Sub-conscious reasoning intruding on consciousness. Short-cut decision making. Wrong, most of the time!

Intuition is contextual or metaphoric reasoning that our cells themselves can perform without having a clue as to what they are doing because they are merely looking for what's missing from this picture. Our neurons, for example, naturally occupy the lowest possible energy state of the complete system whenever they aren't busy with other things. In physics a common example is two pendulums hung on the same wall which will both vibrate the wall compelling one another to eventually swing in unison, thus, occupying the lowest possible energy state of the system and forming a self-organizing system. An example in our brain is when we relax on a couch only to be startled by some damned fool.

Its a mutually beneficial relationship that displays "resilience" where if I bump one clock the wall will help to absorb some of the energy and prevent the clocks from swinging further out of sync and, likewise, during an earthquake the pendulums will swing wildly out of sync helping to absorb some of the energy and, thus, preserve both clocks and the wall holding them up. The same principle is used in skyscrapers to prevent them from swaying too much. Recently mathematicians figured out how to calculate the resilience of any self-organizing system meaning we should soon be able to empirically demonstrate exactly how intuition works and how resilient the intuition of any particular individual happens to be. Which also means it should be possible to calculate just how creative an individual is because the pendulums swinging wildly out of sync can be considered either an expression of random entropy or creativity.

So the neurons of a highly intuitive person would be more out of sync than a less intuitive person?

So the neurons of a highly intuitive person would be more out of sync than a less intuitive person? — MonfortS26

More specifically, they would be capable of expressing both greater harmony and entropy or chaos. This jives with other evidence that, for example, people with better memories tend to save their brain power for when it is more useful which tends to make them less creative. For better or worse depending on the individual and their circumstances, one expresses greater dissonance and efficiency and the other greater harmony and creativity.

In a previous conversation you said that emotions are differential and logic is integral. Where does intuition fit into that model?

In a previous conversation you said that emotions are differential and logic is integral. Where does intuition fit into that model? — MonfortS26

Intuition is where the two meet in harmony as we occupy the lowest possible energy state of the system where our humble efficiency can produce outrageous creative output. However, in a universal recursion of the law of identity even what we call intuition or reason would exchange identities in extreme contexts with the result that the mind and brain can be considered more fundamentally a creative engine that only incidentally happens to also resemble a computer. This would also explain why the theoretical capacity of the brain is over a petabyte of information, yet, human memory is notoriously fallible. It can also be viewed as merely the initial creative impetus of the Big Bang still expanding.

Intuition is that feeling you get inside when something good or bad comes your way.

Intuition is a feeling of what feels right first up. It is the feeling you have about something before you reflect on your reasons for thinking the way you do.

Sub-conscious reasoning intruding on consciousness. Short-cut decision making. Wrong, most of the time!

It seems like there are differences between heuristic decision-making, impulsive-immediate feeling based decision-making, and intuition-based decision making (gut feeling based). Heuristics being 'short-cut' generalizations used to make judgements or decisions. Impulsive decision making being 'mood based' decision making -- decision making influenced by surface level moods or emotions.

Intuition seems far more complex and stems from a well-developed/ingrained understanding of a given topic or area-- an understanding that is implicit, not easily explicable and one that can automatically effect decision-making without the need for on-the-spot reasoning. To me intuition seems more close to the notion of 'second-nature' knowledge-- An oncologist having an intuition regarding what tests to perform on a patient simply on the basis of a patient history report.

Intuition arises from the intrinsic self-organizing systems logic caused by everything being context dependent for our body and neurons. It can be described as analog logic that, among other things, expresses the most mindless toddler humor because everything revolves around what's missing from this picture or what is known as pattern matching. Alistair Clark has done pioneering work in this direction as has Yogi Berra.

