Reason Vs. Intuition

[Craven]

what if your intuition is your reason?

Intuition would be the voice of the subconscious, logic would be the voice of the conscious, and Reason would be the guiding voice of both so both can work properly.

[newyear]

what if your intuition is your reason?

Intuition would be the voice of the subconscious, logic would be the voice of the conscious, and Reason would be the guiding voice of both so both can work properly.

Couldn't all these voices lead to multiple personality disorder? Isn't there just one vocal less voice that has multiple options.

[Craven]

Couldn't all these voices lead to multiple personality disorder? Isn't there just one vocal less voice that has multiple options.

I am sure it 'could' lead to multiple personality disorder, but this is much the same as thinking of many possibilities, and dwelling on one in particular; specifically an option of ones fears, which leads to paranoia, or many other similar 'disorders'. Is a mental disorder not the minds inability to maintain a proper perception, or to consciously understand a perception for what it may actually be?

But the disorder would only be a disorder if it begins to actually take effect on the persons well-being. As an example, the person begins to actually speak or act as three different 'people' or 'personalities'. But thinking and saying or doing are very different things.

A persons conscious self has a distinct reaction to the outside world than does the subconscious self. This tempered with a persons 'reasoning' skills (The ability to bridge the two together in a workable manner) would allow a person to differentiate the two, so as to not confuse 'Intuitions' 'voice' with 'Logics' 'voice', and vise-versa.
Reasoning would also allow a person to use their intuition and logic in conjunction with the real world properly. Neither is necessarily wrong, but in coordination with reality, (physics, other peoples perceptions and actual thought at the time, etc) sometimes a conclusion may not necessarily be correct. Sometimes what 'seems' logical, may not actually be true, and what 'seems' intuitive, may not actually be so.

When I say 'voice' I am referring to that distinct reaction of each given aspect of oneself. Neither one may necessarily actually be a 'voice' in a persons head, but they are two separate types of reactions and perceptions; both the conscious self and the subconscious self read the outside world in their own manner. These two separate distinctions are often 'represented' as 'voices', and may in time 'seem' like voices, but only so the conscious self can actually put the reaction into words. The subconscious reactions are often very difficult to describe in its raw form. (A 'feeling', as an example).

A 'Thought' and a 'Feeling' could be distinguished as two separate 'voices'; a stern voice and a gentle voice as an example, based on how they seem to the person.

[Craven]

And so what would life have been like at this halfway point?

Perhaps the stories of old? The fabled Atlantis? The hight of Egyptian creativity and power? Other such amazing and wondrous places in history? The pinnacle of Beauty and Form for its time? Art and Logic harmoniously combined to create the wonders of the ancient world?
And why would such a thing wane? Arrogance perhaps? Greed? The lust for power? The road of Excess, when humanities seemingly insatiable lust and and arrogance, that rivals that of a seemingly 'immortal' being or race, attain the upper hand?

[goingtothedogs]

But what of those who deny intuitions usefulness? Do those very same people use Intuition in their daily lives, despite this claim?

Who did you have in mind here? I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone who denies the value of intuition.

It has always seemed to me that intuition is simply the mind working away "on the back burner", without consciously thinking about things.

[SmallMind]

A lot of what is signified by the term 'subconscious' can be interpreted under the category of 'preference', which is reducible to a relative assessment of what one likes or dislikes, in isolation from the circumstances or outcomes likely to give rise to the experience so assessed. This is knowledge that cannot be put into language, which requires conscious effort, and so is referred to as subconscious. One can, as an exercise, go around through the landscape of one's mind turning over rocks to discover some like or dislike of which one was previously unaware. A philosopher can have the opinion that such an exercise might best be done prudently.

[goingtothedogs]

I don't read it like that.

The only consciousness of which I have direct experience, obviously, is my own. But I have no difficulty with the idea that my consciousness is not "all of me". Quite simply too much goes on of which I am not consciously aware.

For example, I have found on many occasions, so many in fact that I now use this as a deliberate technique, that if I have a knotty problem to solve, if I struggle with it on a conscious level; thinking about it, turning it over in my head, working through options etc, I may not solve it.

