Science of intuition as matter of fact

K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

"The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be 'voluntarily' reproduced and combined. .... This combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others"God, what a brilliant man! I couldn't have said it better myself, well...:rolleyes: :yh_bigsmi

It was Einstein that put forth the theory explaining how no two people can interpret any event exactly the same...So why is intuition frowned upon in today's society? Afterall, "This combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others" accompanied with "no two people can interpret any event exactly the same" suggests science, whatever it may be, is arbitrary and can never be absolute.

What does this imply exactly? Has science become more or less arbitrary? Is science a constant battle between the scientific community and the lay public that lags behind?

Why then is intuition frowned upon when conjectured into theory?

Afterall, it was Perhaps the best known visual discoveries are the benzene ring and the helical structure of DNA. Friedrich Kekule envisioned the benzene ring as a snake biting its own tail. Computing can facilitate this experience.

"The most striking - and a unique - feature of the mind is the acceptance and use of things as symbols standing for other things. Symbols may stand for, refer to, or mean other things which may or may not lie within the world of physics. .... In this sense we find the mind in computing machines". Richard L. Gregory in Mind of Science

Max Planck reinforces the idea how human reasoning coincides with, but exists independent of, the physical world we observe.

"My original decision to devote myself to science was a direct result of the discovery which has never ceased to fill me with enthusiasm since my early youth - the comprehension of the far from obvious fact that the laws of human reasoning coincide with the laws governing the sequences of the impressions we receive from the world about us; that, therefore, pure reasoning can enable man to gain an insight into the mechanism of the later. In this connection, it is of paramount importance that the outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life". Max Planck in Scientific Autobiography. http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/ESM4714/Ge ... think.html

Is visual thinking lost in translation?

Albert Einstein, as brilliant as he was, and his belief in Spinozism (also spelt Spinoza-ism or Spinozaism) is the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, and both matter and thought as attributes of such. Spinoza claimed that the third kind of knowledge, intuition, is the highest kind attainable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza%27s_god

perhaps played the biggest role in Einsteins reluctance to abandon his idea of a static universe, as Bhor I'm sure can attest.

How much emphasis do you place on intuition?

Shall we look at things with a bit more open-mindedness?
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

I realized how much my views have changed when the The New York Times asked me to write a piece for its “Room for Debate” forum this week. The paper wanted me to comment on the divergence of opinion between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. In a speech before the National Governors Association on Feb 28, Gates had argued that we need to spend our limited education budget on disciplines that produce the most jobs. He implied that we should reduce our investment in the liberal arts because liberal-arts degrees don’t correlate well with job creation.


...

Because I am a professor at the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University, and given all the positive things I say about U.S. engineering education, The Times assumed that I would side with Bill Gates; that I would write a piece that endorsed his views. But, even though I believe that engineering is one of the most important professions, I have learned that the liberal arts are equally important. It takes artists, musicians, and psychologists working side by side with engineers to build products as elegant as the iPad. And anyone—with education in any field—can achieve success in Silicon Valley.

Here is what I wrote for The Times.

It’s commonly believed that engineers dominate Silicon Valley and that there is a correlation between the capacity for innovation and an education in mathematics and the sciences. Both assumptions are false.

My research team at Duke and Harvard surveyed 652 U.S.-born chief executive officers and heads of product engineering at 502 technology companies. We found that they tended to be highly educated: 92 percent held bachelor’s degrees, and 47 percent held higher degrees. But only 37 percent held degrees in engineering or computer technology, and just two percent held them in mathematics. The rest have degrees in fields as diverse as business, accounting, finance, health care, and arts and the humanities.Engineering vs. liberal arts: Who’s right — Bill or Steve?

Who's right - Bill or Steve?

It seems to me that Liberal arts is a dying breed. It does seem that the world has enveloped themselves into a mode of thinking that takes science so literal that it's almost as if it's become a state religion, as Robert Jones puts it in his book "Physics for the rest of us"...

Is the liberal arts education as underrated as it appears to be in today's society or is Steve Jobs correct when it comes to jobs?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12159
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by LarsMac »

I have to agree with steve.

Without arts, we become machines, useful only for our production factor.

The most influential people in my life are artists and thinkers, not engineers.

