Intuitions and inspirations: I think that I have figured it out

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Our intuitions are not to be trusted, we are told. Only reason can be trusted, we are told.

I have no idea what this intuition-free process of reasoning is like, to be honest.

It occurred to me this evening that this is likely how I function intellectually:

1.) I am motivated by and driven by deep intuitions and inspirations, probably sub-consciously most of the time.

2.) As I act on those intuitions and inspirations through such activities as finding reading materials, asking questions, formulating theories, having discussions with others, etc., reason and logic act as a filter.


In other words, reason and logic are not how I seek and find the truth. Rather, they are filters employed to make truth/reality--including the truth/reality of intuitions/inspirations--more intelligible and manageable.

It seems to me that formal science is probably the same way. Scientists may not call it intuitions or inspirations--they may call it something else, such as a hunches--but the same thing is probably going on.

I think that we need to clarify what reason and logic are and their role in the process of seeking and discovering the truth.

It seems to me that truth/reality is within us rather than something external. We use the external to confirm what is within us. Reason in general and reason according to certain rules (logic) are simply tools employed in that process and should not be mistake for truth/reality itself.

If I am correct, then, uh, reason would seem to dictate that truth/reality can be known through non-rational and probably extra-rational means.

 

[granpa]

intuition is the result of inductive reasoning.intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is right or not. It can only tell you whether it is reasonable or not. The most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one though

 

[Gottservant]

Intuition operates, even without reason or logic.

However, reason can become rationale and logic can become word.

So too, intuition can become intelling, where you hear the word but do not speak it, for the sake of exercising command over your perceptions.

So do not be too quick to limit the freedom of many things, for the sake of restraint in one (thing).

 

[juvenissun]

Our intuitions are not to be trusted, we are told. Only reason can be trusted, we are told.

I have no idea what this intuition-free process of reasoning is like, to be honest.

It occurred to me this evening that this is likely how I function intellectually:

1.) I am motivated by and driven by deep intuitions and inspirations, probably sub-consciously most of the time.

2.) As I act on those intuitions and inspirations through such activities as finding reading materials, asking questions, formulating theories, having discussions with others, etc., reason and logic act as a filter.


In other words, reason and logic are not how I seek and find the truth. Rather, they are filters employed to make truth/reality--including the truth/reality of intuitions/inspirations--more intelligible and manageable.

It seems to me that formal science is probably the same way. Scientists may not call it intuitions or inspirations--they may call it something else, such as a hunches--but the same thing is probably going on.

I think that we need to clarify what reason and logic are and their role in the process of seeking and discovering the truth.

It seems to me that truth/reality is within us rather than something external. We use the external to confirm what is within us. Reason in general and reason according to certain rules (logic) are simply tools employed in that process and should not be mistake for truth/reality itself.

If I am correct, then, uh, reason would seem to dictate that truth/reality can be known through non-rational and probably extra-rational means.

If I am allowed to summarize:

Have the conclusion first, then try to find the evidences.

I agree with it in 100%.

 

[Nithavela]

And I disagree 100%.

Science does not work on hunches and guesses, but on gruelling groundwork, laid by thousands and thousands of people doing their best to understand the world in a methodical way. Of course, there are lucky shots, like penicilin, but at least 99% of science is learning, understanding, reasoning and, sometimes, pure trial and error experimenting.

 

[juvenissun]

And I disagree 100%.

Science does not work on hunches and guesses, but on gruelling groundwork, laid by thousands and thousands of people doing their best to understand the world in a methodical way. Of course, there are lucky shots, like penicilin, but at least 99% of science is learning, understanding, reasoning and, sometimes, pure trial and error experimenting.

There is no science without guessing first.

Your guess is different from my guess. That tells apart the quality of a scientist.

 

[Nithavela]

Strange, you say that as if it were true.

 

[Strathos]

Intuition is a subconscious application of reason, basically your life experience giving you hints on what to do without having to consciously reason it over.

 

[granpa]

intuition is the result of inductive reasoning.intuition can't tell you whether a given idea is right or not. It can only tell you whether it is reasonable or not. The most reasonable possibility tends to be the correct one though

 

[Gottservant]

Intuition is a subconscious application of reason, basically your life experience giving you hints on what to do without having to consciously reason it over.

The first part of this makes a surprising amount of sense, but does it becoming subconscious negate the fact that it is reason? Or does it simply transmute it to a different kind of reason?

I would say the latter.

 

[Strathos]

Well it's not the same as conscious reason. It's sort of like autopilot, if that makes any sense.

 

[Gottservant]

Well it's not the same as conscious reason. It's sort of like autopilot, if that makes any sense.

Auto-pilot is a nice summary for many subconscious functions, but I think I know what you mean.

What is interesting is that if you proceed by the "logic" that all mutations have random adaptations, "intuition" would seem to be the best fit strategy for dealing with "evolution".

Yet for some reason, I doubt that it will necessarily be selected for on that basis alone, just a hunch.

 

[juvenissun]

Intuition is a subconscious application of reason, basically your life experience giving you hints on what to do without having to consciously reason it over.

Nice try. But I think it is more than that.

Nobody can clear up the process. So it is not surprising that something extra to one's life experience is also involved.

 

[Naraoia]

It seems to me that formal science is probably the same way. Scientists may not call it intuitions or inspirations--they may call it something else, such as a hunches--but the same thing is probably going on.

I think that we need to clarify what reason and logic are and their role in the process of seeking and discovering the truth.

It seems to me that truth/reality is within us rather than something external. We use the external to confirm what is within us. Reason in general and reason according to certain rules (logic) are simply tools employed in that process and should not be mistake for truth/reality itself.

IMO it would be more accurate to say that the external can confirm or refute what you've come up with using your intuition or whatever you want to call it. If it can only confirm, then you've basically assumed that your intuition is always right. I don't think you want to go as far as that

There is no science without guessing first.

Your guess is different from my guess. That tells apart the quality of a scientist.

No, what tells apart the quality of a scientist is what they do with their guesses.

 

[juvenissun]

No, what tells apart the quality of a scientist is what they do with their guesses.

A good guess is much more precious than a good lab work.

 

[Naraoia]

A good guess is much more precious than a good lab work.

A good guess is worth nothing without testing.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that truth/reality is within us--is a part of us--and everything from expression through art to formal inquiry such as empirical science is the process of becoming conscious of that truth/reality within us.

 

[juvenissun]

A good guess is worth nothing without testing.

It may still be worthy pricelessly. Testing is somebody else's job.

 

[juvenissun]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that truth/reality is within us--is a part of us--and everything from expression through art to formal inquiry such as empirical science is the process of becoming conscious of that truth/reality within us.

 

[Naraoia]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that truth/reality is within us--is a part of us--and everything from expression through art to formal inquiry such as empirical science is the process of becoming conscious of that truth/reality within us.

That sounds an awful lot like solipsism. I generally find solipsism to be an annoyingly pointless philosophical exercise. Reality may be within us, and no, you technically can't prove otherwise, but for all practical purposes, the world behaves as if an objective reality external to the observer(s) did exist.