Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22

# Arguments for & against Intuition

 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AMPosted: 3 years agoHey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 6,961 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :(Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real. http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:47:29 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.Well I believe all justifications run into munchhausen's trilemma. I have yet seen a successful justification for anything that hasn't eventually led to foundationalism. Justification by any other means will lead to either Coherentism or Infinitism, which I think no one here seriously adheres to.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :(Maybe this debate will clear up some things for you http://www.debate.org...And you can read up on Pyrrhonism here http://en.wikipedia.org...****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 6,961 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 8:51:28 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:47:29 AM, CorieMike wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.Well I believe all justifications run into munchhausen's trilemma. I have yet seen a successful justification for anything that hasn't eventually led to foundationalism. Justification by any other means will lead to either Coherentism or Infinitism, which I think no one here seriously adheres to.Technically unrefuted deductivity is *supposed* to escape the Munchhausen trilemma, but entropy and the level of attributes being contingent prevent that. Technically if the universe was in a zero-entropy state deductive arguments would by definition escape the Munchhausen trilemma. But if you mean in a subjective sense, then some arguments for atheism may escape it and move onto impossibility rather than probability.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :(Maybe this debate will clear up some things for you http://www.debate.org...And you can read up on Pyrrhonism here http://en.wikipedia.org...So what's wrong with intuitions? I don't understand where the Munchhausen trilemma has anything to do with specifically intuition ....Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real. http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 9:06:57 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:51:28 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:47:29 AM, CorieMike wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.Well I believe all justifications run into munchhausen's trilemma. I have yet seen a successful justification for anything that hasn't eventually led to foundationalism. Justification by any other means will lead to either Coherentism or Infinitism, which I think no one here seriously adheres to.Technically unrefuted deductivity is *supposed* to escape the Munchhausen trilemma, but entropy and the level of attributes being contingent prevent that. Technically if the universe was in a zero-entropy state deductive arguments would by definition escape the Munchhausen trilemma. But if you mean in a subjective sense, then some arguments for atheism may escape it and move onto impossibility rather than probability.How so? Please elaborate. Even logic (an intuitive axiom) runs into this Trilemma (justification is impossible). Modus ponens, for example, can't be validated by modus ponens. That would entail the problem of bridging principles.Intuition is at the core of any argument that thinks justification is possible without using circular reasoning or ending up with the regress problem.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :(Maybe this debate will clear up some things for you http://www.debate.org...And you can read up on Pyrrhonism here http://en.wikipedia.org...So what's wrong with intuitions? I don't understand where the Munchhausen trilemma has anything to do with specifically intuition ....Alot of things are wrong with intuitions. They are merely axiomatic assumptions.Read this https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com.... It will help you understand how intuition face this trilemma.Did you even view the links I attached? You would understand much better if you did.****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 6,961 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 9:08:30 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 9:06:57 AM, CorieMike wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:51:28 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:47:29 AM, CorieMike wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:38:21 AM, tejretics wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.Intuition ain't the only thing to justify atheism or theism.Well I believe all justifications run into munchhausen's trilemma. I have yet seen a successful justification for anything that hasn't eventually led to foundationalism. Justification by any other means will lead to either Coherentism or Infinitism, which I think no one here seriously adheres to.Technically unrefuted deductivity is *supposed* to escape the Munchhausen trilemma, but entropy and the level of attributes being contingent prevent that. Technically if the universe was in a zero-entropy state deductive arguments would by definition escape the Munchhausen trilemma. But if you mean in a subjective sense, then some arguments for atheism may escape it and move onto impossibility rather than probability.How so? Please elaborate. Even logic (an intuitive axiom) runs into this Trilemma (justification is impossible). Modus ponens, for example, can't be validated by modus ponens. That would entail the problem of bridging principles.Yeah ........... but under zero-entropy, everything would be certain. Only *our* hypotheses would probably run into the trilemma and not all.Intuition is at the core of any argument that thinks justification is possible without using circular reasoning or ending up with the regress problem.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?I didn't understand anything ..... :P :(Maybe this debate will clear up some things for you http://www.debate.org...And you can read up on Pyrrhonism here http://en.wikipedia.org...So what's wrong with intuitions? I don't understand where the Munchhausen trilemma has anything to do with specifically intuition ....Alot of things are wrong with intuitions. They are merely axiomatic assumptions.Read this https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com.... It will help you understand how intuition face this trilemma.Did you even view the links I attached? You would understand much better if you did.Just because you're magic doesn't mean you aren't real. http://gotejas.com...
