This was our last exchange on intution.

I realized that both you and Q were basing your position - that religious nutters drove out the intelligent and scholarly posters -
on intuition.

You had not done archival/statistical work.
You had not demonstrated causation - or even correlation.
You had not shown that other potential causes could not be the root of the hypothetical changes.

I am guessing here that working from a felt sense of 'the way things were' and 'the way things are' you formed an idea of a certain
causal process. The conclusion was then asserted in unqualified terms, as something that happened, period.

This despite the kinds of distortions possible here - ones that affect many instances of nostaligic thought.

Setting aside the irony that my request for evidence support was met with the implication (not yours) that I was drunk (read: irrational) for the request (in a thread, it seemed, created as part of an urge to return to more scholarly, intelligent days).

This raises a couple of issues: 1) when is intuition the acceptable basis for a flat, without qualification claim (in a science forum)
2) given that the primary objection I received was that the process of acquiring evidence would be too much work, when is it rational to act in the world and make assertions based on intuition?


See, I think one must do this. There are a great deal of situations where we have neither the time or resources - perhaps even no one does (for ex. the technology might not be invented yet) - to provide evidence that will be convincing for others. So we assert and or live as if our intution is correct. If every situation where one cannot provide evidence for one's claims means one is insane....

well, I can hear drool hitting the desks of pharmaceutical company execs.

hmmm. reminds me very much of the complications faced by the late philosopher*/poet/dog-and-horse trainer, vicki hearne. in the preface to her first collection of essays, adam's task: calling animals by name, she writes:
V. Hearne, Adam's Task, p.4

the problem should be obvious: a proper trainer must necessarily speak (and act in accordance with such) in highly anthropomorphic, morally loaded language. otherwise, what you've got is just another behaviorist who unceasingly fails to acknowledge or recognize that he is part of the experiment--IOW, a hack "trainer" who can only compel the animal to heed his "commands" through operant conditioning, etc. and never enters into a true relationship with the other. of course, is there any certifiable "evidence" for the claims and assumptions upon which a real trainer acts?

this disjunction between trainers and the more rational minded lot continued to plague hearne, especially as she observed that in the "real world" those supposed "trainers" with degrees in behavioral sciences and such were, in fact, shamefully unsuccessful with animals.
p.12

anyways,the point of all this seemingly interminable rambling is that i see a whole lot of that bolded portion above going on in "intelligent" discourse. yet i sincerely doubt, that amongst those who are truly successful and gifted at whatever it is that they do, that any of these individuals do NOT regularly act upon assumptions or "intuitions" for which there is no evidence. so we must necessarily conclude that these individuals are insane.


* of course, she be of the neo-wittgensteinian school (stanley cavell, et al) and a non-essentialist, so that may very well qualify her as a "nutter," or fluent in "schizophrenese" at the very least (courtesy of some silly article in scientific american some years back).

An excellent on topic tangent: communication with animals!

I would say she goes an extra step here, though I understand why she does since she is definitely reacting to a habit. In its pure form, however, science does not do this. I think the simple acknowledgement that intuition is something that we all use to navigate the world, and that often these intuitions are not ones we can support with evidence, at least not the kinds of evidence that peer reviewed science journals are wont to demand.

Could you rephrase this, I get a little lost in the negatives.

But one who uses this insanity to successfully navigate her world.

"Provide evidence" on whose terms?

For example, one cook can easily provide evidence for another cook, but not to someone who has no clue of cooking. Or a physicist can easily provide evidence to another physicist, but not to someone who has no clue of physics.

Trying to provide evidence for everyone who may happen to want it, regardless of their qualification, presumes that there is actually no qualification necessary in order to provide and understand evidence ...


The simplest solution to the quandary is to simply stick to one's reference group, and not try to prove oneself or one's claims to anyone outside of that group, however much they may demand it (or curse one for it if one doesn't).


Of course the problem is that many people either do not have such reference groups, or the reference groups they do have do not satisfactorily cover all the aspects in which a person may feel the need to prove oneself and require approval from others.