However, having "put the problem away" and stopped consciously thinking about it, often for several days, the answer to the problem will pop up, fully formed and complete, apparently out of no-where. This usually happens when I am doing something that relaxes me, generally walking my dogs on the fells. Clearly, even though I have not been consciously aware of the process, something, has been working on the problem. I lable this my unconscious or subconscious.

Perhaps it is also an aspect of what is sometimes called intuition. I lean to this point of view.

[Craven]

Goingtothedogs,

You do make a good point Going, but Intuition is more than just the process of 'thinking' subconsciously, it is more the process of 'Perceiving' Subconsciously.

Intuition would be the voice of the subconscious, logic would be the voice of the conscious, and Reason would be the guiding voice of both so both can work properly.

Who am a referring to that denies Intuitions usefulness? No one and particular, but I do know that there are some out the billions in the world who do deny its usefulness. This is Inevitable, And I have specifically heard this remark on a couple of occasions in the past; not necessarily on a forum full of capable Thinkers, but among the general populace. Even so, I am sure there are some thinkers out there who do deny its usefulness. out of 6 Billion people, I would say the odds are very good that this conclusion is true.

[SmallMind]

I freely admit that there is a lot about this process that we would like to account for in some way. A much simpler, but more common variant, is the experience of being unable to remember the name of something but at the same time have a conviction that it is in 'there' somewhere (subsequently verified). In any event, a non-trivial aspect is that it is something that somebody wants to remember or wants to understand. I myself have awakened at 4AM as a consequence of there being something not quite right about a real world problem considered on the previous day, which I was under some pressure to resolve. There is something going on all right, but the intensity of the desire to seek some resolution is very much a part of it.

[Craven]

I have been thinking on this subject, and Goings reply as well. I have the feeling that I am going in the right direction with these conclusions, but I also have a feeling that there is more it than what I have mentioned.

Smallmind, part of your comment is one of the things that has been on my mind for most of the day, before you even mentioned it.

Consciously we can think of things, and readily remember things easily enough, but more often than not, our conscious memory consists of Knowledge and data, whereas our subconscious seems to consist of sounds, pictures, memories (not the information gained from the memory, but the picture of the memory itself; the moment/s frozen into a picture or 'video'; the more 'Arty' aspect of our memory and self.

Remember how I mentioned that art cannot be forced? I have come to the conclusion that that aspect of our selves would most likely come from our subconscious; "Feel it, don't think it". The subconscious cannot be 'Forced' either. When people say let the music or art flow from the depths of your soul, they really may mean it in both a literal sense, and a metaphorical sense.

Back to the Subconscious and memories, That annoying habit our selves have of forgetting certain things, and waking up in the middle of the night because we can't stop thinking about it. Often a person wakes up in the middle of the night and suddenly remembers, whereas they would not have been able to during the waking hours.

I have been pondering dreams as well. They are usually abstract pictures, or also quite often non-abstract pictures put into an abstract order; most dreams don't realistically make sense. This is what dream interpreters do; they make sense of those abstract pictures for the average person, although even they would not know exactly what many persons dreams represented, because dreams are based on the persons perception of the world and their daily life.

When we are sleeping, we are not 'Conscious', but our subconscious continues throughout the night, in the form of dreams. Perhaps when we are sleeping, and when our conscious selves have no effect or control over how our subconscious works or perceives; when our conscious selves do not twist the subconscious 'Voice' into a more desirable thing according to its whims, we are able to retrieve that supposedly lost information. Maybe 'Information' and 'Art' are stored in two separate places in our minds, according to which aspect of our Selves is perceiving it?

When we are conscious, and using our 'conscious' aspect of ourselves, we often block out the subconscious voice. Perhaps when we are sleeping, and actively using the subconscious aspect of our Selves, those particular aspects of our memories come easier to us, resulting in us waking up in the middle of the night with a sudden inspiration. Your conscious self may be no longer trying to tackle the problem, but your subconscious continues on throughout the night. Because it is not 'Forced', our minds would not tire from this form of 'Thinking', and so could work throughout the night with little or no problem.
The old saying "Let me sleep on it" comes to mind.

