It might be harder to recognize the sense of intuition being discussed here, if one has never developed expertise in something. — wonderer1

League of Legends. I've played so much that I just develop a "sense" about situations that happen in game. However that sense is from years of experience and game knowledge to the point that breaking down a situation in game would take a detailed report of every factor, piece, etc, behind it.

It's thinking, but really really REALLY fast to the point where it feels like you just know but when you break it down you see it.

I would think human intuition was a huge component of the training ingredients, but I would think there was a fair bit of slow thinking thrown in as well - in reaching a diagnosis to tag each X-ray with. I'd guess that in some cases there was evidence in addition to the X-ray. E.g. biopsy results.

In any case, you bring up a good point - that the training data involves more than just the X-rays. — wonderer1

You bring up a good point too. I was sloppy in my terms. I meant basically that models trained on human decisions are 'parasites' on human skill (including slow thinking) that impressively learn which experts to trust (in what proportion, etc., tho in a nonlinear fashion.) FWIW, I was primarily interested in the math details of SGD and backprop. I whipped up software for exploring the math basically, wasn't terribly interested at that time in applications. I typically approximated functions. Very cool that the same function has so many algorithmic expressions --justifying the set theory conception in terms of a set of ordered pairs.

In you situation, the bodies involved play a huge rule. — plaque flag

Tis true, and now I'm wondering now, what role my body being there played. I'm a big guy too, but she had only known me for a couple of hours.

I'd love to know what thoughts went through Meri's head. Would she have done the same if it had been just her and Barb there? I'd guess yes.

Tis true, and now I'm wondering now, what role my body being there played. I'm a big guy too, but she had only known me for a couple of hours. — wonderer1

Ah but part of the calculation, because she saw that he saw that you were with her -- carrot and the stick.

I'd love to know what thoughts went through Meri's head. Would she have done the same if it had been just her and Barb there? I'd guess yes. — wonderer1

Ah, but was there time for thoughts ? It'd be nice if we had a Life Computer to examine alternative futures safely, because we could always rewind.

I was primarily interested in the details of SGD and backprop. I whipped up software for exploring the math basically, wasn't terribly interested at that time in applications. — plaque flag

I was very interested in the applications but not so much the math. My best friend in college was still in school working on his M.S. and I looked through his copy of Parallel Distributed Processing when visiting one weekend. It changed the course of my life enormously.

About six months later (36 years ago), in a manic state that scared the shit out of me, I intuited an explanation for a lot of idiosnycratic things about myself (including social issues), in terms of hypothesized variations in low level neural interconnect structure. I only recently found out, that some years back evidence that fit my hypothesis well has been found.

I think I became a bit dissociated, with one part of my brain yelling, "This makes so much sense!" and another part of my brain yelling something like, "You don't have anywhere near the educational basis to think this hypothesis merits serious consideration!" Over three days I became pretty out of touch with reality due to this shouting match going on in my head.

It took a year for me to get over the fear of being in that mental state and reach the point that I was willing to risk allowing myself to think about such things.

Ah but part of the calculation, because she saw that he saw that you were with her -- carrot and the stick. — plaque flag

I would think so too.

I'd love to know what thoughts went through Meri's head. Would she have done the same if it had been just her and Barb there? I'd guess yes.
— wonderer1

Ah, but was there time for thoughts ? — plaque flag

Ok, I was lazy with my language. How about, "What intuitions arose?"

I wonder about trust. Barb and I had known each other for years. Meri, being a great observer of people, I'd guess she recognized Barb's trust in me while we were in the bar. I hadn't asked for her number or anything at that point though. On one hand, I think it was rather bold of her to assume I would step in. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if she 'knew' I had her covered.

Sometimes philosophy looks a bit like ancestor worship. — wonderer1

You might find this title of interest.

League of Legends. — Darkneos

That's interesting. I don't know League of Legends. I'm not good at games requiring super quick response times.

On the matter of expertise, and its relationship to intuition; I'd say video games provide a pretty 'thin' training set. Intuitions developed from playing a videogame don't tend to be very useful outside of video games.

Having expertise in something a lot more complex than a video game, might help you get a better grasp on the nature of intuition.

You might find this title of interest. — Wayfarer

Can you post an excerpt of what in particular you see as pertinent?

I only got a bit past, "But was this only a poetic metaphor or can we really say that the genetic code is a true molecular language?", and saw that the author was likely going to give the wrong answer.

Regardless, it does bring up a couple questions. Do you think DNA is *about* something? I.e. does DNA have intentionality? Is a question of, "What is meant by intentionality?", involved in determining whether or not something is a language?

