Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logic v Sense

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 12:54:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Would the bent stick in water be a good example? In that kind of case, you'd assume your senses are wrong (your sight specifcally, since you could just stick your hand into the water and feel otherwise).

I think in most disagreements between the senses and logic, your senses are wrong. You need them both though...logic isn't much help independent of sensory information.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 2:28:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hm. By "exist", if you mean independent of someone observing...I don't think so, since rainbows move about depending on one's location. Eh...but the effects of light that create rainbows are there, or else we wouldn't be able to see rainbows.

As far as the senses are concerned, rainbows exist. Logically? I guess it might make sense if you don't mind that the appearance and location of a rainbow is dependent on the observer.
Please correct me if I'm understanding rainbows wrong.

Also - sorry for the late reply
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 3:07:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 2:28:20 AM, difference wrote:
Hm. By "exist", if you mean independent of someone observing...I don't think so, since rainbows move about depending on one's location. Eh...but the effects of light that create rainbows are there, or else we wouldn't be able to see rainbows.

As far as the senses are concerned, rainbows exist. Logically? I guess it might make sense if you don't mind that the appearance and location of a rainbow is dependent on the observer.
Please correct me if I'm understanding rainbows wrong.

Also - sorry for the late reply

Since rainbows are refractions of light, they exist independantly of any observer. The impression they give us is of course dependant on ones point of view.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 3:56:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So rainbows exist but the are not real as they are just an illusion created by sunlight being refracted by raindrops? Am I understanding this correctly. Their existance also depends on ones perspective? A person's abilty to understand how rainbows are created has no correlation with believing they exist as our senses tell us they do. So do rainbows exist for blind people?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:18:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What about a mirage? Same principle. You walking in the desert. Heat close to the earths surface bends light creating the illusion of a lake. Does the lake exist? Is it real? Personally I wouldn't put on my bathing suit. So what's the difference?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 9:39:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

False dilemma.
It may be partly some of each, or it may be that you are just not capable of a rational thought.
You may think you know, what you do not, we call this ignorance.
Also
Food poisoning.
Magic mushrooms.
Lots or possible reasons.
difference
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 10:17:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:18:00 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What about a mirage? Same principle. You walking in the desert. Heat close to the earths surface bends light creating the illusion of a lake. Does the lake exist? Is it real? Personally I wouldn't put on my bathing suit. So what's the difference?

The mirage exists, but the lake doesn't.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
How would one decide which is a fault?

At 4/26/2015 9:39:37 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

False dilemma.
It may be partly some of each, or it may be that you are just not capable of a rational thought.
You may think you know, what you do not, we call this ignorance.
Also
Food poisoning.
Magic mushrooms.
Lots or possible reasons.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:38:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

Faulty senses. Senses are tricked easily and almost every day. Logic is rarely tricked, although you need to know how to use it properly.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:43:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 4:18:00 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What about a mirage? Same principle. You walking in the desert. Heat close to the earths surface bends light creating the illusion of a lake. Does the lake exist? Is it real? Personally I wouldn't put on my bathing suit. So what's the difference?

On that sense, it would actualy be faulty logic. Your senses are not tricking you, they are showing you a particular light effect, it is you, with your faulty logic, who assumes that is a real lake and not a fake one. Do you get my point?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 6:15:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:05:06 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
How would one decide which is a fault?


At 4/26/2015 9:39:37 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

False dilemma.
It may be partly some of each, or it may be that you are just not capable of a rational thought.
You may think you know, what you do not, we call this ignorance.
Also
Food poisoning.
Magic mushrooms.
Lots or possible reasons.

With the mind.
Logic, in every form I know, is dependent on the senses.
So If logic tells you something ain't so, this is based on what the senses have told the mind.
If you question your logic, it may just be your senses, giving your logic bad info.
This is simply not a this-or-that choice, like I said, false dilemma.

Here is something to think about.
I've taken some logic classes, had some tests on the material, about the subject - you know, logic.
Now get this, no one in my classes got 100% on every test.
None of us, had flawless logic.
Now, maybe you think we just needed more classes. Get a PhD in logic, and we would never make a mistake in the use of logic. I kind of doubt it, but moot point. I don't have the time or inclination.
So, not much chance your audience has flawless logic, I sure see errors from the posters on a regular basis.
The senses, well, probably the same story.