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:53:48 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.CM, thank you very much for this topic, and for the invitation to contribute to it. I think it's very interesting.I think I'd like to start in a place other than philosophical logic though, and sketch an idea that might help. It may look a bit Coherentist at first, but it might not too.It seems to me that knowledge -- which I'll describe in practical terms as a body of ideas held to be reliable -- is only useful in the extent to which it informs and contextualises reliable decisions. So propositions have a prospective value which is our anticipated use for them, and a realised value, which is our evaluation of how much we've used them, and how well they've worked.So we can say that our realised value is based on experience and critical thought, while our prospective value is based on experience and imagination (which I think is the same thing you've called intuition, CM, but here I've broken it down a bit.)One of the issues I see between theists and atheists is that theists adhere to metaphysical propositions which they feel have high prospective value; while atheists tend to reject propositions with low realised value. An area of hot contention between theists and atheists is often the field of emerging sciences, in which some theists argue that the prospective value of theism will surely be realised in new scientific discoveries -- in fact some insist that science cannot progress further without theism -- while atheists point out that the realised value of theological predictions has historically been low and remained static, while the realised value of scientific predictions has been high and incrementally improving, and that science has no use for theology at all.You made the epistemological validity of logic central to the question, CM, and I'd like to touch that briefly too.As far back as Aristotle, philosophical logicians have portrayed logic as a means of demonstrating truth, but I don't think it is. I think it's a means for assuring coherence, and making epistemology accountable.By that I mean, logic seeks to demonstrate to anyone (oneself or others) how propositions connect with predictions, decisions and outcomes, and when predictions are in error, logic helps us identify what went wrong. Logic is central to the scientific method, for example. Without it we couldn't evaluate a single experiment.That doesn't make logic a reliable realiser of prospective value -- because our experiences may be inadequate, or our assumptions may be wrong, or incoherent. Moreover, science in particular and human thought in general, depend as much on experience and imagination as on logic. But the accountability of logic helps one pick apart failures, and helps experience validate and verify imagination. So, when built on sound experience, it's a strong bridge between anticipation and reflection.But logic only works to make people accountable to one another if they share experience, have a similar approach to critical thought, and seek to build an accountable bridge between anticipation and reflection in the first place. We can see in the Religion forum members who have no interest in critical thought, or who prefer to speak of prospective value as though it has already been realised or is imminently being realised, and I have yet to see a conversation with them in which logic means 'accountability to others'.So as I said, this sketch may sound a bit coherentist, and I'm aware of Russell's objection to coherentism: that anything is coheres with unsound assumptions. However, the notion of trying to make anticipation and realisation coherent grounds logic in objectivity -- if one experiences a coherent world, and finds value in accountability and experiential validation.Not everyone does, but those who do can easily agree on it, and I suspect that they're the ones who find most use in logic and critical thought.I hope that may be of interest and use.