The greatest empiricists among us are only empiricists on reflection: when left to their instincts, they dogmatize like infallible popes.

William James, The Will to Believe

and one of my favorite subjects! (though i'm admittedly a "nutter" on this matter.)

"if a lion could talk, we could not understand him."

ah, we all make mistakes. and that this line oddly comes from the investigations, rather than the tractatus, is just sad--certainly wittgenstein was just keeping with the wrong company in those early days, but he was really starting to catch on once he moved on to gardening and occasionally smacking children. regardless, this line is either a nightmare, or a field day, for the quietistic mind.

first of all, many of us already do understand lions--so is w. suggesting that we would no longer be able to understand the lions if they began to talk? he is certainly not suggesting that a lion can't already talk, but it remains unclear as to whether it is the lion's capacity for speech that would render "us" incapable of understanding him, or whether it is the lion's speech itself that "we" could not understand.

returning to those of us who already do understand the lion, such understanding necessarily involves a leap (unless one is referring to that muddled sort of "understanding" of the behaviorist). and so it is with lions, dogs, elephants, horses, whathaveyou. and once again, in dog training this leap confounds the positivistic mind:

for several years, i trained dogs--on an individual basis--professionally. i abandoned this occupation not because of the dogs, but because the dogs' people were so goddamned frustrating. typically, a person who can afford a private dog trainer is rather affluent and, well, well-educated. (heh) and the language of doctors, lawyers, businessfolk, academics, et al is also not intertranslatable with the language of dog trainers. (note: there were exceptions, just not enough to make the occupation satisfactory.) they too simply could not abide certain notions and propositions which they had no reason to believe.

i would lure clients with my own impeccably well educated, and quite brilliant, dog, parmalee. they marveled at his ability to maneuver the world (both big cities and the lonely countryside) sans leash, and his ability to comprehend pretty much everything i said to him (or, as they might have it, "comprehend"). and then i would often make the mistake of relating this little anecdote:

parmalee (dog) was quite fond of a certain game he devised: as we would walk along the sidewalk--in a city with many buildings close in proximity to one-another--every time we approached a corner parmalee would run ahead and hide behind the building alongside of us; and when i reached the corner he would lunge out at me and take me
by surprise.

of course, the clients would object to the idea that
parmalee was "hiding"--and some even objected to the notion that a dog
could play games (of course, we all know that when a bunch of dogs are running around in a park biting one-another, that they have every intention of killing or maiming those whom they bite--it's not at all possible that these "bites," which do no damage and cause no pain, could possibly connote those "bites" which are intended to maim or kill, is it?). for to "hide" necessitates having a sense of self,and of course dogs have no sense of self; after all, they consistently fail that "mirror test" thingamajig. nevermind the fact that dogs failing the mirror test only tells us that dogs fail the mirror test, and not that they lack a sense of self; and nevermind the fact that dogs cannot see still objects for shit (yet they excel at discerning moving objects), and were they to be administered a correlary scent "mirror" test they would pass with flying colors, while we humans would fail miserably--because we have no sense of self. what matters is that "science" has told us, apparently, that dogs have no sense of self! and this brings us to this matter:

i agree that she may overstep bounds here,but there is a point to be made: real science does not do this; unfortunately, we've got an awful lot of--as enmos poignantly phrased it--bad science, and badly trained scientists, and finally, supposedly educated lay-folk who think they've got a grasp on science, but when pressed to articulate what a "theory" means in science, would be at a loss for words. and that was the problem with many of my clients--most were well-educated, and some were even scientists of sorts, yet they were still prone to falling prey to this, heh, superstition (a brilliant choice of words, imho).

sorry about that, i accidentally slipped into my kaspar hauser mode. i intended to say: i am certain that those who are truly gifted and successful at whatever it is that they do regularly act upon assumptions and "intuitions" for which they have no evidence. honestly, how could one even possibly maneuver within this world without acting upon such? and admission of such hardly makes one a "nutter" or "anti-science," i think it just makes one, well, honest.

