Intuition vs Logic

Ha.....sorry for my smile duendy, but i have absolutely nothing more to say about it....except [chuckles] that you ....errr are ...hmmmm...absolutely correct...uhmmm worng......sheesh!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It makes my Christian friends think when I say to them:
"If there's really a God that's omnipotent and all, then he/she must be able to know everything, and nothing, since not being able to know nothing would mean God can't know everything. And, this omnipotent being must be able to know nothing and everything at the same time, or at different times, or at the same time AND different times, or neither, or...

It's a Catch-22. It just keeps going in circles because we keep thinking of infinity and anti-infinity as having values.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still reading the supplied link.

The god-gene is one curious element in a litany of observables which suggest a design (the designer remains the subject of debate, one could reasonably argue that these conditionals only insure the survival of the species, and do not necesitate a higher power or purpose). One commonly used analogy refers to the earth, as observed from above. Due principally to the efforts of indepently acting men, the earth as a whole could be said to be moving to a more organized state in the fashion of some living organism (with telecommunications, roads, etc its circulatory system). If we assume that the earth is not a living organism and that evolution is therefore not the designer, then we beg the question, what force or purpose planned this course?

As I have said, this seems impossible if we assume the accuracy of the dictionary definition of "subjective," when taken to its logical extreme.

Such defenses are, by definition, not applicable in that they cannot be proven. The same efforts are made in defense of a multitude of other superstitious beliefs, such as acupunctures. When acupuncture is shown to fail, additional indefensible assumptions are offered (my favorite, some are more in tune to the flows of Zen than others, and thus acupuncture works better for them). If we assume that the ways and means of Zen-like flows are not empirically verifiable, how can we rationally argue such claims?

Under such circumstances, nothing can be proven or disproven. One is free to invent reasonings which, despite or in fact because of their inherent unverifiability, explain away any rational explanation.

It does not prove that the conclusion is false in and of itself, no. It only proves that the conclusion was arrived at from faulty presumptions, and therefore in the context of the argument, must be false. One might fallaciously deduce a corect conclusion. Consider:

Bricks are red.
The house is made out of bricks.

Therefore, the house is red.

The house may very well be red. However, because we have used fallacious reasoning to derive our conclusion, it is incorrect (or false). If ther house is in fact red, it is not only because the bricks are red. The premises do not imply the conclusion. We must also add that the house wasn't painted or faced, for example.

I would disagree. This is an inductive argument. You are saying that given the evidence, the observed Object is probably a duck, but may not be. You haven't arrived at this conclusion intuitively, but logically.

Why? I don't see how this follows, nor how this is a circular argument. It would only be circular if you argued that in order for God to know everything, He must know nothing, and in order for God to know nothing, He must know everything. But you haven't; you've said for God to be omniscient (you used omnipotent, but meant omnicient, I'm assumeing) He must know everything, and that therefore He must be able to know nothing. Certainly, one can't "know" without presupposing that one can "not know." However, what relevance does this have to claims one must know and not know simultaneously, or at any other temporal point? That one is able to does not mean one must.

RE BeHereNow's supplied link on ituition vs logic.

The paper only establishes that in order for one to expand upon the established mathematical postulates, one must refer to experience. That is, the known mathematical models cannot be used to derive the unknown mathematical models in and of themselves. However, why is the process of experience and deduction from such experience necesarilly intuitive? Or, is individual experience of some epistemical process necesarry for inference of that process?

I would contend that, once experienced and some explanatory logical rules deduced, a third party (unexperienced) could come by the same knowledge (arrive at the same conclusion) in the absence of direct experience but solely by virtue of his access to the logical rules. This accruement of knowledge would be no less accurate, but not at all intuitive in the context of the paper (which presupposes some correlation between intuition and experience).

Therefore, I would further contend that the original deduction of the postulates was not by virtue of intuition but logical inference. We may have intuitively perceived the existance of some unknown rules, but we established them by logical means, and can validate them without referencing the experienced, or the intuitive.