So, in the end, we depend on the well trained mind to do the right thing.
It will know its limitations in logic, and know the body's limitation in the use of senses.

Here is what I know.
Any observation (not just eyes, any of the senses) by an individual, is hearsay, fallacious.
Any logic based on a fallacy, is itself, suspect.

So my eyes see a mirage, and I never saw one before, do not know what they look like. Once you have seen a few, pretty easy to spot, unless you have had no water for three days, gets a little harder at those times.
Why does logic tell me it is not real?
Do I know my exact location on the globe, and know I am too far from anything for there to be something? Well, no brainer there. Trust logic.
But what if I have no idea where I am. Why would logic dictate it is a mirage?
No reason for logic to dictate that. It is back to senses.

In 1968 you could take a pretty nice trip with some pretty potent stuff.
Been there, done that. My mind was so busy I could not talk. Speechless.
When did the last dose drop - an hour, a week, a month, not sure.
There was never a time when my senses convinced my mind something that was not there, was there.
Some confusion until it was sorted out, like getting lost in a new city and having to find your way out. So you do.

Some things we intuit. Most people don't work at it, so they are not so good, but it will still happen.
So some things I can't reach by my senses, logic can't get there, but I can intuit, so I do.

We use out minds to know reality, some are adept, some are not.
None of us can use one with reliability, it has to be a combination, including intuition at times.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 1:56:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
lol logic tells me the lake is not there but my eyes tell me it is. In this case?

At 4/26/2015 5:43:44 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/26/2015 4:18:00 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
What about a mirage? Same principle. You walking in the desert. Heat close to the earths surface bends light creating the illusion of a lake. Does the lake exist? Is it real? Personally I wouldn't put on my bathing suit. So what's the difference?

On that sense, it would actualy be faulty logic. Your senses are not tricking you, they are showing you a particular light effect, it is you, with your faulty logic, who assumes that is a real lake and not a fake one. Do you get my point?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 2:08:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
intuit = best guess?

At 4/26/2015 6:15:15 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:05:06 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
How would one decide which is a fault?


At 4/26/2015 9:39:37 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

False dilemma.
It may be partly some of each, or it may be that you are just not capable of a rational thought.
You may think you know, what you do not, we call this ignorance.
Also
Food poisoning.
Magic mushrooms.
Lots or possible reasons.

With the mind.
Logic, in every form I know, is dependent on the senses.
So If logic tells you something ain't so, this is based on what the senses have told the mind.
If you question your logic, it may just be your senses, giving your logic bad info.
This is simply not a this-or-that choice, like I said, false dilemma.

Here is something to think about.
I've taken some logic classes, had some tests on the material, about the subject - you know, logic.
Now get this, no one in my classes got 100% on every test.
None of us, had flawless logic.
Now, maybe you think we just needed more classes. Get a PhD in logic, and we would never make a mistake in the use of logic. I kind of doubt it, but moot point. I don't have the time or inclination.
So, not much chance your audience has flawless logic, I sure see errors from the posters on a regular basis.
The senses, well, probably the same story.

So, in the end, we depend on the well trained mind to do the right thing.
It will know its limitations in logic, and know the body's limitation in the use of senses.

Here is what I know.
Any observation (not just eyes, any of the senses) by an individual, is hearsay, fallacious.
Any logic based on a fallacy, is itself, suspect.

So my eyes see a mirage, and I never saw one before, do not know what they look like. Once you have seen a few, pretty easy to spot, unless you have had no water for three days, gets a little harder at those times.
Why does logic tell me it is not real?
Do I know my exact location on the globe, and know I am too far from anything for there to be something? Well, no brainer there. Trust logic.
But what if I have no idea where I am. Why would logic dictate it is a mirage?
No reason for logic to dictate that. It is back to senses.