Science has its purpose. but it can only support life, not rule it.
“All it takes to get elected in twenty-first-century America is a mob of frightened sheep and a wolf with a nice smile,”
― Greg Bear, Darwin's Children
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Either of you familiar with Bill Hamilton?

W. D. Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

LarsMac;1374108 wrote: I have to agree with steve.

Without arts, we become machines, useful only for our production factor.

The most influential people in my life are artists and thinkers, not engineers.

Science has its purpose. but it can only support life, not rule it.


fuzzywuzzy;1374110 wrote: Either of you familiar with Bill Hamilton?

W. D. Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Social evolution

The field of social evolution, of which Hamilton's rule has central importance, is broadly defined as being the study of the evolution of social behaviours, i.e. those that impact on the fitness of individuals other than the actor. Social behaviors can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor and recipient. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if the recipient suffers a loss. This classification was first proposed by Hamilton in 1964W. D. Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you both say that the world has turned much more scientific minded and the arts have taken a back seat? From my observations liberal arts has become second fiddle to the sciences but wondering how large the separation is in other countries. I would suspect that the 20th century is largely the reason...
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12159
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by LarsMac »

K.Snyder;1374155 wrote: W. D. Hamilton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would you both say that the world has turned much more scientific minded and the arts have taken a back seat? From my observations liberal arts has become second fiddle to the sciences but wondering how large the separation is in other countries. I would suspect that the 20th century is largely the reason...


I don't "scientific minded" is the correct phrase.

The motivation of job seekers might be, but in reality it is more "tech-minded"

Engineers and Technicians tend to focus on a specialty, and are completely ignorant of any other field of study.

The focus in on getting the employment package that will feed the family.

Science moves on, at its own pace, regardless of the world's interest, or lack of.
“All it takes to get elected in twenty-first-century America is a mob of frightened sheep and a wolf with a nice smile,”
― Greg Bear, Darwin's Children
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

LarsMac;1374210 wrote: I don't "scientific minded" is the correct phrase.

The motivation of job seekers might be, but in reality it is more "tech-minded"

Engineers and Technicians tend to focus on a specialty, and are completely ignorant of any other field of study.

The focus in on getting the employment package that will feed the family.

Science moves on, at its own pace, regardless of the world's interest, or lack of."Science moves on, at its own pace, regardless of the world's interest, or lack of" couldn't be a better example of the principle of complementarity.

In physics, complementarity is a basic principle of quantum theory proposed by Niels Bohr, closely identified with the Copenhagen interpretation, and refers to effects such as the wave–particle duality. Just like the finitude of the speed of light implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between space and time (relativity), the finitude of the quantum of action implies the impossibility of a sharp separation between the behavior of a system and its interaction with the measuring instruments and leads to the well known difficulties with the concept of 'state' in quantum theory; the notion of complementarity is intended to symbolize this new situation in epistemology created by quantum theory. Some people consider it a philosophical adjunct to quantum mechanics, while others consider it to be a discovery that is as important as the formal aspects of quantum theory. For instance, Leon Rosenfeld has stated that "[...] complementarity is not a philosophical superstructure invented by Bohr to be placed as a decoration on top of the quantal formalism, it is the bedrock of the quantal description."[1]

In a restricted sense, complementarity is the idea that classical concepts such as space-time location and energy-momentum, which in classical physics were always combined into a single picture, cannot be so combined in quantum mechanics. In any given situation, the use of certain classical concepts excludes the simultaneous meaningful application of other classical concepts. For example, if an apparatus of screens and shutters is used to localize a particle in space-time, momentum-energy concepts become inapplicable. This is reflected in the formalism in the fact that a localized wave-packet is a superposition of plane waves, and therefore does not have a definite energy-momentum. This reciprocal limitation in the possibilities of definition of complementary concepts corresponds exactly to the limitations of the classical picture, where any attempt at the localization of a particle through objects such as slits in diaphragms introduces the possibility of an exchange of momentum with those objects, which is in principle uncontrollable if those objects are to serve their intended purpose of defining a space-time frame. Another famous example is 'Heisenberg's microscope', using which Heisenberg first discovered his uncertainty relations.Complementarity (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The complementarity principle states that some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory. Sometimes it is possible to switch back and forth between different views of an object to observe these properties, but in principle, it is impossible to view both at the same time, despite their simultaneous coexistence in reality.