Perhaps this is why one cannot often 'remember' a dream from the previous night, because for most people their subconscious is turned off or ignored/blocked when they awaken? Maybe this is why, when a person writes a dream down, and returns to it later, they suddenly remember it as if they just had it? Because the dream was never really 'Forgotten', just inaccessible?

However, having "put the problem away" and stopped consciously thinking about it, often for several days, the answer to the problem will pop up, fully formed and complete, apparently out of no-where. This usually happens when I am doing something that relaxes me, generally walking my dogs on the fells. Clearly, even though I have not been consciously aware of the process, something, has been working on the problem. I label this my unconscious or subconscious.

When you are doing something that relaxes you, this is often the easiest way of accessing the subconscious; for me, it is being with nature, listening to natural sounds. Perhaps the times a person "Goes into the forest and comes out with an Epiphany", this is the reason why?

When you put the problem away, because your conscious self cannot solve the problem, perhaps it is because the information required to finish the problem lies hidden in your subconscious mind; the abstract aspect of the problem. You already consciously know the analytical aspect of it, but by putting it away in the back of your mind, it allows your subconscious to roll it around, resulting in, a couple days/hours/minutes later, a fully formed thought, which completes the 'Problem'.

[newyear]

Craven, I don't think that your line on dreams will be too fruitful. Smallmind's, and others, that have experienced similar experiences have little to do with dreams and more with anxiety.

However, I think you should ask yourself, 'what is intuition for?' It is obvious that we all have the ability to be intuitive, whether we use it is another story. It is also obvious that it is a trait (innate) brought forward from our past. I have a feeling that all of these traits are to help the human being live longer, and as a form of protection or security.

You will notice that other animals, for example, birds, do not use instinct. They rely on the ability to move their head and eyes quickly, looking out for possible danger. Us, humans, not only rely on this method, but we also add intuition. Unspoken body language, atmospheric or environmental language, that warns us of possible danger.

What can be the objects of intuition. Perhaps, job security, personal relationships, those to do with one's home, country, etc., etc.

[SmallMind]

It is true that having the desire to solve real world problems fall short of acceptable resolution can lead to a species of anxiety. A nebulous (intuitive?) variant of this can occur on having forgotten to do something important. A far more widespread idea of intuition involves assessing a general state of affairs non-analytically for a sense of which of a set of plausible outcomes one prefers, independent of the likelihood of cost to others. In technical language, the numerical assessment of such intuitive agreement in large populations is called 'consensus'.

[newyear]

A far more widespread idea of intuition involves assessing a general state of affairs non-analytically for a sense of which of a set of plausible outcomes one prefers, independent of the likelihood of cost to others. In technical language, the numerical assessment of such intuitive agreement in large populations is called 'consensus'.

I am not sure that this is the meaning Craven is looking for regarding intuition, I would like to know what he thinks. What you seem to be referring to is probabilism. That is, when certain perceptions are perceived, but not the complete idea, then the individual can predict a likely outcome of what the idea is. And, once studied it can be consensually validated by others.

[Craven]

First, I believe my method of thinking may have confused people. When I think, I tend to reach out to where my mind and subconscious wants to go, within 'Reason'; I do not force it. This often creates a very chaotic view of my ideas; this is part of the challenge that I always face; putting my ideas into coherent form and organizing them in an understandable, analytical way. I'd say I'm doing a fairly good job at it considering, but occasionally it creates problems of miscommunication.

Second, all of your comments are very helpful; it brings to light issues that I may have missed before. I appreciate your input.

I suppose I should define 'Intuition' more clearly, if at all possible at the moment.

Intuition is more of a 'Feeling' than any actual thought process. I suppose it could be the subconscious 'thinking', but it doesn't seem so. Do you 'Think' about what you are going to feel in a given situation? I say it is more 'Perceiving' than 'Thinking', because you never really 'think' about it, your subconscious 'perceives', and then reacts. Thinking is more analytical anyways; the process of putting information into a specific order or manner, and reaching an outcome based on this. Your subconscious really 'Feels' more than it 'Thinks'.
This is why I have attributed Art to the subconscious as well, as it has the same sort of 'Feeling', and way of perceiving. Drawing a good tree does not have the same effect as a piece of art, as drawing a tree with 'Feeling'; you must let your mind and 'Soul' open up to the experience, and allow it to draw upon it as it will.