In 1968 you could take a pretty nice trip with some pretty potent stuff.
Been there, done that. My mind was so busy I could not talk. Speechless.
When did the last dose drop - an hour, a week, a month, not sure.
There was never a time when my senses convinced my mind something that was not there, was there.
Some confusion until it was sorted out, like getting lost in a new city and having to find your way out. So you do.

Some things we intuit. Most people don't work at it, so they are not so good, but it will still happen.
So some things I can't reach by my senses, logic can't get there, but I can intuit, so I do.

We use out minds to know reality, some are adept, some are not.
None of us can use one with reliability, it has to be a combination, including intuition at times.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 1:56:54 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol logic tells me the lake is not there but my eyes tell me it is. In this case?

Your eyes do not tell you there's a lake there, your eyes are telling you there is a mirage there (you are seeing a mirage, not a lake). It is faulty logic which drives you to assume that's a real lake and not a mirage.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:09:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
point taken. So is a rainbow the mirage or the lake?

At 4/27/2015 3:38:07 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/27/2015 1:56:54 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol logic tells me the lake is not there but my eyes tell me it is. In this case?

Your eyes do not tell you there's a lake there, your eyes are telling you there is a mirage there (you are seeing a mirage, not a lake). It is faulty logic which drives you to assume that's a real lake and not a mirage.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:30:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
My contention is the process which allows us to view a rainbow has no name and this is where the problem lies. Lets call it OLP. Occular illusion perception. Now olping would be the equivalent of a mirage. Ie the verb. And rainbow would be the lake. Ie noun. Therefore olping is real but the rainbow is not. Olping would still occur even if nobody was around to see it, but there would be no rainbow. Sound logical?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:46:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 4:30:25 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
My contention is the process which allows us to view a rainbow has no name and this is where the problem lies. Lets call it OLP. Occular illusion perception. Now olping would be the equivalent of a mirage. Ie the verb. And rainbow would be the lake. Ie noun. Therefore olping is real but the rainbow is not. Olping would still occur even if nobody was around to see it, but there would be no rainbow. Sound logical?

I think it sounds logical, yes. But take into account that any sight is an illusion, because in the end objects do not really have a color, brightness, etc. So any sight is partialy an illusion.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:58:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have considered that. An orange only looks orange because the skin absorbs all other colours. But the orange exists. It has physical properties. Therefore it is real.
Arguably all senses are perception and therefore everything is possibly illusory but logic dictates that if it looks like an orange, feels like an orange, smells like an orange and tastes like an orange, its probably an orange.

At 4/27/2015 4:46:05 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/27/2015 4:30:25 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
My contention is the process which allows us to view a rainbow has no name and this is where the problem lies. Lets call it OLP. Occular illusion perception. Now olping would be the equivalent of a mirage. Ie the verb. And rainbow would be the lake. Ie noun. Therefore olping is real but the rainbow is not. Olping would still occur even if nobody was around to see it, but there would be no rainbow. Sound logical?

I think it sounds logical, yes. But take into account that any sight is an illusion, because in the end objects do not really have a color, brightness, etc. So any sight is partialy an illusion.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 5:06:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 4:58:17 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
I have considered that. An orange only looks orange because the skin absorbs all other colours. But the orange exists. It has physical properties. Therefore it is real.
Arguably all senses are perception and therefore everything is possibly illusory but logic dictates that if it looks like an orange, feels like an orange, smells like an orange and tastes like an orange, its probably an orange.

Indeed, it is probably an orange, but you have deduced this from "looks, feeling, smell and taste" which are all illusions. In the same way, you can conclude there's water in a particular place is you see a rainbow, despite the rainbow being an illusion.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 5:24:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, you did not intuit that response, you just guessed it. I can tell, without intuition.

There are two world views concerning Truth and Understanding, and each has their own method for the realization they seek.
They are the Knowledge of the Books (religion), and the Scientific/Empirical Method (scientific or atheistic).
Religions rely on sacred books, given by god and interpreted by the appropriate leaders. Followers of the OT, NT and Koran are the best examples. For them, the sacred texts are the first and foremost source of T/U. Any other T/U is secondary, and must support the sacred texts. If there is a difference, the secondary is not correct. If the texts and science differ, science is wrong because god, as revealed through the texts, has said so. It is the goal of religions to use T/U to fully live the way god wants them, personally, to live.

