Nahhh…I’m not getting into the belief/knowledge mudhole. I favor what you said about intuition, that’s the important part.

Nahhh…I’m not getting into the belief/knowledge mudhole — Mww

Roger that. For my part, I favour a radical view of belief. I believe that belief is constitutive of consciousness in a real and fundamental sense, hence my contention of the importance of an "ontological commitment" validating that a belief is genuinely held.

As you said, a matter for another time.

:up:

This is more mythic than scientific lol. But what about this scene with Luke and Obi-Wan?
Luck? Chance? Unconscious? Animal instinct? Energy? Intuition? Or… ? :sparkle:

Our senses take in a huge spectrum of information all the time. We only successfully process a small portion of that spectrum. Increasing our knowledge is one way to increase the portion of the spectrum we process.

At a purely neural level, an experiment showed that a cat's brain did not even register the input from a tone within its auditory range until that tone was subsequently paired with a significant event (feeding). So there could be sensory cues of which we are unaware but which could contribute to this kind of performative intuition.....

This is more mythic than scientific lol. But what about this scene with Luke and Obi-Wan?
Luck? Chance? Unconscious? Animal instinct? Intuition? Or… ? :sparkle: — 0 thru 9

It. conveys a difference between having well trained intuitions and not having well trained intuitions although it frames it in magical terms of using the force.

That said, I've learned some Jedi mind tricks over the years. :wink:

the importance of an "ontological commitment" validating that a belief is genuinely held. — Pantagruel

Sure. To hold a belief presupposes the something to which it relates. There must be something that serves as the object of the belief, hence the necessary ontological commitment. Nevertheless, to hold a belief says nothing about the means of its origin.

I agree belief is constitutive of consciousness. But then, in humans, everything rational is constitutive of consciousness, so in that respect, there is nothing particularly significant in merely holding some belief or another.

But then, in humans, everything rational is constitutive of consciousness, so in that respect, there is nothing particularly significant in merely holding some belief or another. — Mww

Again, here we must agree to disagree. Which I hold to be a significant difference. :wink:

I’m listening.

The difference between intuition and other means of knowledge may be hard to pin down to philosophical methods and rigour. That is because it different from rationality, which is the essential approach of philosophy, especially logic.

However, logic may be limited and the nature of judgement purely on the basis of rationality may not work entirely in the context of human understanding, which is more synthetic. As human beings, experiencing and navigating experiences there is the sensory, emotional and logical and intuition as 'inner knowledge' as a means of subjective processing of the external aspects and the objective in a meaningful way. The reliability of intuition may be how if acts as an intermediary between sensory and rational aspects, also in relation to personal emotions.

I don't want to distract from the OP, which I think stands on its own as an important topic. The mechanics of belief and knowledge covers a lot of ground.

Our senses take in a huge spectrum of information all the time. We only successfully process a small portion of that spectrum. Increasing our knowledge is one way to increase the portion of the spectrum we process. — Pantagruel

:up:
Yes, we’re only conscious of a tiny bit of each moment’s ‘total data input’ collected by our being.
And of that fraction, an even smaller fraction is able to be rationally thought, named, explained, etc.

And of that immense amount we are able to ‘collect’, there must be more that is somehow beyond us. Stuff that perhaps animals can detect, or highly sensitive equipment.
(Or better yet… alien cats with high tech tools lol).

Field theory might be relevant here somehow. We are influenced by the waves all around us (water, sound, electromagnetic… )

We humans are like ice skaters flitting over a semi-frozen ocean that is endlessly deep…
… in terms of awareness, one could imagine.

Understood.

And of that immense amount we are able to ‘collect’, there must be more that is somehow beyond us. Stuff that perhaps animals can detect, or highly sensitive equipment. — 0 thru 9

Yes. Analog vs digital collection and processing of information becomes interesting in this respect. Analog collection of information captures an actual "imprint" of the real world. In which sense, there may actually be information captured which is unexpected or unknown. Neural networks are able to exploit such "hidden" information and extrapolate hidden connections. In fact, that is more or less exactly how they work. By contrast, digitization only encodes what it is specifically designed to encode.

