rationality vs intuition

rationality vs intuition

Postby The Dharma Bum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:40 am

Indirect realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and ... ct_realism

If it is true that our conscious experience is not the result of the direct sensory input of our five senses accessing reality but rather the result of the mind accessing a perceptual overlay of that reality, assembled by our various cognitive processes throughout our existence, does it not stand to reason that in certain circumstances that intuitive thought is superior to reliance on a rationalism that is founded on an inherently flawed basis?

Surely it is true that true objectivity is an ideal not easily attained. There are multitudinous examples that show our perception of reality and reality do not always correlate. From cultural beliefs to the influence of mind altering substances to create transcendental experiences it is self evident that "perception of reality" ≠ "reality" If this is true how solid is the basis for theories that are derived from observation? Is the inherent bias of our individual perception of reality preclude true objectivity? How often does preconception lead to misinterpretation of the available data?

Many advancements in human thought can be attributed to an individual accessing intuitive knowledge, such as Archimedes and his "Eureka!" moment, in other words, an unexpected realization of a solution to a problem.
Image
User avatar
The Dharma Bum
Vice President
 
Posts: 11594
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3285 times
Been thanked: 617 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby The Dharma Bum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:53 am

Most people have had an experience where they were trying to solve a difficult problem and couldn't think of a solution only to take their mind off of it and have the solution spontaneously occur to them.

This is one example of how the suspension of "rational" thought can lead to access of previously unrealized knowledge, hidden within one's own mind.
Image
User avatar
The Dharma Bum
Vice President
 
Posts: 11594
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3285 times
Been thanked: 617 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby The Dharma Bum » Sun Mar 03, 2013 12:49 pm

Where's Comrade when you need him?
Image
User avatar
The Dharma Bum
Vice President
 
Posts: 11594
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:31 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 3285 times
Been thanked: 617 times
Political Leaning: Anarcho Communist

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby eynon81 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 1:01 pm

if I ever meet a rational person I'll let you know.

These users thanked the author eynon81 for the post:
The Dharma Bum
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby Nolidor » Fri Apr 25, 2014 6:23 pm

It's not that there's an overlay.

It's that sensations need to be organized. Without rational thought, all you get is a splattering of data.

I try to explain this to conservatives all the time, but they insist on remaining anti-intellectuals who deny rational thought. They believe human behavior comes about from synthesizing facts with emotions and just acting out while experimenting through trial and error.

Yep. Let's just forget about free will. Traditional pragmatism is everything!
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby exploited » Fri Apr 25, 2014 7:05 pm

The Dharma Bum wrote:Indirect realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and ... ct_realism

If it is true that our conscious experience is not the result of the direct sensory input of our five senses accessing reality but rather the result of the mind accessing a perceptual overlay of that reality, assembled by our various cognitive processes throughout our existence, does it not stand to reason that in certain circumstances that intuitive thought is superior to reliance on a rationalism that is founded on an inherently flawed basis?

Surely it is true that true objectivity is an ideal not easily attained. There are multitudinous examples that show our perception of reality and reality do not always correlate. From cultural beliefs to the influence of mind altering substances to create transcendental experiences it is self evident that "perception of reality" ≠ "reality" If this is true how solid is the basis for theories that are derived from observation? Is the inherent bias of our individual perception of reality preclude true objectivity? How often does preconception lead to misinterpretation of the available data?

Many advancements in human thought can be attributed to an individual accessing intuitive knowledge, such as Archimedes and his "Eureka!" moment, in other words, an unexpected realization of a solution to a problem.


Many people have noted that a good nights sleep can result in an understanding that evaded them while intensely focused. This suggests that rationality and intuition can work in tandem - just like how an athlete can benefit from understanding technique but still occasionally defy it to great effect.

Further, I often think that rationality without emotion is more damaging than good. From a purely logical perspective, it is a good idea to kill off the mentally and physically disabled. It is a good idea to spread infectious disease with the goal of drastically reducing the population. Yet any sane person would immediately identify these propositions as immoral, wrong, ineffective and potentially damaging (imagine a world where a man like Stephen Hawking is put down).

Point is, there is clearly a balance to be struck.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20599
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2128 times
Been thanked: 1671 times

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby The Comrade » Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:43 pm

i don't see the negatives to the things you suggested
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
The Comrade
Vice President
 
Posts: 17979
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Yugoslavia
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 1188 times
Been thanked: 1813 times
Political Leaning: Socialist

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby Nolidor » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:52 am

exploited wrote:
The Dharma Bum wrote:Indirect realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and ... ct_realism

If it is true that our conscious experience is not the result of the direct sensory input of our five senses accessing reality but rather the result of the mind accessing a perceptual overlay of that reality, assembled by our various cognitive processes throughout our existence, does it not stand to reason that in certain circumstances that intuitive thought is superior to reliance on a rationalism that is founded on an inherently flawed basis?