The reason why I believe it may be apart of the subconscious, is because it is accessed in much the same way. It also has the same sort of 'Feeling' to it; that feeling as if it is just on the edge of your 'Consciousness', able to be touched, but not grasped; one can listen to it, but not force it to say anything; this is when your conscious takes over.

When one feels intuition speaking, a a persons first reaction is often either to ignore it, or attempt to grasp it, and force it to say what it wants to. But as I said, it cannot be grasped. You kind of have to cease all conscious thought for the moment, let your mind relax as the voice is speaking, and it will continue what it has to 'say'. The exact same process goes for art.

In regards to dreams, they do play an important role in the subconscious. If our subconscious self was not remaining active throughout the night, and our conscious selves are not either, then how would we be able to continue to 'Think' throughout the night? Furthermore, how would we dream? But the subconscious does not really 'Think', as it is an abstract thought process, not an analytical one. This is where dreams come into play; those pictures or 'Videos' that play on throughout the night.
Nightmares, another form of dreams, are often brought about by deeply inlaid fears, or Anxiety. But 'Irrational fears', such as things that go 'Bump' in the night, are made of the imagination; the same thing art is brought about by; a person with an active imagination can do art a lot easier and better than one without. This implies that Irrational fears are stored, or perceived, in the subconscious.

I have been pondering dreams as well. They are usually abstract pictures, or also quite often non-abstract pictures put into an abstract order; most dreams don't realistically make sense. This is what dream interpreters do; they make sense of those abstract pictures for the average person, although even they would not know exactly what many persons dreams represented, because dreams are based on the persons perception of the world and their daily life.

When we are sleeping, we are not 'Conscious', but our subconscious continues throughout the night, in the form of dreams. Perhaps when we are sleeping, and when our conscious selves have no effect or control over how our subconscious works or perceives; when our conscious selves do not twist the subconscious 'Voice' into a more desirable thing according to its whims, we are able to retrieve that supposedly lost information. Maybe 'Information' and 'Art' are stored in two separate places in our minds, according to which aspect of our Selves is perceiving it?

When we are conscious, and using our 'conscious' aspect of ourselves, we often block out the subconscious voice. Perhaps when we are sleeping, and actively using the subconscious aspect of our Selves, those particular aspects of our memories come easier to us, resulting in us waking up in the middle of the night with a sudden inspiration. Your conscious self may be no longer trying to tackle the problem, but your subconscious continues on throughout the night. Because it is not 'Forced', our minds would not tire from this form of 'Thinking', and so could work throughout the night with little or no problem.
The old saying "Let me sleep on it" comes to mind.

Tell me, in your experience, how easy is it to consciously think throughout the night, and remain asleep? And if you do do this, how tired are you in the morning? What happens when "A lot is on your mind"? I personally find it hard to get to sleep; to shut the conscious part of me down, because, with its pressing problems, it wants to remain active throughout the night.

'what is intuition for?'

Anything that doesn't require solely Analytical thought and perception?

What can be the objects of intuition. Perhaps, job security, personal relationships, those to do with one's home, country, etc., etc.

If the above is correct, then it would follow that the objects of intuition could be anything that the subconscious can relate to. This can be a relation that is solely to The subconscious, or a mixture of the subconscious and the conscious, depending on how much 'Thought' s required to come to a conclusion or proper perception.

You will notice that other animals, for example, birds, do not use instinct. They rely on the ability to move their head and eyes quickly, looking out for possible danger.

Are you sure that Birds do not use instinct? I am sure they use their eyes, but instinct is not a method of 'sight', it is a method of subconscious 'thinking', or rather, a sort of action without thought. I am sure a bird does not solely rely on their quick head and eye movement to live. I'm no expert at how birds live, but this conclusion just doesn't seem plausible. But this is really another matter entirely.

[newyear]

Craven,

Tell me, in your experience, how easy is it to consciously think throughout the night, and remain asleep? And if you do do this, how tired are you in the morning? What happens when "A lot is on your mind"? I personally find it hard to get to sleep; to shut the conscious part of me down, because, with its pressing problems, it wants to remain active throughout the night.

