For me - to repeat - the best definition of intuition differentiating it from intellect is speed.
-----Original Message----- From: archytas <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 10:00 pm Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition One might say this Orn. Some stuff we think of as thinking can be programmed so a machine can get it right more often than us. If thinking is merely thus, then I think therefore I am leads me only to tender to the needs of these superior machines. 'Intuition' thus might be a way out of machine minding and not just switching myself off for a 'better oblivion'. I know some for whom intuiting is about colour-matching curtains and carpets. Godel is often assumed to have left us something more beyond algorithm. I don't want people 'intuiting' about criminal cases, or judging defendants on their ability to carry a suit well. We might ask in what conditions it is reasonable to speculate, when we can be satisfied we have deductive links and evidence that hasn't just been made up and so on. There may well be more. I am not currently keen on magic, and neither are you. We can see that scratch marks not present in early crime scene photographs (with shots taken they should have been in) and which are present in later photographs did not happen at the same time as the crime. With a bit more added to the scenario, we can also see such marks presented as evidence are evidence of a frame. A bunch of people intuiting a time machine ... you get the drift, What need have we of the term, what uses is it put to? On 22 Feb, 00:52, [email protected] wrote: > Are you suggesting that intuition can be known/understood using > concepts and words? > > ABSOLUTELY! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 7:14 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > “Yes Ornamental - If intuition cannot be conceptualized or understood > using concepts then this attempt at shared understanding is indeed > futile…” – gw > > Are you suggesting that intuition can be known/understood using > concepts and words? > > “… If our experience of intuition (as both process of accessing > 'knowledge' as well as the implied subject matter of that process - > then your experience of it is as valid as mine and vice versa. So that > if I choose to view it through the prism of experiential logic (which > I choose to do) you should endorse my perspective…” – gw > > Perhaps I missed the part where you explained what you mean by > ‘experiential logic’. If so, just direct me to it please. I couldn’t > find much that appeared reasonable online. > > “… My experience of the color red may or may not be exactly like your > experience of red and according to you we will never be able to > know….” – gw > > In many ways, true, we won’t know…unless perhaps some very strong > empathetical sense was used. This would be a new topic of course. > > “… Ok - substitute intuition for the red color. Is there a difference > in perspective…” – gw > > A difference in perspective? In such rarefied topics, language > matters. I’m not sure exactly what you are asking here. Guessing, I > will say that the visual ‘sense’ is of a different nature than that of > ‘intuition’ even though neither are direct results of concepts and > language. One could add that the auditory sense, the kinesthetic sense > etc. are all ‘different’ in some ways. On the other hand, from the > perspective of the unity of all, they are all aspects of ‘mind’ (not > thinking alone, more along the line of cognition) > > So, while there is sameness…one can, when broken into constituent > parts, discriminate differences too. > > “…There is also a rather elevated tone that so called intuitive > knowledge is vastly superior to lets say any of the remarkable > findings of science…” – gw > > Again, I’m not sure of what you mean by ‘elevated tone’ so hesitate… > As to superiority let alone being *vastly* superior, they are of > different scales…different types of stuff…so, such a claim is nothing > I would posit without a great more discussion and unpacking of what > assumptions are being used. > > “.. If so it can't really be objectively validated as it cannot be > adequately described in words. By what standard of value should such > high sounding people be endowed with superior value simply because > they are convinced of the importance of their experiences in and of > themselves…” – gw > > I can’t speak to this, not knowing who you are talking about let alone > their beliefs. Also, the term ‘objective’ in this context can be > misleading as ‘standard of value’ can be too. I’m open to a more > involved discussion here if you are interested…if not, that is fine > too. Much of this particular part of your post is a red herring when > associated with my posts though. Oh, and we would have to delve into > your concepts of ‘convinced of’, ‘importance of’, ‘experiences’ as > well as ‘self’…just way too many assumed meanings here to make much > discussion of value without a great deal of unpacking. > > “…Throughout history there have been countless people in all sort of > positions who are utterly convinced they have a penultimate connection > with the Absolute truth, the nature of reality, union with the God > Head, cosmic consciousness, and the likes. Good enough - so what?”- gw > > Having the ‘second to last’ connection wouldn’t be of much importance > now would it? ;-) Of course there are people with personal convictions > when it comes to such things and I dare say you have studied such > things more than the average person in the States, right? I’m assuming > that your rhetorical ‘so what?’ is unnecessary to respond to since you > have included quite a few fallacies here including: > Complex Questioning > Appeal to Complexity > Argument by Fast Talking > Argument by Question > …and perhaps Reifying, Confusing Cause and Correlation, Causal > Reductionism, Psychogenetic Fallacy, Reductive Fallacy etc. > > If in fact your question is serious, then apparently for you such > things are of little to no worth so there is not much more to discuss, > right? > > On Feb 21, 10:56 am, [email protected] wrote: > > Yes Ornamental - If intuition cannot be conceptualized or understood using > concepts then this attempt at shared understanding is indeed futile. If our > experience of intuition (as both process of accessing 'knowledge' as well as the > implied subject matter of that process - then your experience of it is as valid > as mine and vice versa. So that if I choose to view it through the prism of > experiential logic (which I choose to do) you should endorse my perspective. My > experience of the color red may or may not be exactly like your experience of > red and according to you we will never be able to know. Ok - substitute > intuition for the red color. Is there a difference in perspective. > > > There is also a rather elevated tone that so called intuitive knowledge is > vastly superior to lets say any of the remarkable findings of science. If so it > can't really be objectively validated as it cannot be adequately described in > words. By what standard of value should such high sounding people be endowed > with superior value simply because they are convinced of the importance of their > experiences in and of themselves. > > > Throughout history there have been countless people in all sort of positions > who are utterly convinced they have a penultimate connection with the Absolute > truth, the nature of reality, union with the God Head, cosmic consciousness, and > the likes. Good enough - so what? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Sun, Feb 21, 2010 1:27 pm > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Intuition > > > “Ornamental - If I understand you correctly you are saying that > > intuition can only be known intuitively…” – gw > > > True…how else could it be known? It is not a mental construct…it is a > > direct apprehension, one analogy of which is vision. One can only know > > what the color red is by seeing it. > > > “… So if I am correct this is the primary debate between science and > > religion (as knowledge by faith)…” – gw > > > You may be correct…however I don’t view it this way. As I understand > > it, faith is not knowledge. It may be ‘debated’ in the sense you > > present it, but again for me, such is but confusion. > > > “…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.” – gw > > > When you use the term ‘view of intuition’, of course. Mainly because > > you are talking about concepts again. Epistemology can enter into such > > a discussion; however it doesn’t change the nature of knowledge/gnosis > > nor of wisdom/Sophia. One can try to express what red looks like. One > > can try to express what love feels like. One can try to define the > > nature of things not based upon concepts. However, in each and every > > case, the result is not nor can it be an accurate representation…an > > analogy perhaps, but not an accurate one-to-one analysis. > > > On Feb 21, 8:37 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