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:54:09 PMPosted: 3 years agoHere are some copy and paste information from my files.I came to intuition from Zen, long before I knew the name. The classic Zen texts do not use any 'intuition' type terms, but that is exactly what Koans and such are about.From that point I began search for references to the Sciences and Mathematics intuition.Eventually I did find material relating Scientific intuition with Eastern philosophy intuition, tying it together in my mind at least.I found out a long time ago that most people have no knowledge about the intuitive process as a path to knowledge, and more importantly, understanding.First some quotes from Steve Jobs, and A. Einstein.~"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.acmsonline.org...PROOF AND INTUITIONMichael DetlefsenDepartment of PhilosophyUniversity of Notre DameI. Two Types of Epistemic SystemsI would like to begin by describing two basic types of epistemic structures, one ofwhich will be called "Intuition Intensive," the other "Logic Intensive." For the sake ofconcreteness, systems of both types may be thought of as at least partially ordered sets ofbeliefs; the ordering of the elements in a given system roughly reflecting a divisionbetween two kinds of elements: source elements, and derived elements. The sourceelements are the basic beliefs or "raw materials" of the system; that is to say, thoseepistemic holdings from which all the other holdings of the system are generated. Thederived elements, therefore, are those beliefs which stem from other beliefs in the systemand which ultimately are traceable back to the source elements.There is, of course, nothing very new or interesting in this basic picture whichdescribes what Intuition Intensive and Logic Intensive systems have in common. Moreinteresting are their differences. These differences, obviously enough, reside in thedifferent characters and positions of dominance assignable to the source and derivedelements. Modem philosophy has given a great deal of attention to questions concerningthe possible character of source knowledge; for example, whether it is given by thesenses or by pure reason. We, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with questionsregarding the character and role of derived knowledge, and shall have relatively little tosay about source knowledge. It is in this general context of concern with derivedknowledge that the distinction between what we are calling "Intuition Intensive" and"Logic Intensive" epistemic systems arises.For our purposes, it is best to begin with a characterization of Logic Intensivesystems and thence to define Intuition Intensive systems by way of contrast with them.Logic Intensive systems are so-called because of the heavy use they make of perceivedconnections of content among the propositions which form the content of the variousbeliefs making up a system. In a Logic Intensive system, knowledge of one proposition pmay be extended to knowledge of another by establishing that the content of the formerknowledge logically implies that of the latter. This extension of knowledge involves atransfer of warrants; that is to say, an extension to q of the selfsame warrant attaching top. What is taken to justify this transfer of warrants is the knowledge that the contentoriginally warranted subsumes the content to which it is transferred. The generalprinciple, then, seems to be this: if w is a warrant for belief in p, then w is also a warrantfor any proposition known to be subsumed by p. Purely contentive or logical analysis isthus granted the power necessary for producing an indefinitely large extension of theknowledge deposited by any given source. For us, this is the key feature of LogicIntensive systems.Intuition Intensive systems, on the other hand, are marked by a general refusal to admit extension of knowledge based merely on considerations of subsumption of content.~ ~
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:54:15 PMPosted: 3 years agoMaking Critical Thinking Intuitive: Using Drama, Examples, and ImagesTeaching For Intuitive UnderstandingThe meaning of "intuitive" we are using in this chapter makes no reference to a mysterious power of the mind, but rather to the phenomenon of "quick and ready insight" (Webster"s New Collegiate Dictionary). This sense of the word is connected to the everyday fact that we can learn concepts at various levels of depth. When, for example, we memorize an abstract definition of a word and do not learn how to apply it effectively in a wide variety of situations, we end up without an intuitive foundation for our understanding. We lack the insight, in other words, into how, when, and why it applies. Children may know that the word "democracy" means "a government in which the people rule", but may not be able to tell whether they are behaving "democratically" on the playground. They may know what the word "cruel" means, but they may not recognize that they are being cruel in mocking a handicapped student.Helping students to develop critical thinking intuitions is, then, helping them gain the practical insights necessary for a quick and ready application of concepts to cases in a large array of circumstances.We want critical thinking principles to be "intuitive" to our students in the sense that we want those principles ready and available in their minds for immediate translation into their everyday thought and experience. We base this goal on the assumption that concepts and ideas are truly understood only when we can effectively and insightfully use them in a wide range of circumstances, only when we have mastered their use to the point of spontaneous application.https://www.criticalthinking.org...~~Bergson, the philosopher of intuitionism and of creative evolution, conceives Reality as a vital impetus, an elan vital, whose essence is evolution and development. The elan vital is a growing and flowing process, not a static existence which admits of no change whatsoever. Logic and science, intellect and mechanism cannot fathom the depths of the vital impetus which is the basis of all life. There is change and evolution everywhere, nothing merely is. All existence is a flux of becoming, moving and growing, a succession of states which never rest where they are. The intellect works mechanistically and constructs rigid rules and systems which cannot accommodate the rolling evolution of Reality. There can be no enduring substance in the river of life. Everything is changing, goes beyond itself. We can never get immutable things anywhere in the universe. Even consciousness is not unchangeable. It is a living, moving, growing and evolving process. Consciousness is the essence of the elan vital which is the great Reality. 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 centred 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.http://www.swami-krishnananda.org...