The Scientific/Empirical method (SEM) relies on a methodical process, based on observation of the natural world, with recognized rules and standards. Their T/U is flexible, changing as knowledge and awareness increases. Allowances are made that some T/U may change, with sufficient counter evidence. T/U can be based on theoretical knowledge, but will generally will be observable or testable in some manner. It is the goal of SEM to have full T/U of the material/natural world, and the forces that govern it.
In some cases the intuitive process succeeds where science and religion both fail.
In some cases, science or religion may do it better.

The intuitive process is not capable of replacing either science or religion, it does not compete against either one, it supplements both.

Intuition, like science and religion, can be wrong and is not guaranteed to be 100% provable.
~ ~ ~

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it Intuition or what you will, the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why".
- Albert Einstein
~ ~
Steve Jobs reflects in Walter Isaacson's much-discussed biography of him, one of the 11 best biographies and memoirs of 2011:
The people in the Indian countryside don't use their intellect like we do, they use their intuition instead, and the intuition is far more developed than in the rest of the world... Intuition is a very powerful thing, more powerful than intellect, in my opinion. That's had a big impact on my work.
Western rational thought is not an innate human characteristic, it is learned and it is the great achievement of Western civilization. In the villages of India, they never learned it. They learned something else, which is in some ways just as valuable but in other ways is not. That's the power of intuition and experiential wisdom."

~ ~
Science does not have a theory that explains or predicts the characteristics of intuition, and yet, many great scientific discoveries relied heavily on intuitive insights. The connections between intellect and intuition are one of the great mysteries of our universe.
Isaac Newton supposedly watched an apple fall from a tree and suddenly connected its motion as being caused by the same universal gravitational force that governs the moon's attraction to the earth. John Maynard Keynes, the famous economist, said "Newton owed his success to his muscles of intuition. Newton's powers of intuition were the strongest and most enduring with which a man has ever been gifted."
http://www.p-i-a.com......
~ ~

In recent years neuroscience has made great strides in explaining how flashes of insight work. We find reference to flashes of insight as well in a variety of older fields that seek to explain how good ideas for action happen. They appear in Asian philosophy, classical military strategy, business strategy, the history of science, and the newer field of cognitive psychology. By pulling together these various sources, we are able to arrive at a modern discipline that puts flashes of insight at the center of a philosophy of action across all fields of human endeavor.