Can you post an excerpt of what in particular you see as pertinent? — wonderer1

It's the book Plato at the Googleplex, Rebecca Goldstein. It's a reflection on the role of Plato both historically and culturally up until the present (hence the title!) It combines analysis of some of Plato's teachings with reflections on what relevance they have for the present day, including rather whimsical imaginary modern dialogues where Plato encounters computers (a google chromebook in particular) among other things. Of course Goldstein is not starry-eyed, she recognises Plato as the beginning, not the end, of philosophy, and the significance of all that has been discovered since. I see it as relevant, because I think it dispells the idea that, because Plato lived 2,500 years ago, his ideas are archaic or superseded. Of course in some ways they are, but some of them are of perennial interest.

For instance there's also a good Goldstein piece on Kurt Gödel on Mathematical Truth. She says

Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist. He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive—not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality. Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception. In his essay "What Is Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis?", Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world—that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason.

As I mentioned to @Srap Tasmaner, I find platonic realism interesting - the fact that there are real abstractions. They're not just 'in the mind' but also //not// 'out there somewhere'. That, I find extremely interesting.

But it is the entire nature of intuition that it extends if not transcends the current limits of what can be discursively extracted from the context. — Pantagruel

Kant differentiation between 'transcendent' and 'transcendental' - 'transcendent' refers to objects or beings that lie beyond the realm of possible experience or knowledge, cannot be known through sensory experience or empirical investigation. Examples include God, the soul, and the ultimate nature of the universe. Kant says that attempting to understand or make claims about transcendent beings is beyond the scope of reason.

'Transcendental' refers to the conditions and knowledge - what must be the case for knowledge to be possible. Transcendental inquiry seeks to examine the necessary structures and principles that make knowledge and experience possible. Kant believed that our minds possess a priori cognitive faculties that shape and structure our experience of the world including space, time, and the categories of understanding (e.g., causality, substance, and quantity), which provide the necessary framework for us to perceive, understand, and make sense of experience.

It's a distinction worth reflecting on, because the latter is more in keeping with naturalism, but also illustrates the sense in which what we know exceeds the bounds (=transcends) what we can empirically validate.

It's the book Plato at the Googleplex, Rebecca Goldstein. — Wayfarer

Ah that makes more sense. When I first clicked the link, it too me to an article on biosemiotics.

Looks interesting. I've got another of Goldstein's books on my to read pile.

I wonder about trust. Barb and I had known each other for years. Meri, being a great observer of people, I'd guess she recognized Barb's trust in me while we were in the bar. I hadn't asked for her number or anything at that point though. On one hand, I think it was rather bold of her to assume I would step in. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if she 'knew' I had her covered. — wonderer1

It's endlessly analyzable right ? I guess we've got millions of years of R & D hidden away from our 'conscious'/linguistic investigation and (in some situations) control. At the beginning of relationships, there's the moment of the first kiss, letting 'I love you' slip out, all kinds of stuff.

Oh yeah sorry at first I posted the wrong link.

At the beginning of relationships, there's the moment of the first kiss, letting 'I love you' slip out, all kinds of stuff. — plaque flag

I was attracted to her before witnessing the 'magic', but wasn't considering asking her out because I knew she was going to be leaving the country in a few months. She was here on a Fullbright scholarship, and part of the terms were that she return home to Finland for two years after completing her studies. I figured I was going to be heartbroken when I decided to ask her out, and that intuition was sure as hell right, but that was the best three months of my life.

that intuition was sure as hell right, but that was the best three months of my life. — wonderer1

To guess as the adventure of those three months, I go back in time to something similar in my own life, that started long ago ---and which has somehow lasted, though not without storms that even the battered ghost of Bukowksi would respect. For me it was/is a musician, not really the scholastic type, which might help keep me grounded, remind me there's more than concepts. Watching The Bear together at the moment. Great show about chefs.

About six months later (36 years ago), in a manic state that scared the shit out of me, I intuited an explanation for a lot of idiosnycratic things about myself (including social issues), in terms of hypothesized variations in low level neural interconnect structure. I only recently found out, that some years back evidence that fit my hypothesis well has been found. — wonderer1

What I love about Popper is his respect for creativity and intuition. The (mysterious) source of a hypothesis doesn't (shouldn't) count for or against it.

Over three days I became pretty out of touch with reality due to this shouting match going on in my head.

It took a year for me to get over the fear of being in that mental state and reach the point that I was willing to risk allowing myself to think about such things. — wonderer1

I can relate to some degree in my own way --- something along the lines of a shouting match..invasive compulsive thoughts -- but I was living a crazy life, folly of the young weed, basically asking for trouble...

That's interesting. I don't know League of Legends. I'm not good at games requiring super quick response times.