as to where, in science, there is place for such: well, what about fields like anthropology and ethology (of course, some immediately dismiss those off-the-bat as pseudosciences)? some argue that one cannot study the monkey outsideof the cage; others argue that one cannot study the monkey within the cage. they're both right (though i personally find the former deplorable); but for some, uncertainty is a bigger thorn than it is for others.

i cannot recall who made this claim, but someone said that women "typically" make better animal trainers than men, and this is why training philosophies have undergone a profound transformation in recent decades (more women entering the field, that is). of course, the frightening, skinnerian sort of training of decades past is also a relatively recent phenomenon: ages ago we received the writings of the most industrious and enlightened xenophon--the cynegeticus--and before that, that voice from the whirlwind reminded job, the trainer, of many poignant matters. as to the claim regarding women: i believe the writer's intention was to suggest that women are far more comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity than men, and that men are--whether by virtue of biology or upbringing or both--inclined towards positivism. the male/female issue aside, this is an interesting point: in certain occupations/undertakings--perhaps even in science--it is sometimes even necessary to make the leap.

..and who watches in wonder as the positivists either shut down completely, or resort to spewing ad homs and making some quite extraordinary suppositions.

oh, and one more thing:

this:
also reminds me of the tactics of many a holocaust denier: faurisson's infamous cry, "and show me the gas chambers!" lyotard obsessed over this issue in at least two volumes: the differend and heidegger and the jews. in scholarship and science, it is hardly unreasonable to demand evidence for one's claims, but in the real world this simply isn't always possible. so what is one to do?

evidence for epilepsy: certain patterns of spiking on an eeg. yet, the fact is, the vast majority of epileptics live a lifetime, undergo countless eeg's, and NEVER even ONCE test "positive" for epilepsy (or show patterns of an epileptogenic nature). [i ALWAYS seem to get that curious spiking on my eeg's, oddly enough.] so ought we not diagnose them with epilepsy, and treat them accordingly, i.e. as a nutcase or hysteric? one never knows, perhaps they are simply experiencing non-epileptic seizures (formerly referred to as pseudo-seizures, until someone finally convinced those with the power that it's quite offensive to suggest that people are "faking it," even if their seizures aren't epileptic in nature), or--egads!--hysteria! [fact: women are far more inclined to be diagnosed with having a sort of non-epileptic seizure disorder, anxiety, or anything other than epilepsy, than are men.] no, the physician considers all of the circumstances and makes an informed guess as to whether or not to treat the patient with anticonvulsants.

of course, in developing nations, a native individual with the same symptoms may present himself to the great white doctor, but alas, there are no means to perform an eeg, mri,cat scan, etc. and the meds are difficult to obtain and a bit pricey. diagnosis: conversion disorder. but that's a whole 'nother can of worms...

I agree with the implications of this question. I would say there are situations where one has more sympathy for someone not immediately believing one's account and interpertation of one's experiences/insights. Some of these situations would lack evidence for even in-group members, however much less likely they are to be skeptical. One could claim to have achieved a feeling of oneness and to have burst out of the ego and fellow meditators might be hard pressed to know how to take this to the same degree as a skeptical scientist. Of course I think there are ways to narrow down the odds on such a judgment, but that's getting off to the side.
A concrete example: interpreting those photoplates made by subatomic particles - 'That's a muon.' 'Really?!'

Or to put it another way: no experience necessary.


And perhaps to examine the urge to convince more carefully.

True. And it is very hard to learn, let alone master, many things alone.

Yes, that was a blooper. I've seen some videos of people who did not understand what certain lions were saying to them - and the aftermath - but I got the message very clearly.

Well, to be fair, if a Lion started speaking English and talking about anger, desire, goals, confusion.....

I would be cautious - as I would with any foreigner - in assuming the words were being used in ways I was familiar with. I would guess there would be overlap, but one should be cautious. Of course, truth be told, we should be more cautious with each other as any marriage will quickly show you.
A positivist has no reason to believe these chemical machines are conscious, the poor soul.

Yes, both certain religions and science denied animals this level of consciousness (or any at all) until relatively recently.