It. conveys a difference between having well trained intuitions and not having well trained intuitions although it frames it in magical terms of using the force. — wonderer1

Yes. One could take the difficult step of recognizing that there just might possibly but not necessarily be more than meets the eye (sensory data) and the intellect (‘splaining all that data).
For those adventurous souls, the question becomes how to enhance this possible source of ‘info’.

It comes down to the individual. Whether they stop at data from the 5 senses alone, or are curious to look for more / other sources.

“In any case, I'm with Bonjour. I take it that he's arguing for a rationalist view which accepts that there are necessary truths.”

I am with the rationalists too. I feel cynical standing on the relativism side. But building the foundation of justification on intuition, which as discussed by Darkneos,Philosophim and other users is derived from knowledge, seems question-begging.
That is the reason why I thought the notion of intuition should be elaborated, mainly in epistemology discussion.

I suspect we are thinking of intuition differently. — Tom Storm

I don't think we are.

For me, in the work I do (moderately reliable) intuition means being able to grasp almost immediately if someone has a hidden weapon on them or not and if they might be violent or not. Or if they are experiencing delusional thinking or psychoses. Or knowing if someone can do a very challenging job or not within seconds of meeting them in a job interview. I can generally tell when someone is suicidal whether they will act on it or not, based on intuition. I've gotten to the point when I meet a new worker I can often tell within a minute or two how long they will last in the field and what path brought them here - a relative, lived experience, etc. — Tom Storm

These are good examples. I've had similar experiences. When I would start a new project as an engineer, I would quickly scan all the information available, e.g. previous reports and regulatory documents. At that point, I could generally tell the future course of remediation - the environmental issues, other technical issues, legal issues and regulatory requirements. I wasn't always right, but I didn't need to be. What I needed at that point was a framework I could use to start organizing the information.

As for judging people - you can generally tell if someone is going to be a good engineer very quickly. One person we hired turned out to be dishonest and did some illegal things, but he was the best engineer we ever had. I was sorry to see him go.

I think there are probably key indicators we can read but you need to be 'open' to them in some way and have relevant experience. — Tom Storm

Yes. I think most of intuition is just paying attention.

Luck? Chance? Unconscious? Animal instinct? Energy? Intuition? Or… ? — 0 thru 9

Yes, it was the "or..." part that always bothered me. Intuition, or whatever you call it, is not something occult or supernatural.

Field theory might be relevant here somehow. We are influenced by the waves all around us (water, sound, electromagnetic… ) — 0 thru 9

I don't think there's any need to postulate processes other than mental ones, e.g. the Force or fields, in order to understand intuition.

But building the foundation of justification on intuition, which as discussed by Darkneos,Philosophim and other users is derived from knowledge, seems question-begging. — Charlie Lin

Intuition does not provide justification, it identifies knowledge that needs to be justified, brings it to our attention. If it's something not important, not much justification is needed. As I've noted in previous posts, reason does not generate ideas, it tests them.

Someone who understands the way development of reliable intuitions works, can then make relatively accurate judgements about the reliability of his own intuitions in relation to whatever the present situation happens to be. — wonderer1

Yes, this is important. One of the most important things to know, to be aware of, is how well you know the things you know, how uncertain you are.

Interesting. I see you and ↪T Clark as both talking about intuition as it has developed for each of you. Could you elaborate on what key differences might be? — wonderer1

As I noted in my response to @Tom Storm, I don't think the differences are all that significant. I had struggled while I was trying to come up with examples of how intuition works in my own life. I felt like the ones I came up with were missing something. His examples really helped me get my hands around what I was trying to say.

Intuition does not provide justification, it identifies knowledge that needs to be justified, brings it to our attention. If it's something not important, not much justification is needed. As I've noted in previous posts, reason does not generate ideas, it tests them. — T Clark

Thank you! It is insightful to consider it as a pinpoint to the knowledge you need.

consider it as a pinpoint to the knowledge you need. — Charlie Lin

Yes. As an engineer, I would have to be able to document and justify the decisions I made in a design. If something went wrong, I'd have to be able to show that I'd done the work in accordance with standards of professional practice. Rational justification is at the heart of engineering.