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 2:43:40 PMPosted: 3 years agoReal intuition (as opposed to "women"s intuition") springs up from a bedrock of inquiry and thought.Some problems are well beyond logic, or even reasoning.The mind puts itself to the task of problem solving, and despite great efforts, comes up empty.Reasoned solutions, just do not present themselves.Intuition leaps over logic and reason, to an "immediate" solution. I say immediate, but that is after weeks or months in consideration of a solution to a problem.It is a non-rational process, but not an irrational process.In most cases once an intuitive solution has presented itself, it can be verified by rational and more traditional process. This is how mathematicians, Einstein, and jobs used it.It is sometime thought that "intuition" is merely a "snap judgment" that happens to be true, but this is not what proponents mean by an intuitive process.
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 9:45:04 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?Our intuitions are at least in part formed by our everyday experiences and we apply these formed intuitions to non everyday experiences and just assume it all works the same, when this may not be the case and thus get a false result.Where our own intuitions take us have being shown later on to be false."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 1,695 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/16/2015 5:47:50 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 9:45:04 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 5/15/2015 8:22:34 AM, CorieMike wrote:Hey guys! I think all Foundationalists need to address this eventually. Intuition/Axioms seems to be the only source of justification for claims about justification, reason, evidence and other epistemic concepts provided one believes declarative knowledge is possible. It's like a get out of jail free card for anyone who tries to justify atheism or theism.What arguments are there for intuition which escape Munchhausen's Trilemma, and address the arguments on this page http://plato.stanford.edu... ?Examples of general intuitons:[R1} Law Of Non Contradiction.[R2] 2 + 2 = 4[R3] If A is taller than B and B is taller than C, then A is taller than C.[R4] There are no round squares.[R5] (P and Q) implies Q.Two defences I know of are:1. Inductive reasoning (providing an inductive argument, based on non-intuitive evidence, that the contents of intuitions are reliable). Basically an argument against the second premise of the Argument from Lack of Independent Calibration. Though this falls into Hume's Problem of Induction.2. Epistemic Circularity (It is self supporting)Also, are there any refutations against Pyrrhonism (NOT to be confused with academic skepticism which is self refuting), it seems to be the most philosophical consistent position that isn't self refuting?Our intuitions are at least in part formed by our everyday experiences and we apply these formed intuitions to non everyday experiences and just assume it all works the same, when this may not be the case and thus get a false result.Where our own intuitions take us have being shown later on to be false.And the same with logic, reasoning, and the Scientific Method, as explained here:http://www.debate.org...Wait, I know, eventually we get it right - you just have to wait.Guaranteed to be 100% correct, if not the first time, then the second, or third, or fourth, all you have to do is wait.
 Posts: 6,033 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/18/2015 4:43:34 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 2:43:40 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:Real intuition (as opposed to "women"s intuition") springs up from a bedrock of inquiry and thought.I'm enjoying your posts on this topic, WW. I don't necessarily agree with every item of every point, but am enjoying your perspective.
 Posts: 4,509 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 6:21:52 PMPosted: 3 years agoI think that this is one of the great, enduring philosophical questions for which the correct response is "Who cares?"If we all conclude that there is no basis other the finite induction for claiming A = A, then would be stop relying upon it? As a practical matter it is at worst in the same category as the Law of Gravity: it has worked every time so far and we'll continue to use it. We'll keep an open mind, and if circumstance ever arises when it doesn't work, then we'll reconsider it. Meantime, move on to more interesting questions.