Science carefully controls conditions and finds ways to repeat experiences. Then it develops models based on the ability to repeat experiences, models that give people a way to grasp large chunks of connected experiences, rather than simply having batches of facts. You can picture a circle within which we have experiences science has repeated experiences. What is outside this circles and conclusions formed about it are not things that science can comment on. Perhaps later when it focuses on those experiences and when it can do this. Whereof one cannot speak one must be silent should be the motto, if one is saying that all knowledge must be gained via the scientific method.


I agree, though I have met a lot of resistance to this idea here.

I think part of the problem is that many things, like for example having a self or that there are other selves, are intuitions that are so habitual it can seem simply obvious, a priori, and that the onus is on the other side if one questions these things. If one meditates for a while or has other experiences the onus suddenly shifts. Or let's say the need for justification is just as great as for many things dismissed as 'mere' intuition.

So how does one find the balance point or the best use of one's tools given that intuition, emipirical work, use of experts and deduction are all on the table?

Sure.

How much of what we do is actually to gain a good reputation, to gain fame, to get others to like us and not hurt us, or because we feel we just have the right to be able to sit back and relax and think we never have to do anything more ever again and that everyone and everything should respect this right ...


Of course.

In Buddhism, they say that the foundation of wisdom is to know what one's duties are, and to fulfill those duties.

likewise, buddhism holds that one act not solely by that which is reasoned through or taught, but by what one knows for oneself--and that one practice the middle path, and avoid the extremes.

yet in spite the of the lack of living amongst human company for thousands of years, which affords dogs, horses, etc. a unique advantage, i have few doubts that the lions suffered as great an inability for reading the people. [stanley cavell, perhaps an american patriot of sorts (the good kind), reminds us that thoreau introduced this notion of the "text" long before derrida.] and while less likely, there is always the remotest possibility that these people deigned to speak to the lions in that most condescending and didactic manner, or the manner of the cooing and babbling idiot, that so many of my human students of dog training failed to break themselves from.


i was somewhat a solipsist until and embarrassingly late age (common amongst autistics) and i acquired much of my language through reading and watching television (which was extremely important for learning those other cues, i.e. gestural, facial expressions, etc.); accordingly, i listened to others, but i seldom conversed. moreover, i grew up with a relatively poor, and extremely uneducated (and thoroughly anti-intellectual) family, and i could not even discuss books and such with my parents, because they never read! one day in late, late adolescence it dawned upon me that i was employing words in a manner that was wholly unique (no. not a true "private language") and thus was compelled to diligently and thoroughly revise in order to make myself understood.

of course--as you remark--we all do this to a degree, even those curious folk who earnestly strive for a "perfect language," and i believe that, in a sense, we are all non-essentialists--whether we know it or not. there is only so much that can be shared, even amongst one's own tribe.


yet there have always been those exceptional individuals, such as those cited previously--xenophon and the author(s) of the book of job, and a strong countertradition amongst the uneducated laity; but as science discovers that which was previously denied--animal consciousness, self-consciousness, even sapience (ill-defined as it may be)--so many diligently persist to uncover new avenues for of human exceptionalism. of course, we are exceptional--but no moreso than anything else.

as far as dogs and religion specifically are concerned, it's unfortunate that the exceptional traditions are virtually non-existent in the present day: zoroastrianism (i had the privilege of meeting a few followers in western india) and certain australian aboriginal mythologies. in fact, both specifically refer to dogs with relation to poiesis.

i had always thought that this was the motto, at least that is how i came to understand science. but for many, apparently this is not so. it is unfortunate that michael polanyi has become a rather marginal figure, for his epistemological claims--and cautions-- do seem a sound reminder for both scientists and the religious.

this is one of my issues with that particular group of athiests who go from simply asserting that there is no reason to believe in god to asserting that they believe there is no god. and they go about such in a curiously scientific (pseudo?) manner by defining god from the outset--wtf?! sure, there is that god of the creationists, et al, but what of all the other "believers"? how do such athiests respond to the tradition of negative theology? how can they respond...