Yes, it was the "or..." part that always bothered me. Intuition, or whatever you call it, is not something occult or supernatural. — T Clark

:up: Thanks. The “or” isn’t necessarily woo-woo voodoo, but I see your point. The term ‘ESP’ is so loaded with negative connotations that it’s only used now as derogatory. Which is like closing the case before it’s even been examined at all. Kind of like…

Field theory might be relevant here somehow. We are influenced by the waves all around us (water, sound, electromagnetic… )
— 0 thru 9

I don't think there's any need to postulate processes other than mental ones, e.g. the Force or fields, in order to understand intuition. — T Clark

…kind of like you may have done inadvertently here lol.

Seriously though, for us here we could probably skip some ‘tangential’ subjects such as this without any problems.

But if I were a scientist, I most definitely would not! (Especially if I had a big load of grant money.)

There’s the theory of the Noosphere, which is at the very least thought-provoking.

Ponder once more this diagram of electromagnetic spectrum. Information is passed via several frequencies mechanically. I’m not aware of any proof that the human mind / body can ‘pick up’ any info at these frequencies. But I definitely wouldn’t close the book on the entire matter. :nerd:

Right, learning is required and the consequences of that learning are not fully predictable. However, I'm not talking in black and white terms, of intuitions either being perfectly accurate or totally unreliable. I'm just suggesting that intuitions can be improved to a significant degree. — wonderer1

By acquiring knowledge

Interesting. I see you and ↪T Clark as both talking about intuition as it has developed for each of you. Could you elaborate on what key differences might be? — wonderer1

I don't think so. For me intuition is just a type of sense making. It brings me no joy. It's just a brute fact of interacting with others. It reminds me a little of watching a movie you haven't seen before but knowing where the story will go and who will do what. No doubt this is based on identifiable patterns (gained by experience) that we can interpret quickly without fully understanding the process. Having worked closely with people for many years, I tend to be able to read them quickly and understand their process. But it is not foolproof and sometimes I am wrong.

Yes. Analog vs digital collection and processing of information becomes interesting in this respect. Analog collection of information captures an actual "imprint" of the real world. In which sense, there may actually be information captured which is unexpected or unknown. Neural networks are able to exploit such "hidden" information and extrapolate hidden connections. In fact, that is more or less exactly how they work. By contrast, digitization only encodes what it is specifically designed to encode. — Pantagruel

:up: Thanks for your reply. I take it that ‘analog = intuition’ and ‘digital = analytical’?

:up: Thanks for your reply. I take it that ‘analog = intuition’ and ‘digital = analytical’? — 0 thru 9

I think intuition exploits analogicity, yes, which analytic thinking cannot do since it involves working with an unknown.

By acquiring knowledge — Darkneos

There is more to it than simply acquiring knowledge. Tom Storm and T Clark brought up important points. TS brought up experience and TC brought up attentiveness.

Of course acquring knowledge from reading books is valuable and of course reading can result in development of intuitions in all sorts of ways. However, there are important aspects to developing intuitions which are a function of the means by which knowledge is acquired.

For example, I'm 99% sure TS would agree (though he is free to correct me if I am wrong) that he didn't develop the intuitive recognitions he has (e.g. that someone has a weapon) from reading a book. Instead those intuitions came from years of interactions with, and observations of, people. Attentiveness to body language and other nonverbal signals undoubtedly played an important role.

Similar for TC and his engineering intuitions. Attentive observations of the way things worked in the domain of his career resulted in the development of intuitions related to his area of expertise that are substantially better than just guesses.

There is more to it than simply acquiring knowledge. Tom Storm and T Clark brought up important points. TS brought up experience and TC brought up attentiveness. — wonderer1

Nope, that's pretty much it. Intuition is improved by acquiring knowledge. That's all.