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 6/8/2015 6:21:52 PM, RoyLatham wrote:I think that this is one of the great, enduring philosophical questions for which the correct response is "Who cares?"If we all conclude that there is no basis other the finite induction for claiming A = A, then would be stop relying upon it? As a practical matter it is at worst in the same category as the Law of Gravity: it has worked every time so far and we'll continue to use it. We'll keep an open mind, and if circumstance ever arises when it doesn't work, then we'll reconsider it. Meantime, move on to more interesting questions.Im sure ppl who claim to "know" things probably care. Especially since knowledge is considered justified true belief. Ppl in search of truth, so to speak. No one is against pragmatism here. Ofcourse we all act as if things are a certain way, and though useful which is an appeal to consequences, induction and tautologies doesn't guarantee objective truth.What would you consider a more interesting question? lol****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 4,509 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 7:05:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:Im sure ppl who claim to "know" things probably care. ...You could take a poll. Ask people if they are interested in a discussion of whether A=A is really true, or whether they would rather do just about anything else. I have no objection to anyone having a hobby, and if it's really interesting to you then that's fine. My advice is that learning to crochet has greater lasting value.It's along the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. The Buddha was asked if go exists and answered, "If you were shot by a poisoned arrow, would you refuse to remove it until you knew who shot it?" In other words, "Don't bother asking."What would you consider a more interesting question? lolIs there free will? How are scientific concepts like mass and time defined? Did the universe have a beginning?
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/8/2015 8:05:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 6/8/2015 7:05:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:At 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:Im sure ppl who claim to "know" things probably care. ...You could take a poll. Ask people if they are interested in a discussion of whether A=A is really true, or whether they would rather do just about anything else. I have no objection to anyone having a hobby, and if it's really interesting to you then that's fine. My advice is that learning to crochet has greater lasting value.Naa I dont really care to do a poll, however, it would seem very daft for ppl to think they know stuff without questioning whether knowledge is even possible lol That's exactly the kind of dogmatism, atheists detest. Bt that's my opinion. Btw you're asking me to ask for a comparison between two options. I never claimed ppl would care for it more than other things only that I think some ppl would care. If ppl didnt care, I dont think anyone would have posted to the forum. It's just another forum like the thousands of others that I see ppl duplicating time and time again, I dont see what the hobby thing came from. All the other ones are boring to me to be honest. I think what you consider to be valuable is subjective, my advice to you would be to question your own beliefs that could have much greater value, that's if you value knowledge over fun distractions.It's along the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow. The Buddha was asked if go exists and answered, "If you were shot by a poisoned arrow, would you refuse to remove it until you knew who shot it?" In other words, "Don't bother asking."What would you consider a more interesting question? lolIs there free will? How are scientific concepts like mass and time defined? Did the universe have a beginning?Ive already ventured on those topics they seem trivial compared to this. There is no way to justify whether or not time is illusory and both theories have equal plausibility that both entail assumptions. Matter nor the mind can be proven to be fundamental. Unless you can prove it? lol Can you even prove you exist objectively lol Im actually kinda bored with those topics but you could venture into them if that's what you consider interesting.****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 4,509 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/9/2015 12:07:34 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 6/8/2015 8:05:30 PM, CorieMike wrote:At 6/8/2015 7:05:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:At 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:I think what you consider to be valuable is subjective, my advice to you would be to question your own beliefs that could have much greater value, that's if you value knowledge over fun distractions.What I consider to be valuable is obviously subjective. Do you claim that the importance you assign to proving that A=A is true is something other than subjective? Do you claim that knowing the answer has any practical value? Meaning that if you knew of a proof or you knew there was no proof, you would do some things differently?