It is further contended that a proof for the reliability (what the paper calls intuitionistic acceptability) of a logical argument is necesarry for us to assume the accuracy of the arguments deductions. I disagree. A logical argument need not be shown reliable (in the experienced sense), only accurate in its use of logical principles (the accuracy of the argument is dependant upon the accuracy of its use of logical principle). Its reliability may be later derived, but BY VIRTUE OF ITS ACCURACY (as opposed to the other way around). Determinations of accuracy of principle use do not necesitate empirical experience, whereas determinations of reliability (does the argument prove what it claims to in actuality and consistently) may do so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does this mean you understand the irrationality of your belief system?
(At least within the context of others.)

 

Correct. Given that, I refuse to allow my belief system to interfere with the pursuit of knowledge in the observable universe. I reject any and all notions of the miraculous out of hand. There is always a testable, quantifiable explanation.

Anything which presumes its own existance or relies on irrational substantiations is to be avoided.

 

Unfortunately this means that you yourself are to be avoided as you have assumed your own existance....and life does not have to be rational.....

In fact it is illogical to use logic in many situations.....apart from some very basic premises existance has no obligation to conform to the rational.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My thoughts only

 

"Unfortunately this means that you yourself are to be avoided as you have assumed your own existance"

Not in the absence of evidence. Presuming a things existence is a fallacy whereby we assume the truth of our conclusion without proving it. It has a proper name, but that eludes me.

 

Some points to add:

1. The term "the mind" should not be used casually, as it is a folk conception with no solid meaning (although one could be negotiated).

2. If concepts or "thoughts" are subjective in nature, then so are sensations experienced by the body. This is why: the cells interpret data coming through their membranes (in the form of heat, light, pressure, etc.) and its registering is its significance. Such registering involves the subject (in this case, the cells), and thus is subjective.

3. We have no basis on which to presume separation from that which is apparently "around" us. It appears that way to some extent, and this is functional for us, yet we must also acknowledge that we cannot know any concept or percept apart from our participation.

4. A more plausible hypothesis, therefore, might be that there is ontologically (in some absolute existence) no such thing as "object-subject" separation - in other words, that there is only Subject - BUT that within Subject, there are shifting, partial perspectives that gives us a sense of change and movement. This, in turn, is where we get the notion that there are "objective" things and "objective" relationships. So objectivity is an epistemological ("how we know") function rather than an ontological reality.

5. What follows from this is that nstead of being separate objects floating in an outside matrix or substance, we are windows or perspectives within that substance (although I hesitate to use the term "within" because there would be no inside, because there would be no outside. But anyway...) Our partial but shifting perspectives merge, join, give rise to surprise, discovery, invention, more merger, etc. etc.

6. Each nexus of perspective - from the cellular to the full multicellular organism (what we think of as "you" and "me") - to communities of language and culture - each of these is one of those windows.

7. In this model, we "individuals," as we like to model ourselves, play an important role in the on-going self-creation of the "All-Subject." By using this term, I do not mean to imply that this is "God," but it could be interpreted that way. It is more like pure movement. Why else would this matrix of difference and relationship - the life process of subjective existence, growth, transformation - be, if not because difference = relationship = an ongoing dynamic, or movement - for its own sake?

 

onefinity as I digest your post I reminded my self of an earlier thought I had regards the notion of an individual objective awareness.

Simply put it can be shown that if we have two persons looking at the same apple and we take all the other variables as a given we must note that by sumply looking at this apple from a different vantage point immediately means that at any moment each persons perpective is unique there fore a global objectivity is impossible as simply no one can see from the others exact perspective.

An extreme example would be looking at a sheet of paper that has two sides of different colours. One person sees green the other sees purple or what ever. Even if looking at the same side each persons view must by virtue of perspective be different. Thus objectivity that can be shared is impossible [in absolutum]
so disregarding "mind" for the moment physically it is also impossible to achieve a shared objective view.