The renaissance age seems to have been defeated by a more scientific minded society, no?

Hypothetically speaking, would you fear more of a scientific minded society or one centered around a monotheistic approach to what is blatantly the same question?

It seems appropriate to suggest just how much intuition has helped shape science at the same time not being a form of thought that coincides with scientific reasoning.

Once again it's the theories of science that help shape our understanding of philosophy yet it's been philosophy that has helped fuel our interest by the sheer fact we don't know all of the answers...

As per the the analogies of complementarity I'd suggest a perfect society would be one that equally balances the humanities with science, yes?
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Infinite light »

A couple of years ago, in a far away galaxy, I tried to argue that intuition was the only way one could possibly learn of God's existence. In response I was villified. It was--and is--my firm belief that the logical mind is incapable of deducing God. It is impossible to prove a sentient creator via science or logic alone. I tried to prove this by explaining that the best science could do would be to prove emphatically and without doubt that the physical universe could not be its own reason for existing. I say this because anything beyond that would require the participation of the God we seek. God would have to convey its existence in such a manner that it would leave no doubt in the minds of most that it truly existed. But that scenario wouldn't be so much a scientific discovery as it would be a revelation due to divine grace; and that's something quite different from a purely scientific discovery. For example, if mankind built a machine for the purpose of communicating with the spirit world, and messages were recieved that were so brilliant, so wise, so profound that folks might reasonably conclude that we finally found the old boy. But here again, that's less a scientific discovery and more a revelation. After all, if God had been feeling tired that day, our machine would have been scrap metal.

To take this to the next level, let's say science has done such a thing; that is, proven without any doubt--100 percent for sure--the universe could not have created itself, or be eternal of its own accord. Have we proven God? I say positively not. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to declare God's existence at this point. We don't run out into the street exclaiming, "Yahoooooo, god exists!! ah haaa! we found you god!!" Because unless God participates in our discovery of "him" then he will never be found. There would always remain sensible doubts that perhaps our science was mistaken or that our knowledge is incomplete.

So science and logic alone cannot prove God.

The only way I can conceive of one attaining sure knowledge of God is via a revelation. In addtion, it would have to be by intuition that one is able to transcend the logical hurdles, and know without doubt that God was the source of that experience. The experience is not judged to be of God based on how beautiful or amazing it may have been; it is known to be of God because of the irrefutable knowledge of God's existence attained in the experience. God is not miraculously deduced from the experience; instead God's existence is known as a concrete intuition, inspired by divine revelation. In other words, one simply knows that they know, not by scientific means, but the intuitive mind responding to divine intervention.

Oh, whatever.

An absolute can only be given in an intuition, while all the rest has to do with analysis.~Henri Bergson
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Ahso! »

Welcome to FG, IL, it's nice having your input.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Infinite light »

Thanks for having me. I'll have a whisky sour and some chips, please.:))
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Ahso! »

I can provide the whiskey and chips, the sour you'll find elsewhere on the boards.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Infinite light;1374426 wrote: A couple of years ago, in a far away galaxy, I tried to argue that intuition was the only way one could possibly learn of God's existence. In response I was villified. It was--and is--my firm belief that the logical mind is incapable of deducing God. It is impossible to prove a sentient creator via science or logic alone. I tried to prove this by explaining that the best science could do would be to prove emphatically and without doubt that the physical universe could not be its own reason for existing. I say this because anything beyond that would require the participation of the God we seek. God would have to convey its existence in such a manner that it would leave no doubt in the minds of most that it truly existed. But that scenario wouldn't be so much a scientific discovery as it would be a revelation due to divine grace; and that's something quite different from a purely scientific discovery. For example, if mankind built a machine for the purpose of communicating with the spirit world, and messages were recieved that were so brilliant, so wise, so profound that folks might reasonably conclude that we finally found the old boy. But here again, that's less a scientific discovery and more a revelation. After all, if God had been feeling tired that day, our machine would have been scrap metal.

To take this to the next level, let's say science has done such a thing; that is, proven without any doubt--100 percent for sure--the universe could not have created itself, or be eternal of its own accord. Have we proven God? I say positively not. It's nothing more than an argument from ignorance to declare God's existence at this point. We don't run out into the street exclaiming, "Yahoooooo, god exists!! ah haaa! we found you god!!" Because unless God participates in our discovery of "him" then he will never be found. There would always remain sensible doubts that perhaps our science was mistaken or that our knowledge is incomplete.

