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. — wonderer1
Nope, that's pretty much it. Intuition is improved by acquiring knowledge. That's all. — Darkneos
Your intuitions about intuition could use some development. — wonderer1
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. — Pantagruel
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
Discursive or conceptual cognition operates by casting concrete particulars in symbolic terms, which relies on general concepts or universals. But there is always a gap between the ideal rational cognition made possible by symbolic thought and the concrete totality. I remember being very struck by this when I moved from the high-school physics of vectors and formulas to university physics, where the plethora of approximations involved in real-world calculations were suddenly being considered. — Pantagruel
Doesn't this reflect the distinction between mathematical idealisation and reality? The former allows for complete precision as a matter of definition, of which the reality is always an approximation. — Wayfarer
I think mathematics could be construed as the extreme limit of ideal-theoretical symbolization? The golden ratio appears in organic forms, but these instantiations are close approximations to the mathematical ideal. — Pantagruel
All these simplifications do good work and save real time and energy. They are useful approximations of reality, not the other way around. — Srap Tasmaner
Both of you describe reality as approximating the mathematical ideal.
Isn't it the other way around? Isn't the mathematics a simplification of reality? — Srap Tasmaner
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. 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
The former allows for complete precision as a matter of definition, of which the reality is always an approximation. — Wayfarer
Both of you describe reality as approximating the mathematical ideal.
Isn't it the other way around? Isn't the mathematics a simplification of reality? — Srap Tasmaner
Discursive or conceptual cognition operates by casting concrete particulars in symbolic terms, which relies on general concepts or universals. But there is always a gap between the ideal rational cognition made possible by symbolic thought and the concrete totality. — Pantagruel
Also, it's not exactly the case that "digitization only encodes what it is specifically designed to encode". There is a trivial sense in which that is true, in that digital hardware is designed to encode bit states and can only encode bit states. However, it is very much the case that digitally instantiated artificial neural networks, after training on whatever inputs were provided to the ANN, will have a great many bit states which were not determined by the designer — wonderer1
I am not talking about bit states, I am talking about the objective data (information) which is digitally encoded. Since data is being specifically symbolically encoded, digital neural networks have only that known data to work with. Versus an analog system which works with a "signal" whose total data properties are not necessarily so restricted. — Pantagruel
You can talk about bit states being "information", it is a level of abstraction below that at which artificial neural nets actually operate, part of the underlying mechanism and addressed via back-propagation, which is a function of error-correction, which is determined at the top informational level. — Pantagruel
Still, if you can cite something discussing a practically implementable information processing system which maintains analog fidelity, I'd be interested in taking a look. — wonderer1
Simply considering the fact that our visual system relies on discrete rod and cone cells, producing outputs in the form of spike trains, points towards ideal analog representations not being what our brains have to work with. — wonderer1
I suppose what I meant to say is that mathematics allows for utter precision, whereas, in reality, things are generally not mathematically precise. — Wayfarer
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, we model the world mathematically not because we know so much about it, but because we know so little. — Wayfarer
It's only those aspects which can be quantified that provide mathematical certainty. — Wayfarer
we could do the same thing self-consciously and perhaps improve our reasoning. — Srap Tasmaner
I'm interested in Pantagruel's suggestion that there may be more of the analog input in the system than the digitized projection of that reality. That's really interesting. — Srap Tasmaner
But in a general way you could choose to self-consciously do something *different* from what your hardware does on its own, and I think this is kind of the goal in practices like meditation and phenomenology. — Srap Tasmaner
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, we model the world mathematically not because we know so much about it, but because we know so little.
— Wayfarer
That's very nice, but there's a lot more to say. We only can know a little because of the creatures we are. Bandwidth is small and reality is big. — Srap Tasmaner
Nope, that's pretty much it. Intuition is improved by acquiring knowledge. That's all.
— Darkneos
Your intuitions about intuition could use some development.
If knowledge is justified true belief, then that is different than intuition. (Or at least the 'justification is of a different sort than what we typically think of as justification for a belief to be considered knowledge.) — wonderer1
Sticks that appear to be equal and unequal are imperfectly equal. However, the recognition of the sticks as imperfectly equal requires knowledge of perfect equality - otherwise, in virtue of what are they being recognized as imperfect? — Wayfarer
Darkneos seems to be trading on the ambiguity of the term 'knowledge', What he said makes no sense if you consider knowledge as being JTB, but if you think of it as being know-how, then it does make sense. — Janus
I think you have it exactly backwards. — Janus
We don't need to have a prior idea of perfect equality in order to notice that there are always differences, however minor they might be, between actual things. — Janus
You mean, Socrates, or 'the argument from reason', has it backwards. (I am quoting him.) — Wayfarer
But you do need to have the ability to grasp what 'exactly equals' means. — Wayfarer
The reason I mentioned the argument from equals, was in relation to the earlier question of the nature of mathematical intuition and the ability to grasp abstractions. The argument from equals is one of the canonical arguments for universals. I just think it is a fairly simple and direct way of pointing that out. — Wayfarer
Darkneos seems to be trading on the ambiguity of the term 'knowledge', What he said makes no sense if you consider knowledge as being JTB, but if you think of it as being know-how, then it does make sense. — Janus
Very cool to hear about this. This kind of knowledge seems to play a huge role in life and maybe doesn't get celebrated enough by bookish types. — plaque flag
It’s not my intuitions about it it’s just the simple fact. Even what you cited before about observing people lots of times it’s knowledge, knowledge of body language.
You’re making it more than it actually is which is something a lot of people like to do.
Intuition is rooted in knowledge — Darkneos
May I ask your background? Based on our earlier discussion I can see that you are scientifically insightful. — wonderer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.