referring back to my confused vocabulary and manner of employing language of my early and adolescent years: i had always thought that those who adamantly disagree with the preceding were the "nutters" (along with the other fundies, et al). not unlike those who rigidly subscribe to any one of the multitude of -isms. you have always and shall always vote democrat: you're a nutter. you insist that only through the pure laissez faire capitalism will all of our problems ("magically") disappear: you are most definitely a nutter.

but perhaps i am confused(?)

precisely the reason that the farmer or rancher with a 5th grade education is far more likely to succeed with animals, imho. the world--the academic and professional world specifically--is woefully lacking for prince myshkins.

see response above (not that i'm saying that buddhism is the answer, but it's certainly got a lot to offer). and with respect to that other thread, i believe that one can be both a scientist and a mystic.

This seems a little apple and oranges. The skill involved in trying to perform duties can be affected by our use of intuition, denial of it, sense of when it is appropriate, etc.

Lions are radically nationalistic and the males seem even more fascistic and selfish. I would guess they could learn rather fast, given their body reading skills, how to read humans - perhaps some lion trainers reading this can let us know - but I think they generally don't care what anyone else thinks or feels. What is the others action, period.

Dolphins, most not domesticated however have been know to read humans rather well. I would guess other social animals could as well if they were confined to a small field with humans for a while.

If I am interperting this correctly you are then autistic? You aren't the autistic person who wrote a book about interpreting the language of animals, are you?

ACtually I think one can share and 'get' a lot about other people. But don't expect it to be 'in' the words. As you said elsewhere, body language, including tone of voice, posture, movement, facial expression, intensity, etc., does the bulk of communication. I think one can get a lot about other people.

Or the projected universalization of 'I have no reason'.

Well there are chubby professors getting their hearts ripped out by younger, beautiful women.
Honestly, if you examine experience, rather than merely assuming it is normal, the words fit it, it is like other people's
you are a mystic.

I mean this is weird stuff we are experiencing. And that we are.

It is said that first one needs to know what one's duties are.
Knowing what one's duties are is not always so obvious ...

i think there are certain species with which humans can easily negotiate--dolphins, elephants, horses, dogs (and it's not just a matter of domestication)--and as for the others, there are always certain individuals amongst them. yet hubris, and denigration of things like intuition, inevitably keeps most humans well outside this circle of negotiation--and their failed efforts to "communicate" frequently result in disastrous consequences; sadly, often enough for the innocent party. honestly, i often wonder how those who are so obsessed with controlling all the variables and knowing so much with certainty manage to negotiate the world.

correct. one of those who was identified as such prior to the rediscovery of asperger's writings. that i demonstrated precocious, albeit strange, language skills and lacked significant cognitive deficits, apart from the social and sensory (which were overcompensated for, rather), was problematic; consequently, the "professionals" just kept me in "regular" school and sat me in a corner, because i could not get along with other kids and i was working at a more advanced level academically. the theory being, i guess, that things would just "sort themselves out" of their own. fortunately, i had television and dogs.

haa! no--i think you are referring to temple grandin, correct? have you read any of her books? she's got some interesting (and questionable) ideas, but she's got to be the worst published writer i've ever forced myself to sit through--her writing reads like a multiparagraph essay attempt by a mediocre 10th grader. (of course, a certain essay of mine, which incorporated related ideas, was charmingly described as "entertainingly obscure.")

i agree, but there's always that discordance--and lying. dogs loathe liars as much as they loathe arrogance (those individuals who pretend that they can and do understand everything which is going on within a dog's mind). likewise, dogs (and other animals) are much more attuned (than most people) to the other sorts of language and, as temple grandin remarks, so are autistics--but autistics tend not to pick up on the meaning of gestures and such "intuitively" (or through osmosis), and must make a concerted effort to learn such. i think this is an aspect of sensory integrative dysfunction: hypersensitivities and hyperalertness--or the ability to "take in" everything simultaneously, sometimes at the expense of successfully synthesizing and integrating the data ("not seeing the forest for the trees"--but keenly noting all the little critters poking their heads between the trees). (kinda like this little news story which popped up today.)