So science and logic alone cannot prove God.

The only way I can conceive of one attaining sure knowledge of God is via a revelation. In addtion, it would have to be by intuition that one is able to transcend the logical hurdles, and know without doubt that God was the source of that experience. The experience is not judged to be of God based on how beautiful or amazing it may have been; it is known to be of God because of the irrefutable knowledge of God's existence attained in the experience. God is not miraculously deduced from the experience; instead God's existence is known as a concrete intuition, inspired by divine revelation. In other words, one simply knows that they know, not by scientific means, but the intuitive mind responding to divine intervention.

Oh, whatever.

An absolute can only be given in an intuition, while all the rest has to do with analysis.~Henri Bergson Wouldn't this be a paradox when considering the possibility of one's disbelief in a creator being purely a "figment" of intuition?

As per my analogy of complementarity one would either have to believe or not, or perhaps know or not know, of one or the other position. Since to know one means to not know the other how do we recognize what intuition actually is, thus eventually coming to terms of agreement as whether intuition is just as instinctual as we see it...

Perhaps it all can be explained. Explained in the sense that these two positions are in fact the same just observed differently during different frames of mind...

It's my intuition that agrees with reductionism...How could individual fundamental matter not explain the workings of a whole? It's inconceivable to suggest otherwise...

In the same sense the more we study Newtonian physics the more we do not understand quantum mechanics and vica versa ultimately serving as a metaphor between the paradoxical analogies between physics and divine knowledge that's symbolic by the concept of "God"...

Or, simply, the more we try and understand either side of the spectrum the more we are unable to associate with the other ending in a mislabled assumption of preference, which invariably defines our position. I only wonder "why?" and then have to begin all over again...

Or as you put it,.."Oh, whatever." :yh_bigsmi
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Infinite light »

K.Snyder:

Your post may be too esoteric for me to wrap my brain around. But I'll say this: There could be no paradox in the mind of the one who has had the revelatory experience. That's what I meant when I said the intuitive mind would have to transcend all logical objections, and let's face it, there are plenty of logical objections. On purely logical grounds, one could list many reasons to reject the experience. The most obvious is that any claimed revelation seems to require circular reasoning. Inherent to the claim of revelation is a presumption of god's existence:

"I had a revelation of God last night."

"How do you know?"

"Because he told me."

It seems to be an unsolvable problem. But for the one who has had the experience logical exceptions are like a flea on an elephant's butt; its presence may be known, but it is helpless against the elephant's will. Likewise, the intuitive knowledge gained in the experience is the elephant, and the logical objections the flea. The intuitive cognition would have to be an irreducible truth that no logical objections could contradict.

I'm simply saying that this is the way it must be, that's all. Restated, if one is ever going to attain the highest degree of certitude in the mind, then it will have had to occur as I have related. Because, again, there are so many...MANY logical reasons to doubt the experience that there must be some way for the mind to go above and beyond those objections and know god in the experience. And that "something" is intuition. Honestly, I see no way around this.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

What I find ironic is that we have phenomena such as savant syndrome yet people tend to associate things like this as being a "disability" when in fact these people should be seen as geniuses...Perhaps some of these individuals consider this a "curse", which I would suggest is their prerogative, I think the word "disability" shouldn't even be a consideration when attempting to describe these individuals.

Is savant syndrome purely instinctual or is it an acquired skill? What roll does intuition play in such apparently extraordinary skills?

Amazing these phenomena and yet society looks at it as a "disability"...How sad. What an absolute shame.

It's incredibly ironic in my mind for a society to be so enveloped into a scientific mode of thought and yet when one lacks social skills while displaying levels of genius in the sciences we get terms like "disabled" and "brain dysfunction"...