This is a subject in which I have studied, not formally, of course, because there is no particular study on sleeping. I will tell you how I deal with this: First, I haven't dreamt since I started my sleeping exercises. Second, one dreams because the mind still has unfinished 'business' to deal with. For this reason I do a simple exercise every night before going to sleep, that takes me no longer than 90 seconds. The exercise is as follows: once in bed with the light out, and ready to sleep, you visualise your day working backwards until the time you woke up. The things you liked or did well you linger a little longer, and those you didn't, you pass quickly. Then for 30 seconds you can visualise accomplishing successfully what you want to happen the following day, and the mood you would like to have.

I have been doing this for years now, and it works like magic, and all the people I have recommended doing it have had great success. Insomnia is an impossibility with this method. And dreaming seems a thing of the past. One never wakes up, as you say, 'tired', because the first thing one visualises for the following day is one waking up with fantastic vitality. Try it, it's free.

The mind, of course, works whilst one is sleeping, but working on what you want it to do, not on what it wants to do. There are more things in which one can use the mind for whilst sleeping, but I'll leave that for another day.

We seem to have wavered off the subject of intuition, I guess with your ideas about the subconscious. I think that the forms of consciousness we are using are not the same. I, for example, always take it that when one is sleeping one is unconscious, and that twilight moment before actually waking up is the subconscious, and all waking moments, one is conscious. Now, intuition, whether pondered on or inspired quickly, is a conscious act. The only difference being is that the reasoning process is short circuited, and one arrives at a decision ad hoc, which may, or may not, be correct.

[Craven]

Hmm, your dreaming state and my own seem to be different. When I don't dream, it is fairly bothersome to me; a night of pure blackness. I personally find it refreshing to dream, and being in a very deep sleep, often gives me a more lucid or vivid dream.

Intuition though, is not a conscious act; one never 'consciously' enacts Intuition. Dreams may not have anything to do with intuition in itself, But I am basically delving into the Subconscious, and as such, must touch on dreams as a form of artistic expression. I am highlighting the differences, and the ways that the subconscious and the conscious act, or perceive, and so Dreams are added to this web. You are looking at things as a singular entity unto themselves, when you should be looking at it as a part of a whole. If one wishes to learn of the Human mind, we shouldn't just look at one peice of the whole, but rather the whole, and each individual peice within it.

[newyear]

Craven, it could be that I have mistaken your idea of intuition. Can you give me a clear example of when intuition is used?

Thanks

[Craven]

Intuition isn't so much 'used' as it is inadvertently 'felt'. It seems that when it does kick in, it is in situations where a more of a 'feeling' of the situation is required. This can happen in moments where a person creates art, music, and the like.

It also seems to kick in in moments where a person needs to 'feel' the situation; whether by 'feeling' the other persons thoughts; through empathy (putting yourself in the others shoes), or by physical activities that don't necessarily require logic.

In other words; anything that doesn't require a full-out analytical thinking to accomplish it, and most often when the situation requires 'feeling' to a complete degree.

This can include, but is not limited to: sports, art, music, fighting, speaking, and business interactions.

One can have their intuition kick in over situations that require analytical thinking as well, but usually only when the person 'feels' 'connected' with the situation, at one with the situation, usually a person who has 'experienced' the situation before, or has experienced a variation or aspect of the situation.

Intuition presides over the area of experience, whereas logic presides over the area of knowledge. But both can be tempered together as needed, even if a person is not aware of such temperance.

[newyear]

Craven,

Intuition presides over the area of experience, whereas logic presides over the area of knowledge. But both can be tempered together as needed, even if a person is not aware of such temperance.

Tell me, what is the difference in a perception that requires 'experience' and one that requires 'knowledge'?

I'm asking you this because I still haven't understood how how you are using intuition.