On the matter of expertise, and its relationship to intuition; I'd say video games provide a pretty 'thin' training set. Intuitions developed from playing a videogame don't tend to be very useful outside of video games.

Having expertise in something a lot more complex than a video game, might help you get a better grasp on the nature of intuition. — wonderer1

Actually video games are pretty complex but they only appear simple to the average viewer. League isn't just response times, there's so much more knowledge and thinking that goes into it. Just look at pros. I've played for years and even I don't have the skill or mental game.

Also I said intuition is limited to the area of knowledge you are using it in. Without any knowledge to draw on you're just tossing a coin.

Also I said intuition is limited to the area of knowledge you are using it in. Without any knowledge to draw on you're just tossing a coin. — Darkneos

But this can't be entirely true. Strictly speaking, there hasn't always been discursive knowledge. I would say there is a pre-discursive intuition, which is a general kind of knowing how. Like a proto-human who is expert at hurling stones. He doesn't have a discursive understanding of gravity, or ballistics, but he does have an intuitive grasp of these things. Then there is a post-discursive intuition, in which the subject-matter of discursive understanding itself can become an object of the intuitive faculty. Intuition fills in the blanks.

For example, people intuitively want to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Scientific thought seems to chide this. In fact, relative to any particular object, a more massive object is more strongly attracted than a less massive object, so this intuition has a substantial basis. The intuitive truth is simply not perceptible at human scales and conditions.

But this can't be entirely true. Strictly speaking, there hasn't always been discursive knowledge. I would say there is a pre-discursive intuition, which is a general kind of knowing how. Like a proto-human who is expert at hurling stones. He doesn't have a discursive understanding of gravity, or ballistics, but he does have an intuitive grasp of these things. Then there is a post-discursive intuition, in which the subject-matter of discursive understanding itself can become an object of the intuitive faculty. Intuition fills in the blanks.

For example, people intuitively want to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Scientific thought seems to chide this. In fact, relative to any particular object, a more massive object is more strongly attracted than a less massive object, so this intuition has a substantial basis. The intuitive truth is simply not perceptible at human scales and conditions. — Pantagruel

It is entirely true. Intuition says heavier objects fall faster, science proved that wrong. A more massive object isn’t more strongly attracted, if anything a less massive object is, it’s how the moon orbits the Earth along with our satellites. This intuition has no basis.

There is no general knowing how. You could call it biology since we are all humans and all prone to similar behaviors. He doesn’t have an intuitive grasp in throwing stones, more like he learns after throwing many stones. Intuition doesn’t fill in the gaps, again research shows this isn’t the case. You are still committing the mistake of intuition being magic when we know now it isn’t.

You are still making it more than what it is, the matter is settled currently.

That "limited" meaning is what it actually is. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think that doesn't make intuition more than what it is. — Darkneos

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company.

A more massive object isn’t more strongly attracted, if anything a less massive object is, it’s how the moon orbits the Earth along with our satellites. This intuition has no basis. — Darkneos

Yes, I kind of assumed this was the extent of your scientific understanding.

1000 tonnes attracting another 1000 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes 66.743 Newtons of force. 1000 tonnes attracting a 1 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes .066743 Newtons of force.

Granted, the partial intuition of the greater force exerted between greater masses is offset by the greater inertia, which is ultimately realized in the complete intuition (realized by Newton) that Force equals Mass times Acceleration.

So all that is really "settled" is your lack of intuitive comprehension of basic physical concepts. Hence, I suppose, your disdain for intuition.

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company. — T Clark

I think individual variation in cognitive strengths and weaknesses plays a big role that few people are cognizant of. Most people aren't going to see a need for the sort of cognitive testing that I've had done on myself, and therefore most people likely lack an intuitive understanding of the role that variations in cognitive faculties between individuals play in the way those individuals understand things.

The first time I took a WAIS block design test, the person conducting the test commented on how much better it is giving the test to engineers. I had subjectively felt that I was performing slowly, when in fact I was doing the tasks quickly. I realized that I had previously just assumed that everyone has the same visuo-spatial abilities that I do. It is still difficult for me to imagine being without visuo-spatial abilities like mine, because those abilities play such a big role in much that I do.

I think something similar may be going on with many of the extremely language focused philosophers. Some say thinking is impossible apart from language, and maybe for them that is much moreso the case, than it is for me. However I wonder if there isn't a deficit in visuo-spatial abilities involved, with having such a point of view.

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company. — T Clark

Not sure what you are getting at, if you aren't aware of it then there isn't really anything you can do about it. Intuition isn't something you can control much like thoughts. Though intuition is also a limited process, again you're trying to make it out to be magic or some thing when it isn't.

We are products of genetics, environment, culture, and upbringing as well as experiences. That's pretty much about it.