Savant syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Then we have that principle of complementarity thing that yet again is analogous of intuitions role in science...
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Ahso! »

I'm a member of society and I don't consider differences in people as "disabilities", or "syndromes", though, if one sees these differences as hindering survival ability, I understand that. So, from that perspective I can see the 'disabled" label. Unfortunately, we have come to a place where we don't permit natural selection to work, we've instead decided to engage in preferred selection and have been debating the preferences ad nauseum, going nowhere fast, overpopulating the planet.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Ahso!;1374522 wrote: I'm a member of society and I don't consider differences in people as "disabilities", or "syndromes", though, if one sees these differences as hindering survival ability, I understand that. So, from that perspective I can see the 'disabled" label. Unfortunately, we have come to a place where we don't permit natural selection to work, we've instead decided to engage in preferred selection and have been debating the preferences ad nauseum, going nowhere fast, overpopulating the planet.Which you would suggest is due to societies social structure?

This isn't true in the world of economics. If a person produces then that person is preserved thus leading to an acceptable social status equal to said persons contributions.

If we take a look at Einstein and Newton we see just how influential these people were on their respective societies yet Ioan James, Michael Fitzgerald, and Simon Baron-Cohen believe their personalities are consistent with those of people with Asperger syndrome; Tony Attwood has also named Einstein as a likely case of mild autism along with Charles Darwin, Emily Dickenson, George Orwell, Paul Dirac, Thomas Jefferson, and Mozart.

And a point I might add that survival ability has become less and less important considering the advancements in technology we've observed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... istic#List
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Ahso! »

What I've learned about myself regarding this subject is that when it comes to considering it, values must be stripped away in order to examine its core. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'preferred selection'. Has Natural Selection mutated into Preferred selection? Perhaps.

Categorizing our species' members into groups seems to be the natural progression of the evolution of the brain and thus 'group selection' on a conscience level.

The facts are that those categorized with Asperger's Syndrome are those who have, over time, become quite well equipped with very finely tuned survival skills as to have become such, as we're learning, an enormous segment of the world's population. There have been so many people being diagnosed with Asperger's lately that the psychological community has decided it needed to become more restrictive about the diagnosis. Savants and highly Autistic people would not survive nearly as well or as long as those labeled as Aspies.

One thing's for certain and that is: there is no figuring out (in order to predict) Natural Selection. That's what scares us so much about Natural Selection, no one is controlling the process, but we're certainly trying.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Ahso!;1374534 wrote: Savants and highly Autistic people would not survive nearly as well or as long as those labeled as Aspies.It's just that I can't think of one moment in history, from the dawn of mankind, whatever that may be, when humans were ever expected to survive on their own.

Autism may just be the very need for natural selection to shine Ahso! I've never met more highly intelligent people that equals said intelligence with sheer kindness...

Everything we fail to understand about autism at the same time just how irrefutably priceless some of those diagnosed with autism are to society and a seemingly appropriate connection between savant syndrome and intuition that seems far too coincidental to be considered different.

When we consider the possible understanding of autism we then might completely understand intuition which might shed some light on what I feel is a direct connection between philosophy and physics.

Then I'm hit with such a disgust for reductionism by those more appreciative of liberal arts and can't help but ask why they both have to be mutually exclusive.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Ahso! »

I just typed a careful reply to this only to lose it to a server error. I'm not sure when I'll be up to redoing the post. Sorry.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Ahso!;1374545 wrote: I just typed a careful reply to this only to lose it to a server error. I'm not sure when I'll be up to redoing the post. Sorry.Sorry buddy, perhaps your visual memory will help
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

K.Snyder;1374527 wrote:

If we take a look at Einstein and Newton we see just how influential these people were on their respective societies yet along with Charles Darwin, Emily Dickenson, George Orwell, Paul Dirac, Thomas Jefferson, and Mozart.

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLet's not forget Temple Grandin...Ingenious Minds: Think Like the Animals : Video : Science Channel
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Ingenious Minds: Pinball Whiz : Video : Science ChannelRobert Gagno visualizes velocity and trajectories is known as the best pinball player in Canada. With these visualizations and the interpretation of symbols mentioned earlier can't this be seen as a grandiose example of intuition? It's not his brain that moves the pins to hit the ball, at least not physically. Visualizations that are transformed into symbols to be communicated as not only a direct means to implement understanding but to establish a framework for invested interest to improve...