I call this new discipline strategic intuition. It is very different from ordinary intuition, like vague hunches or gut instinct. Ordinary intuition is a form of emotion: feeling, not thinking. Strategic intuition is the opposite: it"s thinking, not feeling. A flash of insight cuts through the fog of your mind with a clear, shining thought. You might feel elated right after, but the thought itself is sharp in your mind. That"s why it excites you: at last you see clearly what to do.
http://columbiapress.typepad.com......

~~~~

Although intuitions may often lead to suboptimal decisions, it is still possible that intuitions are sometimes as good or better than judgments derived from deliberation. This quality of intuitions is not necessarily a default circumstance due to deliberative strategies falling short when overused (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Schooler, Ohlson, & Brooks, 1993; Wilson & Brekke, 1994), but rather may be the result of the structural properties of intuition once it is considered in its proper information processing context.
http://www.scn.ucla.edu...

~ ~
http://www.str.org...
There"s a third way of knowing, though, that needs no such justification: intuition. In fact, this way of knowing is so foundational that justification is impossible. That"s because knowledge by intuition is not gained by following a series of facts or a line of reasoning to a conclusion. Instead, we know intuitional truth simply by the process of introspection and immediate awareness.
When I use the word "intuition," I mean something specific. I don"t mean female intuition, or a policeman"s hunch, or an experienced stockbroker"s sense that the market is headed for a plunge. Each of these is a type of a specialized insight into a circumstance based on prior experience.
The kind of intuition I have in mind is immediate and direct, what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as "immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where "immediate" means "not preceded by inference.""
~ ~

Intuition in mathematical proofs is inseparably connected with the originality of
mathematical thinking, with creativity while proving. Modern usage of the term
"intuition" originates from Descartes. Russian mathematician Steklov (1923) stated
that "the method of discovery and invention is the same for all, one and the same
intuition , because nobody discovers anything with the help of logic; a syllogism may
lead other people to the agreement with that or other proof known before, but as a
tool of invention it is useless" But the heart of the matter is that even in simple cases
it is impossible to logically explain all the stages of proof. In invention of practically
every step of proof it is intuition that matters and not logic; intuition is higher than
any logic". Independent proofs, thus, can be divided into proofs where intuition is
present (the so-called intuitive proofs), and the proofs which will be called logical
proofs, i.e. proofs made only with the help of logic, in other words proofs where one
uses the method known to a pupil and leading to a purpose though not demanding to
put forward new ideas, while the proofs with the use of intuition are necessarily
connected with the presence of originality in the ideas proposed by a pupil.
http://www.lettredelapreuve.it...
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 5:49:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How exactly does entuition differ from a correct guess?

I may lack the ability to explain how I reached a certain conclusion logically. For axample in math I arrived at the correct answer but found it difficult to explain how I worked it out. That doesn't mean I guessed as I got the answer correct every time.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:28:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

It would generally be seen as valid logic based on a faulty premise. Logic can only be built from premises, so this contradiction would generally be seen as a sign that our premises are in dire need of editing.

Of course, evaluation can also lead to our senses being deemed faulty, in cases such as viewing an optical illusion. Understanding of our senses and the object viewed is needed to validate our senses. If this requirement is fulfilled, then our premise needs to be revised.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So iether thiests or athiests operate under a faulty premise. But surely logic would eventually disprove the faulty premise. Why, dispite the abundant proof does one side not accept the others view?

I summise the only logical explanation is a tangible sense which defies logic. Please note, I am not saying the sense is right. It may be misinterpreted like an illusion. But the existance of such a sense is not impossible. In fact its probable.

At 4/27/2015 6:28:09 AM, Nac wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

It would generally be seen as valid logic based on a faulty premise. Logic can only be built from premises, so this contradiction would generally be seen as a sign that our premises are in dire need of editing.

Of course, evaluation can also lead to our senses being deemed faulty, in cases such as viewing an optical illusion. Understanding of our senses and the object viewed is needed to validate our senses. If this requirement is fulfilled, then our premise needs to be revised.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 7:01:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, if you read my post, and ask a question like that, I do not know where to start.
Do you understand that Scientists, Philosophers, Mathematicians, have recognized structured intuition as a problem solving system for over 100 years, much longer than that in the history of mankind, but the Western Rational process was late getting on board?
What I present may be new to you, but not New.
Do you believe they are valid in their claims, or are they all mistaken?

Your beliefs concerning these things will guide me in what is needed to open the door for you.

Henri Bergson was an early Philosopher who explored intuitionism in the science and mathematics realm.
Here are some lifted quotes about Bergson's philosophy:

