It might be harder to recognize the sense of intuition being discussed here, if one has never developed expertise in something. — wonderer1
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
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. — wonderer1
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
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
Ah but part of the calculation, because she saw that he saw that you were with her -- carrot and the stick. — plaque flag
Ah, but was there time for thoughts ? — plaque flag
League of Legends. — Darkneos
You might find this title of interest. — Wayfarer
Can you post an excerpt of what in particular you see as pertinent? — wonderer1
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.
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
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
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
that intuition was sure as hell right, but that was the best three months of my life. — wonderer1
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
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
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
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. — Pantagruel
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
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
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
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
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. — Darkneos
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
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. — T Clark
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
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.