Then there's John Elder Robison Robison dropped out of Amherst High School in the tenth grade, to join the Amherst-based rock band, Fat. Robison would later receive an honorary diploma from The Monarch School in Houston in May 2008. “It is unconscionable to me as an educator,” said Dr. Marty Webb, founder and head of The Monarch School, “that someone of John's intelligence, competence and life achievement is walking around without a high school diploma.” Monarch, dedicated to providing an innovative, therapeutic education for individuals with neurological differences, has collaborated with Robison on the development of teacher guides for his best seller, Look Me in the Eye as well as the sequel, Be Different.[3]

Several years later his ability to design electronic circuits allowed him to work for Britro sound company. He later became a sound adviser for Pink Floyd and KISS, for whom he created their signature illuminated, fire-breathing, and rocket launching guitars. He subsequently designed electronic games at toy maker Milton Bradley. Robison then worked for Simplex Time Recorder, Isoreg Corporation and Candela Laser of Wayland, Massachusetts. He later managed J E Robison Service Co from his backyard. He became successful from the venture, the business being one of the largest independent Land Rover, Rolls-Royce and Bentley specialty shops in the country, and becoming one of only 20 four-star service agents for Robert Bosch GmbH of Germany.John Elder Robison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ingenious Minds: Recognition : Video : Science Channel

Honestly, what do parents teach their children?
User avatar
theia
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by theia »

Infinite light;1374446 wrote: K.Snyder:

Your post may be too esoteric for me to wrap my brain around. But I'll say this: There could be no paradox in the mind of the one who has had the revelatory experience. That's what I meant when I said the intuitive mind would have to transcend all logical objections, and let's face it, there are plenty of logical objections. On purely logical grounds, one could list many reasons to reject the experience. The most obvious is that any claimed revelation seems to require circular reasoning. Inherent to the claim of revelation is a presumption of god's existence:

"I had a revelation of God last night."

"How do you know?"

"Because he told me."

It seems to be an unsolvable problem. But for the one who has had the experience logical exceptions are like a flea on an elephant's butt; its presence may be known, but it is helpless against the elephant's will. Likewise, the intuitive knowledge gained in the experience is the elephant, and the logical objections the flea. The intuitive cognition would have to be an irreducible truth that no logical objections could contradict.

I'm simply saying that this is the way it must be, that's all. Restated, if one is ever going to attain the highest degree of certitude in the mind, then it will have had to occur as I have related. Because, again, there are so many...MANY logical reasons to doubt the experience that there must be some way for the mind to go above and beyond those objections and know god in the experience. And that "something" is intuition. Honestly, I see no way around this.


I really appreciate your post. Thank you.
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
User avatar
Infinite light
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:59 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by Infinite light »

theia;1374599 wrote: I really appreciate your post. Thank you.


I do the best I can. ~:))
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

K.Snyder;1374540 wrote: Autism may just be the very need for natural selection to shine Ahso! I've never met more highly intelligent people that equals said intelligence with sheer kindness...I should add that there are obvious exceptions I'm sure. I'd seemed to forget that Jeffrey Dahmer and Adolf Hitler were on that list...

Ouch!...Not good for the auties!!!!
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

Ten Important Reasons to Include the Humanities in Your Preparation for a Scientific Career - Science Careers Blog
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12159
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by LarsMac »

Thanks for that.

I am having conversations about such with a grandkid.

He wants to focus on Mathematics and Physics, and to hell with all that "touchy Feely crap"

I have invited him to this discussion.
“All it takes to get elected in twenty-first-century America is a mob of frightened sheep and a wolf with a nice smile,”
― Greg Bear, Darwin's Children
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science of intuition as matter of fact

Post by K.Snyder »

LarsMac;1411579 wrote: Thanks for that.

I am having conversations about such with a grandkid.

He wants to focus on Mathematics and Physics, and to hell with all that "touchy Feely crap"

I have invited him to this discussion.The importance of a moral education allows for an understanding of the meaning expressed within our semantic culture. A culture that broadens our ability to critically evaluate and reflect on the importance of what it is we're learning in our physical world. Without a grounding in such a context even mathematics and physics fails to give anyone self-fulfillment.

I like to think of it as a question. "Without our semantic culture, notably the ways we understand the meaning behind the words and symbols we use to express ourselves, what would humanity be exactly?" We can observe that it is through our semantic culture that we come to formulate our thoughts and expressions in a way that begins to allow us to understand mathematics and physics. Without organized language we have no understanding of mathematics and physics, and without language we have no collective understanding of how we as human beings may feel compelled to live a meaningful life at all.

Return to “Science”