 

I would say shared objective knowledge (not view, because view implies subjective) is possible by the intuitive, which of course has not been established.

Also, that in some cases objective knowledge (however we define it) might be shared, although in other cases it is not.
This would only be possible if the observer were aware of what part of his knowledge were subjective and what part was objective. One observer can bring another into common objective knowledge.

Complete knowledge is not necessary for objective knowledge.

 

I am not entirely comfortable with the word knowledge.
To me I use the word awareness as being considerably more objective than any knowledge that we mau come to hold.

To achieve an objective awareness is possible I feel if one can still the speculation and discursivity of our thoughts.

However even awareness is not free from the corrupting influences of thought.

To sit by an ocean and be aware with out thought achieves much towards objective realisations.

 

Onefinity:
You use many terms I am not familiar with, but I believe I agree with you.
The question I might have is whether you feel all “individual” experiences are objective. Does this interconnectedness give each of us wholeness with reality, or only offer it to us?
You seem to say there is no subjective.
I would say there does not need to be subjective within a particular “individual” existence, but that comparing individual to individual, many have subjective experiences.

 

QQ:
Yes, your awareness is my understanding.
Knowledge is simply bits of information, understanding connects the dots, makes us aware of the interconnectedness of the bits.

I see the bits (knowledge) closely aligned with subjective, proper awareness or understanding, the objective.

 

The doctrine of no-mind.
This is where Zen truly butts heads with science and logic.

 

BeHereNow, I concede your point!



...April Fools!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Simply put it can be shown that if we have two persons looking at the same apple and we take all the other variables as a given we must note that by sumply looking at this apple from a different vantage point immediately means that at any moment each persons perpective is unique there fore a global objectivity is impossible as simply no one can see from the others exact perspective."

You have not, then, accounted for "all the other variables." It is elementary that one must eliminate all contrary notions so as to deduce the objective. Difference of perspective yielding difference of information is one such contrary notion (and knowledge deduced thereby is necesarilly subjective). By its elimination, we can arrive at the objective.

"I am not entirely comfortable with the word knowledge."

How can one not be comfortable with the word knowledge?

"I see the bits (knowledge) closely aligned with subjective, proper awareness or understanding, the objective."

This would be the antithesis of the objective, as already established. Surely the "proper" awareness or understanding necesitates some value judgment, and is therefore always the subjective.

"3. We have no basis on which to presume separation from that which is apparently "around" us."

How does this follow?

Our fascination with the sensory is an unnecesarry crutch yielding false assumptions. Leibniz in the New Essays on Human Understanding tells us the following.

"The senses, although they are necessary for all our actual knowledge, are not sufficient to give us the whole of it, since the senses never give anything but instances, that is to say particular or individual truths. Now all the instances which confirm a general truth, however numerous they may be, are not sufficient to establish the universal necessity of this same truth, for it does not follow that what happened before will happen in the same way again. . . From which it appears that necessary truths, such as we find in pure mathematics, and particularly in arithmetic and geometry, must have principles whose proof does not depend on instances, nor consequently on the testimony of the senses, although without the senses it would never have occurred to us to think of them…"

A rejection of experience implies a rejection of Subject-Object dependancy by your own definition.

 

For this particular usage.
Understanding or awareness is more complete than simple knowledge.
You do distinguish a difference between knowledge and understanding, don’t you?

Not at all. Proper means correct. Correct awareness or understanding is free of value judgement. (remember?: Intuition takes the observer into the observed, becomes part of it, loses any values or motives of the observer.)

I’ll let the others reply for themselves.

 

Look at the word "understanding" - literally, "to stand under." To "stand under" something is to hold it up. This is not just semantics. I think it's actually the essence of what we are getting at with the idea of "understanding."

I like Carl Bereiter's definition of understanding, although it is more in the educational context. He suggests that understanding is "a person's relating to an object of knowledge such that the person can intelligently work with that object of knowledge to produce new objects of knowledge." So it's about relationship, which again brings in the deep involvement between the structure of the observer and that which he/she is observing.