Though most of what we think and feel and know is due to consciousness, without that you don't really have anything else. Sure your body could be alive but without awareness you won't really be able to do anything. Not saying consciousness in the "woo" sense, just stating a fact.

Yes, I kind of assumed this was the extent of your scientific understanding.

1000 tonnes attracting another 1000 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes 66.743 Newtons of force. 1000 tonnes attracting a 1 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes .066743 Newtons of force.

Granted, the partial intuition of the greater force exerted between greater masses is offset by the greater inertia, which is ultimately realized in the complete intuition (realized by Newton) that Force equals Mass times Acceleration.

So all that is really "settled" is your lack of intuitive comprehension of basic physical concepts. Hence, I suppose, your disdain for intuition. — Pantagruel

I don't really have disdain for intuition, but I don't really care for people making it out to be something like magic or transcendent when it's more just thinking fast. My knowledge of physics doesn't change that.

The same applies to Newton, we don't really fully know what in his life led up to that nor does it change what intuition is. I'd also be willing to bet there wasn't anything special about him realizing this, he was just the first one to say it.

I don't really have disdain for intuition, but I don't really care for people making it out to be something like magic or transcendent when it's more just thinking fast. — Darkneos

You are oversimplifying it. Discursive knowledge didn't appear all of a sudden out of nothing. It was assembled - based on intuitive insights. No point arguing. The vast majority of the thread is from people who have a genuine interest in examining 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.
That is the reason why I thought the notion of intuition should be elaborated, mainly in epistemology discussion. — Charlie Lin

Intuition is a notoriously ambiguous term in philosophy, and in this case definitions will become especially important. BonJour calls it "rational insight," and I think he is getting at a basic dichotomy between two ways of knowing. The English derivatives for the two ways of knowing are 'ratiocination' and 'intellection'.

Ratiocination is the intellectual operation which consists of composition or synthesis, and decomposition or analysis. It is the operation of the discursive mind which puts things together and pulls things apart. All formal systems of reasoning and logic are meant as aids to ratiocination, and in our world today ratiocination is by far the dominant intellectual act. It is so dominant that when folks like BonJour reference intellection ('intuition') our culture tends to balk!

Intellection is the intellectual operation which consists of simple apprehension. It is that moment when you "see" something, or when the dots finally connect. It is a kind of intellectual perception. It can apply to simple concepts, but also to more complex relations which are understood immediately.

For those who doubt the existence of intellection, I would simply point out that ratiocination presupposes intellection, and could not exist without it. This is because syllogistic reasoning always presupposes terms and concepts. They are the atomic building blocks of syllogistic reasoning, and they cannot ultimately be known by ratiocination or discursive thought. For example, we can question the premises of an argument and require our interlocutor to defend each premise, but this process of questioning premises cannot go on to infinity. At some point there must be a simple, non-composite manner of knowing which is capable of grounding ratiocination and discursive argumentation.

Admittedly I am only skimming the surface, but I should also address your basic conundrum that intuition is fallible, and therefore could not be capable of justification. The first thing to note is that pretty much everything that is capable of justification is also fallible. Just because we can find an example where intuition goes wrong does not mean that intuition is inherently unreliable. The second, longer answer, is that the distinction which divides knowledge from opinion also applies to intuition, and it is just as difficult and subtle. Intuition can be mistaken just as opinion can be mistaken, but intellection* and knowledge cannot be mistaken. What is the difference between intellection and intuition? The difference is, I aver, as slippery as the difference between knowledge and opinion. Yet we must hold that intellection exists if we are to hold that ratiocination is possible.

* "Intellection" is merely the word I have chosen to signify X, where "X is to intuition as knowledge is to opinion."

Not sure what you are getting at, if you aren't aware of it then there isn't really anything you can do about it. — Darkneos

People who lack intellectual self-awareness are often unaware of how their thinking processes actually work. I have found that's true of people who dogmatically reject the value of intuition.

People who lack intellectual self-awareness are often unaware of how their thinking processes actually work. — T Clark

I think I agree. Can you clarify something? What does an awareness of how one's thinking process look like? Do you have an example? In other words, are you talking about an awareness of one's biases and limitations, or an awareness of sound thinking in general and being able to compare sound thinking with one's own process?

People who lack intellectual self-awareness are often unaware of how their thinking processes actually work. I have found that's true of people who dogmatically reject the value of intuition. — T Clark

Again, you’re not seeing what intuition is and want it to be more than it actually is. Or rather something other than it is.

In short intuition tells you what you already know, because it’s just fast thinking. It’s why when tested, experts were found to be reliable in their intuition compared to randos.

You just can’t admit that you’re wrong