[SmallMind]

Newyear, I would interpret probabilism as analytic, or conscious. What seems to me to best fit unconscious or intuitive or hunches are assessments made by preference because no language is involved. Where there are alternative outcomes, each of which involves a mix of experiences that are preferred/unpreferred, a choice is made by a means totally unanalytical. One simply imagines one or the other outcome and reflects how one would feel about the outcome as an experience. Large numbers of people making judgments in this way would constitute a consensus. It is what the evolutionary sciences would term in objective language, or that signifying the undefined component causing observed responses to observed stimuli, 'urges'.

[Craven]

NewYear;

I am refraining from answering this question, because I am trying to figure out how I can explain my idea in a more concrete and rational form. Please be patient on this; my answer to you will come with some time, but I am trying to learn to not be so hasty in my conclusions or answers anymore.

---------------------------

I will readily admit, that a world without science, would not be as it is; we would not know a lot of what we do now. Science can explain much about our world. But what about the things that it cannot? Intuition, Logic, and Reason, in combination, can yield far greater results than with one thing alone

For example; science is capable of analytically measuring a cloud; it can tell us what it is made of, how it does what it does, etc.
Without science, we would not know these things.

But can science describe or explain the abstract aspects of this cloud? The precise shape, the way the sun shines through, the essence of what makes a specific cloud beautiful, by the play of light off of it? Or the abstract shape, which clearly defines whether a cloud is beautiful or not (A sheet of Grey or black clouds covering the sky, in other words, one that lacks any real shape, or beauty, would not be considered 'beautiful' by most) in other words; the abstract aspect of the cloud.

But those with an intuitive mind; in other words, artists: can describe this cloud; not perfectly, as language is an analytical, logical thing. But an artist who can transfer their imagination to a sheet of paper in an excellent manner can. It won't describe what makes this cloud, or how it does what a cloud does; but it will capture natural beauty, which is abstract, not analytical.

But how would one temper this? How can a person describe this cloud, to its fullest extent? By using both analytical and abstract means of communication.

But pure abstraction, or pure analysis, cannot be tempered by themselves; they would battle constantly.
One would say that the beauty of the cloud matters more, and one would say that what the cloud is made up of matters more.

In a world of pure science, we would act and think, without beauty in our minds. Only cold, hard facts. The reverse is true as wll.
In other words, we would see the cloud as nothing more than what it is scientifically explained by; we would not care for natural beauty the way we do now.

But in a world with pure religion, pure belief, pure intuition, much fact becomes twisted; a purely intuitive mind, one who can grasp abstract concepts such as 'God', or what 'God' is, or consists of, would not be able to distinguish reality, from fantasy.
That cloud would be just that; a cloud, a gift from God; it would be nothing more, and nothing less. We would never question what that cloud is made of, or how it came to be.

And so, we see that both the intuitive mind, and the logical mind, are both relevant in our world. A temperance of both is required; although many lean heavily to one side, or the other.

But yet we have such animosity, such hatred, being thrown between one another; the science claims truth, and the Religion claims truth. Neither are coming to an agreement of any kind.

Maybe they are both right, and fail to see this, their pride being the thing that keeps them from seeking a compromise?

This behavior also occurs in our minds. The logical mind, and the intuitive mind both fight to seize control over the other; this is common throughout almost all of humanity.

So then, how to bring both to an agreement? How would one temper both aspects of the mind, both aspects of our world, which, in reality, is a product of our minds working in unison, so both come to an agreement? This is a question that applies to bother our external world, and our internal worlds; our minds; this collective thought. Our world as a whole.

Reason tempers both well enough together, allowing them to work in harmony. Reason acts as a medium, a mediator, between Logic and Intuition.

So then would it follow that Philosophy, the counterpart of reason/ing, could also be used as a mediator, or a medium, in any situation that requires the working of both?

Many frown upon philosophy; it steps on the toes of all, it asks questions that many do not thing should be rightly asked... but there is one among many things that philosophy is good for; it is good at mediating. Philosophers tend to be more open minded, and thus, are capable of a larger extent of compromise than one extreme or the other.

But even philosophy on its own is incapable of ever reaching a compromise with the other two; it can only speculate on its own, forever running in circles over its own willingness to compromise; it compromises with itself, by itself, and so it will never yield any concrete answers.

I attribute Religion, Philosophy, and Science, to Intuition, Reason, and Logic, for obvious reasons. But I will give you my reasons here regardless.