This is closely related to knowledge, I believe. What does it mean to know something? It is a condition wherein the structure of one's body and one's mental schema (pattern of relationships) are integrated. So here is kind of a hierarchy:

- (Raw) Data are bits of energy and differentiation which lack apparent relevance for the observing entity;
- Information is data that has established a relationship with the structure of the observer but is not yet internalized;
- Knowledge is information that has become part of the structure of the observing entity. It has proven functional - at least temporarily - such that it has altered the relationships that comprise "the mind" (and the body, although I can't really separate the two). Knowledge is not just "in" the person; it is "of" the person.

If a distinction is to be made between knowledge and understanding in this sense, perhaps it is that knowledge may not be conscious, but understanding is, because it is not only part of the entity, but goes beyond: the entity is using it to produce new objects of knowledge.

I would also like to introduce a term to the conversation that you may have heard elsewhere. I find it very valuable. The term is "intersubjective." Instead of talking about two people's different objective knowledges overlapping or clashing, we can speak of the intersubjective as the negotiated (consciously or unconsciously, more often the latter) perspectives and knowledge that connect them. A primary example is our language. We are in a constant negotiation about meaning in what we are trying to communicate, and in so doing we continuously re-create the bridge that allows us to do that negotiating: our language. The cognitive biologists Maturana and Varela call this a "consensual linguistic domain."

In my own theory, I have talked about five different kinds of subjectivity that represent different eras of cosmic evolution.

The first I simply call subjectivity - the most primitive kind of distinction-making or "perception." Even an atom can be called subjective in this sense, because there is an imperative in it to be "complete" (in its electron "shells").

The second I call intersubjectivity (but not exactly in the same sense as above). All living things are coupled in a structural sense with their environment, and are thus in that category.

The third I call countersubjectivity, wherein we live in a world of objects. This kind of subjectivity emerged with language and culture, and the sense of separation of objecct and subject.

The fourth I call transsubjectivity, which emerges through dialogue and an awareness of the paradox of unity and diversity in a community. The kinds of conversations that go on in this forum are indicative of the spread of transsubjectivity at this point in the earth's history.

The fifth I call intrasubjectivity - the background condition of the cosmos as a single, undivided wholeness. I don't know what this really looks like, since I'm still stuck in the earlier modes of subjectivity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nor do I know what it would look like in terms of future life on earth. But I believe that we're still part of it anyway.

Sorry if all that muddles the core topic.

 

i am sorry i didnt read all the posts,but here are some of my thoughts :

There's no such thing as intuition in its sense (like sub-consious). I think what we call intuition is just the ingrained logic in our brains,that we havent yet figured out.
what do you guys think?

 

I have often held the subjective belief that even intuition is logic but a of a more cryptic nature. Intuition is about the logical comprehension of feelings [inner senses] rather than that which is sensed externally.

I find awareness is fundamentally objective and that our interpretation of that awareness is subjective. Even understanding that awareness is subjective.

To cease asking questions with our minds simply because to ask a question always presents an answer and it is both the question and the answer that are subjective. to focus your mind on a question/answer is to blind yourself to what you are always aware of.

To sit still and stop asking questions means to avoid answers and thus a passive awareness only exists [ only in the NOW]. Immediately when we are called upon to describe our awareness we apply our question and answer processes thus loosing the truth of that awareness as we direct our attention to our discursivity instead of our passive awareness.

And the passage of time exists in our thoughts. To suspend questioning is to loose the sense of time passing as you flow with time instead of using time.

I would go on to venture the following:

Truth is always available to us, whether we understand it or not. Truth is not dependent on our understanding. We are already aware of it and that is all there is to it. We may not understand it but this in no way dimminishes our passive awareness of it.

 

Logic is the representation of intuition. Hence intuition is faster than logic, but not more or less correct.