of the people they deal with are. Analysis of > perverse cases shows they and lawyers get into all kinds of > unnecessary paranoia and make hideous mistakes. Francis is about > right on Bernstein, but to be fair the guy is saying he's outlining > the area in speculation. > > In the creative negative, we have to recognise that much said on > intuition is a tempting kind of sales pitch - more or less "you can do > wonders without the hard work". Given I also believe much science and > 'being clever' is mystification (an area which also joins science and > anarchism) I have some sympathies here - but don't want to be sold > unnecessary double-glazing. Biology, perhaps for obvious reasons the > most materialist science, has long been into the potential of a 'world > of information' and keeps finding more and more material communication > systems and makes use of much special teleological reasoning - with > sceptical riders. > > One of the things we'd have to get to grips with to know more about > how we define intuition is how reasoning in our practical systems can > go so wrong. The Nico Bento case in the UK is a good example and > another is about to come under review. In this one, an adopted son > was convicted of the murder of his parents, sister and her two > children. The mad sister was originally thought to be the culprit of > a murder-suicide. Her parents were threatening to have the kids put > into care at the time. Disclosure is pathetic even after 25 years, > but the case hinged on a silencer found by a cousin at the crime scene > some days after the incident. Scratch marks made by the silencer (on > the end of the vermin rifle used in the killings) now seem not to have > been made in the incident, but some time afterwards. This has been > established through analysis of pictures of the crime scene. The case > per se doesn't concern this discussion, but the way apparently decent > minds get carried away from proper analysis in this and many other > cases does. What we often don't do is get as far as we can with > empiricism before we get into the speculative and start making up > fancies and falsifying 'evidence' to justify them. > We need to 'dream stuff up', but not allow this to become dogma > pursued by self without integrity. I used to beat most people I > played at chess as a kid, but as soon as I played some really good > people against the clock, knew they were working in a very different > way from me and I could never compete. Brains scans now go some way > to explaining why. I was in the top 1% in maths, but utterly useless > compared with the best. Not many of us armed with a prism, thick > piece of glass and a magnet would stick the things together and see > the light change, let alone go on to devise Maxwell's four equations. > Far too many of us think we can spot people lying on behavioural cues, > yet can't when tested. We think we can do critical reasoning, but > mostly can't when tested. We say we understand what a judge has > directed when part of a jury, but only a third have, when tested. > Riggers may have a point (certainly we should get into more > description like this), but what might we find with some lab equipment > around whilst 'introspecting'? One dreads, of course, what Francis > may be up to with Lycra, a suspiciously devilish-sounding instrument, > especially after his 'catwalk admissions'! > > I now regard Nulabour as an evil. This did not flash into me as > 'intuition'. > > On 21 Feb, 12:26, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The information is sensed. I feel it in my stomach first- sort of a > > nauseating fear which moves up my spine to my brain. This happens even > > when I let events unfold, as in betrayal or dishonesty- but that might > > be either shock or perverse curiousity. > > > On Feb 20, 7:02 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > The difference between intuition and intellect is speed. I don't accept the definition of intuition as somehow being able to channel uninterpreted information. This is a seductive and absolutely unproven hypothesis parallel to Jung's concept of connecting with the collective unconscious. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: fiddler <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 7:18 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > > The primary definition and example of intuition is exactly what you > > > listed here. Such ideas as people intuiting a lie or the path through > > > a maze are commonly found in this category. Molly is referring to the > > > pseudo-sciences of parapsychology. People such as Bernstein try not to > > > use the prior and discredited definitions due to the obvious lack of > > > any evidence that they represent anything real and are constantly and > > > wrongly applying improper terms in it's stead. > > > > On Feb 20, 2:54 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pretty much what you ruled out of your definition. Perception using > > > > our actual physical senses. It's been proven that people give off > > > > different odors(pheromones or hormones or perspiration or whatever) > > > > while experiencing certain emotions. I think there are certain people > > > > more sensitive to these forms of stimulus then others. Sharks can > > > > smell a drop of blood in the ocean a mile away. Perhaps some humans > > > > have a similar feel for their environment they can't explain any other > > > > way but to claim paranormal abilities. > > > > > Observation skills and a thorough knowledge of psychology give clues > > > > that some people are able to put together and 'guess' what people will > > > > do or have done. It's as simple and as difficult as that. > > > > > dj > > > > > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I will ask you both, Neil and Don, what, do you think, is intuition? > > > > > > On Feb 20, 4:42 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> I'm pretty sure Molly is speaking of paranormal senses. Above and > > > > >> beyond what your average neurologist would consider a biological > > > > >> 'sense.' I think there are some pretty amazing sensitive and > > > > >> perceptive people out there but I don't believe in what Molly's > > > > >> supplied definition of intuition is. > > > > > >> dj > > > > > >> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 2:46 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > We don't use only 5 senses; there are clearly more. Apprehension > > > > >> > about our environment can be passed on without what we normally think > > > > >> > of as cognition. Intuition, in common uses of the word is as often > > > > >> > wrong as right, perhaps more so. There are organs in biology that > > > > >> > sense light, yet are not eyes. Hard to do a job on Bernstein without > > > > >> > writing a longer paper; first impressions concern false definitions. > > > > > >> > On 20 Feb, 16:15, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> >> Abstract: Intuition is defined for the purposes of this analysis as: > > > > >> >> the appearance in the mind of > > > > >> >> accurate information about the external world, which can be shown to > > > > >> >> have come not through the > > > > >> >> five senses, nor through a rearrangement of stored memory contents. > > > > >> >> Forms of intuition obeying this > > > > >> >> definition have been explored scientifically under such labels as > > > > >> >> telepathy, precognition, > > > > >> >> presentiment, and remote viewing. This paper summarizes those > > > > >> >> scientific findings, and presents a > > > > >> >> few theories which have been hypothesized to explain them. Those > > > > >> >> theories are largely based in > > > > >> >> theoretical physics, including quantum non-locality, holography, and > > > > >> >> complex space-time. Related > > > > >> >> biological theories are also cited, which propose to explain how > > > > >> >> information might move from the > > > > >> >> subatomic level up into waking consciousness, for example through DNA > > > > >> >> structures or neuronal > > > > >> >> microtubules. - PAUL BERNSTEIN, Ph.D. > > > > > >> >>http://www.paulbernstein.info/intuition.pdf > > > > > >> >> What is your experience with intuition? > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > >> > [email protected]. > > > > >> > For more options, visit this group > > > > >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. = -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