i think sometimes intuition is very much the subconscious reading of all these subtler cues, and making an immediate and accurate assessment; although i hardly think that is all that intuition is. many have accounted for intuition by this subconscious synthesis of accumulated data, but it's quite easy to "explain away" a phenomenon when you define all the parameters and conveniently ignore all that which lies outside.

i've always considered what i describe as "real" mysticism (i.e. the "good" stuff like meister eckhart, teresa de avila, et al, as opposed to the goofy stuff) as another variety of skepticism. and i don't think i'm alone in this--notions such as gelassenheit have been accorded literally volumes' worth of consideration by "critical" thinkers. but like so many other things, mysticism is invariably filed under the domains of the nutters and woowoos. needless to say, those who do such more often than not have never made any effort to actually examine the supposed "claims" of supposed "mystics," whether that be via cracking a book or another method.

hmmm. i just had a few thoughts regarding temple grandin and vicki hearne, whom i mentioned previously.

temple grandin has developed certain "technologies" and techniques which are intended to make factory farming more "humane" (this is in fact her primary occupation)--what the fuck?! humane factory farming: isn't that an oxymoron? i'm sorry, but factory farming is just plain fucking evil and i find it rather ironic that a person who so strongly identifies with animals can work in such an industry, regardless of her intentions. i would describe that as a sort of "autistic" blindness. at the same time, i get the impression (i do not know this) that she might be the sort of person who is dismissive of such notions as intuition--she seems very much a rigidly logical thinker (curious claims and speculations on her part aside).

vicki hearne, on the other hand, was very much a proponent of intuitive approaches. despite being an academic and a poet, she described herself as very much a "redneck." (though she too was inclined to employ certain terms in a, uh, unique fashion.) likewise, she had written a number of essays which were harshly critical of notions of "animal rights," and she loathed the term "humane." (her criticisms of animal rights were based around notions of a "contract." for a "contract" to work, both parties must abide, and more importantly, comprehend the matter: this may work with dogs and animals with whom we have a real working relationship, but not so well with lions.) yet as far as animals are concerned, i feel that she had a genuine respect and affinity for them.

there is sometimes something so rigidly logical, and counter-intuitive, about those who fervently fight "moral" crusades. and there is so much, eh, blindness (i couldn't think of the right word, but i hope this makes sense) in their certainty about their "mission."

I failed miserably once with a primate, but he was a jerk. You know, harem leader, eats first before kids and wives and only if there is no more, strutting bad ass - couple of senses actually. The kind of guy you look down into your beer when they walk in the room, only the monkey version. Of course his habitat was dwindling and I was in it for a while and his style probably did fairly well for his exteneded family in the long run.



So, Aspberger's? but then it sounds like your mirror neurons are doing just peachy, or?




I am not sure though I have read her work also, if it is also. There was some book with a title like 'We who understand animals' but I get nowhere googling versions of that. It doesn't seem to be any of the books on grandin's list. In any case it bugged me quite a bit, since I disagreed and also feel fairly confident with my interspecies communication.

Is grandin the one who developed the 'hug device' that is used pre-execution?

I'm on the hypersensitive, hyperalert end of things. I am good at reading meaning, including 'hidden' ones, but I have had to learn how to prioritize threats.

Intuition: at five dots you realize it is a face. Or in a multimedia version, the proctor's interest in 50s films, a certain perfume in the air, two notes from the opening of Happy Birthday, 2 dots on the page and bang you call out Marilyn Monroe and the other testees stare at you like a madman. Detectives putting together trivial details from hundreds of different median, senses, etc., grok who the murderer is.


gelassenheit reminds me of the bantering Wes and I are doing in the Worship thread: a wrong turning in religion.


With a dash of naivte about language and metaphor, thinking no doubt that non-mystical language is literal.

That answered my question. Yes, when I read about her hug machine I immediately imagined a nazi using it for Jews as they were led to the firing squads or the chambers. I mean I wouldn't say it was immoral to create the device for animals, but the whole proceeding should be one of sorrow and horror and her attitude seemed to be - look how clever I am and isn't this a nice thing. Well, those are accurate statements as far as they go.