-Religion uses a sense of 'Feeling' for its theories, and for its beliefs. Feeling unto itself is considered weak; and so it is, just as grace and beauty unto themselves are weak; by itself it cannot influence the world in any concrete way. It is like the moonlight off of water, in comparison to the sun. Moonlight alone cannot do anything; it is grace, not power. Feeling, the essence of religion and spirituality, is not useful unto itself; how useful is a man who can do nothing more than cry over a little spilled milk, or scream at a bad pun directed towards him? How useful is a man that relies solely on belief to get him by? Belief is a powerful thing; but only if it is used correctly. And above all, it cannot ever understand, on its own, Analysis; Logic.

-Philosophy uses Reason, it questions everything; it craves the Truth, over everything else; nothing else matters more to philosophy than Truth, or the striving for truth. It is to remain neutral in all of its opinions, in all of its speculating, or it will no longer be considered philosophy. It would stray into the realms of Science, or religion. On its own, it can do nothing more than reason with itself, in an endless circle of reasoning. Forever it will chase its own tail, in endless speculation as to whether or not it will actually catch a hold of it. The very essence of Philosophy demands its students complete neutrality and/or an open mind. You can see both the advantages of this, and the disadvantages.

-Science uses cold, hard physical facts; Logic, to lay claim to its beliefs and theories. In order for it to be as it is, it must use this form of knowledge to work; belief and speculation alone will never get science anywhere. By itself, it can never behold the beauty of a moment, the beauty of a thing; it will only see it for what it is; it will only see the cloud as a cloud; it will never be able to understand natural beauty, the abstractness that is the cloud; the play of light, the shape (not lenticular, or any other scientific variation of a 'general shape')... the essence of what would make it beautiful. It is a cold, emotionless beast. And above all, it can never understand, on its own, Abstraction; Intuition.

There could be more to add to this, a more in-depth explanation of each, but I am sure you probably already see why I have attributed each as I did.

[SmallMind]

Intuition as I imagine it can be progressively constructed from a decision tree, some nodes of which direct ongoing decisions unambiguously, independent of preference, others weighted by assignment of probabilities, erroneous and otherwise, the latter having an additional component of preference, assessed largely by anticipation of a final course of action leading to a preferred experience. Thus, pondering the weighty issues arising prior to an election can be unconsciously influenced by the fact that, down at the end, the actualization of dreams correlates somewhat strongly with how much is left in one's wallet at the end of the month.
Given the immense complexity of problems local and national, one can unconsciously evaluate issue discussion in terms of identity, or one's membership in an aggregate. Perceived outcomes are thus in terms of (1) taxes, with respect to which less is better, and (2) services, the costs better when borne by others, that will apply to one's group. As an experience, therefore, one can intuit that a particular candidate is a lot smarter than he appears to be, and he gets the nod in the voting booth.

[SmallMind]

What corresponds to these concepts is actually the origin of the 'double blind' protocol in science. A little reflection will show that there is no reason for this protocol from purely scientific considerations. A certain election might have run smoother if the counting of 'hanging chads' had been rigorously held to double blind protocols.

[DarkArrow]

one word transcending all others throughout ..... complacency -

[harmony]

Hello all:

Intersting thread. Lots of good points and ideas. Here are a few comments from my own reality.

I think both Paul Anthony and goin to the dogs make a good point about intuition often being something that may be another, perhaps unconscious or subconscious aspect of the self -or something else which helps us- at work that later surfaces as a feeling. Indeed I suspect all of us have had instances of this ocurring in our worlds. What I feel Craven is trying to get at, however, is something more fundamental. Something that operates at a level more primal that reason. Something that knows by feeing without data. A part of us that just simply knows and is not dependent on anything at all to calculate that knowing. A part of us that is one with all that is.

In my reality, this is the level of pure creation. It is the the light in the center of the void and it can be whatever it wishes to be, without limitation. In human experience, however, this state of consciousness is seldom accessed as we are beset by limitation, have created limitation on all sides. Our perceptions of limitation, however, provide us with a great opportunity to express and experience unlimitedness through the act of overcoming them and, in this way, serve a noble, if not divine, purpose.