Duration, as defined by Bergson, then is a unity and a multiplicity, but, being mobile, it cannot be grasped through immobile concepts. Bergson hence argues that one can grasp it only through his method of intuition. Two images from Henri Bergson"s An Introduction to Metaphysics may help one to grasp Bergson's term intuition, the limits of concepts, and the ability of intuition to grasp the absolute. The first image is that of a city. Analysis, or the creation of concepts through the divisions of points of view, can only ever give us a model of the city through a construction of photographs taken from every possible point of view, yet it can never give us the dimensional value of walking in the city itself. One can only grasp this through intuition; likewise the experience of reading a line of Homer. One may translate the line and pile commentary upon commentary, but this commentary too shall never grasp the simple dimensional value of experiencing the poem in its originality itself. The method of intuition, then, is that of getting back to the things themselves.

It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The elan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centered in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood.

At 4/27/2015 5:49:22 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
How exactly does entuition differ from a correct guess?

I may lack the ability to explain how I reached a certain conclusion logically. For axample in math I arrived at the correct answer but found it difficult to explain how I worked it out. That doesn't mean I guessed as I got the answer correct every time.
Nac
Posts: 326
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 9:38:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 6:51:31 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
So iether thiests or athiests operate under a faulty premise.
If they both make a strong claim, then the law of noncontradiction necessitates this to be reality. Avoidance would violate logic.
But surely logic would eventually disprove the faulty premise. Why, dispite the abundant proof does one side not accept the others view?
It is generally do to conviction in said premise, a predisposition to revise their claim before discarding it. These people will attempt to find any possible rebuttal. They may even continue after they exhaust all possible answers, concluding that it is not attainable through reason, or some explanation akin to this.

I summise the only logical explanation is a tangible sense which defies logic.
I disagree. Other explanations could be used.
Please note, I am not saying the sense is right. It may be misinterpreted like an illusion. But the existance of such a sense is not impossible. In fact its probable.
Could you please support this claim?

At 4/27/2015 6:28:09 AM, Nac wrote:
At 4/26/2015 12:35:11 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
If your senses tell you something is true but logic dictates its not true should we assume faulty senses or faulty logic?

It would generally be seen as valid logic based on a faulty premise. Logic can only be built from premises, so this contradiction would generally be seen as a sign that our premises are in dire need of editing.

Of course, evaluation can also lead to our senses being deemed faulty, in cases such as viewing an optical illusion. Understanding of our senses and the object viewed is needed to validate our senses. If this requirement is fulfilled, then our premise needs to be revised.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 9:59:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
entuition is basically the ability to grasp a concept?

I believe some claims are mistaken as history has shown us again and again. Even a person himself can change his view as more facts expose themself.

At 4/27/2015 7:01:44 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Well, if you read my post, and ask a question like that, I do not know where to start.
Do you understand that Scientists, Philosophers, Mathematicians, have recognized structured intuition as a problem solving system for over 100 years, much longer than that in the history of mankind, but the Western Rational process was late getting on board?
What I present may be new to you, but not New.
Do you believe they are valid in their claims, or are they all mistaken?

Your beliefs concerning these things will guide me in what is needed to open the door for you.

Henri Bergson was an early Philosopher who explored intuitionism in the science and mathematics realm.
Here are some lifted quotes about Bergson's philosophy:

Duration, as defined by Bergson, then is a unity and a multiplicity, but, being mobile, it cannot be grasped through immobile concepts. Bergson hence argues that one can grasp it only through his method of intuition. Two images from Henri Bergson"s An Introduction to Metaphysics may help one to grasp Bergson's term intuition, the limits of concepts, and the ability of intuition to grasp the absolute. The first image is that of a city. Analysis, or the creation of concepts through the divisions of points of view, can only ever give us a model of the city through a construction of photographs taken from every possible point of view, yet it can never give us the dimensional value of walking in the city itself. One can only grasp this through intuition; likewise the experience of reading a line of Homer. One may translate the line and pile commentary upon commentary, but this commentary too shall never grasp the simple dimensional value of experiencing the poem in its originality itself. The method of intuition, then, is that of getting back to the things themselves.

It is impossible to know Reality through logic and science. It is known only in intuition which is a direct vision and experience transcending intellectual processes and scientific observations and reasonings. The elan vital is a creative spirit which defies the attempts of the mathematical manner of approaches to it, and demands a deeper sympathy and feeling which will enter into its very essence. In intuition we comprehend the truth of things as a whole, as a complete process of the dynamic life of the spiritual consciousness. Instinct is nearer to intuition than is intellect. Intuition is instinct evolved, ennobled and become disinterested and self-conscious. Instinct, when not directed to action, but centered in knowledge, becomes intuition. Intuition has nothing of the mechanistic and static operations of the logical and the scientific intellect. Intellect is the action of consciousness on dead matter, and so it cannot enter the spirit of life. Any true philosophy should, therefore, energise and transform the conclusion of the intellect with the immediate apprehensions of intuition. Reality has to be lived, not merely understood.

At 4/27/2015 5:49:22 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
How exactly does entuition differ from a correct guess?

I may lack the ability to explain how I reached a certain conclusion logically. For axample in math I arrived at the correct answer but found it difficult to explain how I worked it out. That doesn't mean I guessed as I got the answer correct every time.