Does anyone have anything to share about the subject? — MonfortS26

Intuition is the gut feeling.....well welcome to The Philosophy Forum Cheryl! And Thank you for expressing in words the very thought I was going to write. Well done! (Y)

Intuition is a feeling of what feels right first up. It is the feeling you have about something before you reflect on your reasons for thinking the way you do. — cheryl holmes

It looks as I read the thread that wuli has the physiological reasons for "intuition" and Cheryl, MJA and my thoughts are what "intuition" looks like when it is playing out.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum MJA!

It looks as I read the thread that wuli has the physiological reasons for "intuition" and Cheryl, MJA and my thoughts are what "intuition" looks like when it is playing out.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum MJA! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

In a universal recursion of the law of identity everything including our intuition would obey pattern matching and the first five pattern matching neural networks have already been mapped in the brain. They're much larger than I thought they would be and science documenting them means it will become possible within decades at most for modern science to follow Alice down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. They've also taken real time movies of our neurons changing their connections as they dance with one another like so many ribbons balled up in knots constantly re-configuring themselves. Its an analog design where what is the brain and what is the mind becomes context dependent because the two are actually indivisible at some fundamental level and can substitute for one another.

More fundamentally, the implication is that the human mind and brain and evolution itself are all creative engines that only superficially resemble computers. Our subconscious mind and conscious mind as well appear to generate all sorts of gibberish playing around with different patterns and the more harmoniously our conscious and subconscious minds can share a gentle sense of humor and aesthetic appreciation the better they can communicate. Everything being context dependent means which is our conscious and unconscious mind is also context dependent and part of the same pattern matching ruling the universe. It also explains why the brain is such a slow computer that still easily out perform others because its more creative and creativity and destruction are the root of existence itself that promotes a Conservation of Creativity and Efficiency.

Wow! So much nonsense in so little space.

The question is whether you trust your instinct or overrule it with reason.

The question is whether you trust your instinct or overrule it with reason. — Hanover

Yet how does reason begin if not from certain basic intuitions? (the external world exists, other people exist, I myself exist, x is a sound premise, my mental representations are probably not deceiving me too much, etc.)

There are some basic "intuitions" or beliefs that one must have in order for reason to even take off. Wittgenstein called these "hinge beliefs". They cannot be reasonably doubted without utilizing them in the process of doubting.

The question is whether you trust your instinct or overrule it with reason. — Hanover

The question is how it is possible for the same person to overrule themselves. Me, myself, and I often disagree about who is in charge around here.

I agree there are certain fundamental beliefs (synthetic a priori), but I wasn't so much concerned with those as much as much more complex beliefs, like my intuition telling me not to take a job, for example. My gut often speaks loud and clear, but I go behind that and try to figure out why. For example, does logic dictate taking the job? Is it fear causing my gut to retreat? Is the fear justified or a weakness? That's usually my process, for what it's worth.

Intuition is a most interesting subject indeed...

From a "belief" point of view, it seems to exist in a zone of its own, so to speak. In other words, one need not be of any particular religious or spiritual viewpoint to accept or understand the basic concept of intuition. It may be one of the few practical areas of overlap between an atheist view and a typically religious one, though they would be explained most differently.

The word "intuition" implies an opening or openness, perhaps to that which may be beyond the individual's current knowledge and ability. How many doors in the mind are yet to be opened? Or have not been opened since one was a child? It could be said that like the landscape around us, the mind has its own roads, paths, forests, walls, doors, windows, etc. A scientist might use terms like synapse and neurotransmitter. And they all serve a function. So perhaps intuition is an ability, which can be improved with certain mental practices. In this way, one could liken the individual mind to a radio receiver scanning different frequencies for a signal. New or relevant signals may be only a dial turn away...

How would you compare/contrast the ideas of "intuition" with that of "instinct"? There seems to be some possible overlap, as when someone speaks of "gut instinct" to mean a hunch, premonition, or intuition. Most animals and insects could be said to have instincts (innate behavior), since the results are visible. How about intuition? It may be more difficult to demonstrate since intuition could be described as a feature of consciousness.