One other comment is in regards to reason. Any trail of reasoning, however, complex and complete, is only as useful as the premise upon which it is based, and all reasoning is based upon premises. For most human beings, initial premises are things that they inherit from their cultures as they have not developed their own self awareness enough to transcend the powerful effect of these deeply embedded first thoughts. When one becomes conscious of the thoughts behind the thoughts behind the thoughts of one's reality, however, what, if not intuition, is the basis upon which any initial premise is chosen?

[chaoticcomplexity]

Intuition – noun. 1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension. 2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way. 3. a keen and quick insight. 4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight. 5. Philosophy. a, an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object. b, any object or truth so discerned. c, pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge. 6. Linguistics. the ability of the native speaker to make linguistic judgments, as of the grammaticality, ambiguity, equivalence, or nonequivalence of sentences, deriving from the speaker's native-language competence.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition

Intuition – noun. 1: quick and ready insight; 2 a: immediate apprehension or cognition b: knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c: the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/intuition

Reason – noun. 1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war. 2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action. 3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences. 4. sound judgment; good sense. 5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity. 6. Logic. a premise of an argument. 7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument. b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought. c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

Reason – noun. 1 a: a statement offered in explanation or justification b: a rational ground or motive c: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : CAUSE 2 a (1): the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2): proper exercise of the mind (3): SANITY b: the sum of the intellectual powers
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reason

-Should Intuition be used as a sole guide of living in this world? Or should Reason and Logic be the sole guide?-

Both intuition and reason should be used as guides. The more options we can have, the more chances of surviving.

-Perhaps Intuition should be the primary, and Reason the way to tame our natural intuition, so that it becomes a workable guide in our everyday world? Or Vise-Versa?-

Whether intuition or reason should be of primary guide may depend upon the perceived conditions; but the ideal is that both should be available when a decision is to be made; but unfortunately, sometimes intuition is present and there’s no time for reasoning much or sometimes it’s the other way around…If both of them are available, then the best for the situation has to be followed.

-Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Intuition, and been able to survive in this modern world?-

Sometimes I’m inclined to think that we cannot not have intuitions, and that we are having intuitions not only within our awareness, but also as a part of our unconscious. So even we give up intuition, consciously, we may not be able to give up what is manifested in our unconscious part.

-Is there really anybody who has completely given up their Reason, and been able to survive in this modern world?-

Same here, we cannot not reason as human beings.

-Should either be considered useless? –

Both are useful in terms of human survival and progress.

-We use reason in philosophy, Science, Math... in so many things... But what of intuition?-

Reason is somewhat analytical and relatively slow, but most of the time, surely valuable. Intuition is a quantum leap and in some of cases gives delight.

-Is intuition ever really wrong?-

Sometimes it is. I think, though intuition is quick, it is also constrained by information and so it can also be wrong sometimes if enough information necessary for the right intuition is not present (consciously or unconsciously).

-Or could it only be wrong in the circumstances that we allow our flawed Reason and Logic to intervene?-

Possibly, but this really depends on conditions, I think. It’s case to case I think.

-Our animal instinct; which left unchecked can wreak havoc on our selves, is often a reliable guide; but when does it become unreliable?-

This depends upon situations, case to case.

-When our Ego denies that voice, saying that it is wrong; when our Reason and logic take over, and shut out that small voice? Or when it is allowed to completely take over, so that we completely ignore REason and Logic? -

This depends upon situations, case to case.

-Has our Intuition been suppressed, because We live in a physical world of Reason and Logic?-

Though we live in a physical world of reason and logic, we still need that leap of intuition. The 1 % of intuition side by side with 99% of reason is still valuable depending on situations.

Human behavior in the past which also include reason, logic and intuition can be stored in that deep part of the unconscious and may serve as part of the constraints of quick emergence of intuition. Our life history may constrain intuition as well as reason and logic. Intuition, relatively, has a clue or sign: that voice, that feeling, that sudden flash of imagination… that strangeness… and mysterious experience…I think, they are holistic, and constrained by the wholeness of man’s being as man interact with what exists.