 Posts: 67 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 6/9/2015 7:43:04 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 6/9/2015 12:07:34 AM, RoyLatham wrote:At 6/8/2015 8:05:30 PM, CorieMike wrote:At 6/8/2015 7:05:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:At 6/8/2015 6:49:07 PM, CorieMike wrote:I think what you consider to be valuable is subjective, my advice to you would be to question your own beliefs that could have much greater value, that's if you value knowledge over fun distractions.What I consider to be valuable is obviously subjective. Do you claim that the importance you assign to proving that A=A is true is something other than subjective? Do you claim that knowing the answer has any practical value? Meaning that if you knew of a proof or you knew there was no proof, you would do some things differently?I dont make any assertions regarding truth claims, as opposed to the dogmatist. I withhold assent to them. That is the position of a pyrrhonian skeptic. It seems to me to achieve a state of ataraxia ( "freedom from worry" entails suspending judgment. By confining oneself to phenomena or objects as they appear, and by asserting nothing definite as to how they really are, one can escape the perplexities of life and attain an imperturbable peace of mind. I do no assert that there is proof or there isnt (that would be the position of an academic skeptic). What I merely do is show the inconsistencies in people who debate on this site, when their goal is to attain some sort of objective truth towards matters. You can check out this debate here if you want to know my stance on things http://www.debate.org...****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates**** The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
 Posts: 3 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/6/2017 8:28:05 PMPosted: 1 year agoI'm a bit late here as I've been off for a couple years.Here's a thought experiment in logic. Let us assume that either-or logic is our only axiom. Let us then ask the question, can we be certain of something. The statement is either true or false.True) If we can be certain of something, we have no way of knowing we are certain of it, which is a logical contradiction.False) If we cannot be certain of anything, then we have no way of knowing that we cannot be certain of anything, which is incoherent at best and contradictory at worst.The statement that we cannot know anything is an axiomatic argument, and thus falls under the M"nchhausen trilemma. Given the nature of things described above, I believe we must all use axioms if we want to make sense of our perceived memories and present senses.While we know we know memory can be faulty or even completely fabricated, I see no better alternative axiom than to trust that my memories are *generally* but not completely accurate. Yes, this axiom have problems such as proving you do not have memory problems, but again, what is a better alternative?
 Posts: 1,305 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/6/2017 11:13:13 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 5/6/2017 8:28:05 PM, Jellon wrote:I'm a bit late here as I've been off for a couple years.Here's a thought experiment in logic. Let us assume that either-or logic is our only axiom. Let us then ask the question, can we be certain of something. The statement is either true or false.True) If we can be certain of something, we have no way of knowing we are certain of it, which is a logical contradiction.False) If we cannot be certain of anything, then we have no way of knowing that we cannot be certain of anything, which is incoherent at best and contradictory at worst.The statement that we cannot know anything is an axiomatic argument, and thus falls under the M"nchhausen trilemma. Given the nature of things described above, I believe we must all use axioms if we want to make sense of our perceived memories and present senses.While we know we know memory can be faulty or even completely fabricated, I see no better alternative axiom than to trust that my memories are *generally* but not completely accurate. Yes, this axiom have problems such as proving you do not have memory problems, but again, what is a better alternative?I have, in my whole life, had exactly 2 instances of what may be named intuition. Both times my feeling was proved true and to this day I cannot explain the how or why. Neither feeling was of the " I can see the future" kind but I'm at a loss to understand WHY I had these interludes.I will explain one of those moments.In England 20+ yrs ago a man was stabbed to death in what was classed as a "road rage" attack witnessed by the mans girlfriend. What made the story of more than casual interest was the man arrested by police was a infamous, violent criminal high up in a crime gang. The murder having taken place on a motorway the Police made several TV appeals for witnesses to no avail.One evening I was sitting with my partner and her 2 adult children when another appeal by the police began and i watched it with little interest when the murdered mans girlfriend began to speak of her love for the man and how a witness could help the police put the villain away.From the moment she started talking I knew, without a possible doubt, that she had killed her boyfriend. I told my partner "she killed him" and she said "how do you know" so I said "can't you SEE it, can't you FEEL it?" because I could feel the emanations coming from her like being in front of a slow fan and feeling the waves of air. Neither she or her children felt anything out of the ordinary at all but to me it absolutely real. Of course I did nothing about it in case people thought I was nuts but my story is nothing but the truth.My 2nd experience was even weirder.