Surely it is true that true objectivity is an ideal not easily attained. There are multitudinous examples that show our perception of reality and reality do not always correlate. From cultural beliefs to the influence of mind altering substances to create transcendental experiences it is self evident that "perception of reality" ≠ "reality" If this is true how solid is the basis for theories that are derived from observation? Is the inherent bias of our individual perception of reality preclude true objectivity? How often does preconception lead to misinterpretation of the available data?

Many advancements in human thought can be attributed to an individual accessing intuitive knowledge, such as Archimedes and his "Eureka!" moment, in other words, an unexpected realization of a solution to a problem.


Many people have noted that a good nights sleep can result in an understanding that evaded them while intensely focused. This suggests that rationality and intuition can work in tandem - just like how an athlete can benefit from understanding technique but still occasionally defy it to great effect.

Further, I often think that rationality without emotion is more damaging than good. From a purely logical perspective, it is a good idea to kill off the mentally and physically disabled. It is a good idea to spread infectious disease with the goal of drastically reducing the population. Yet any sane person would immediately identify these propositions as immoral, wrong, ineffective and potentially damaging (imagine a world where a man like Stephen Hawking is put down).

Point is, there is clearly a balance to be struck.


How did you come to that purely logical perspective?

A logical person understands that people deserve respect based on who they are as individuals on the inside that counts.

An emotional person says those who are inconvenient deserve to be dismissed since convenience is a matter of opinion. Perhaps the existence of some people makes life less efficient, but efficiency depends on the goals you have in mind. What's some people's goal isn't automatically everyone's goal. Folk community common sense is prejudiced against those who are different. An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Pardon me for not being a rugged individualist who's stuck in my ways, but rather someone who's openminded to the diversity of human nature.
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby exploited » Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:59 am

Respect is an emotional concept. Respect based on "who they are on the inside" is an emotional concept. These concepts are based on the idea that it is wrong to kill or harm in order to further the species - again, an emotional concept, based upon the notion that human beings are not animals but somethimg more than that.

The goals in this scenario is to prevent billions of dollars of resources spent on those who will never be fixed, and the destruction of enough people to prevent the annihilation of our species due to resource exhaustion, pollution, etc.

To argue against the most utilitarian method is to engage in emotional thought. This is the correct thing to do, but not the most logical. By the way, I have a feeling that you are a rabid ideologue. Is that feeling correct? Do you mistake your perspective for the most logical one?
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20599
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2128 times
Been thanked: 1671 times

Re: rationality vs intuition

Postby Nolidor » Sat Apr 26, 2014 10:24 am

exploited wrote:Respect is an emotional concept.


No. Admiration is emotional. Privilege is emotional. Reputation is emotional.

Respect comes from deducing that in order for anyone to make anything possible, they must necessarily not be interfered with by default.

Respect based on "who they are on the inside" is an emotional concept. These concepts are based on the idea that it is wrong to kill or harm in order to further the species - again, an emotional concept, based upon the notion that human beings are not animals but somethimg more than that.


What does the species have to do with individuals? This isn't about survival. Are we more than animals? Sure. Pardon me for not being a rugged individualist who believes in survival of the fittest. If anything, you come off as if you believe in intelligent design where nature just automatically lets us feel what ought to be done. How is that logical?

You come off like some conservative who's stuck in your ways and insists on people collectivizing in the name of how things have always been done, so they must continue to be done that way since alternative ways haven't been proven yet. Of course alternative ways will never be tried in the first place because we're always doing things the way they've been done!

That's circular reasoning. What's so logical about that?

The goals in this scenario is to prevent billions of dollars of resources spent on those who will never be fixed, and the destruction of enough people to prevent the annihilation of our species due to resource exhaustion, pollution, etc.

To argue against the most utilitarian method is to engage in emotional thought. This is the correct thing to do, but not the most logical. By the way, I have a feeling that you are a rabid ideologue. Is that feeling correct? Do you mistake your perspective for the most logical one?


Why are you assuming the most utilitarian method is the only way to think?

If anything, you come off as a rabid ideologue since you're obsessed with the most utilitarian method.

If anything, utility is emotional. A utility depends on your self-interest, but everyone doesn't have the same self-interest!

All you're doing is being a conservative who expects people to conform to norms in the name of folk community common sense. There's nothing logical about being anti-intellectually closedminded to the diversity of creative thinking.
Nolidor
Citizen
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:54 am
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Next

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron