Q&A: Defining Intuition
Defining Intuition
Question
I read column 653.
Let me start by saying that it’s very strange that principles this important aren’t clear enough to everyone, and people mix them up with each other (as you noted about those who confuse intuition with emotion).
As I understand it—and I’d be glad to hear your response—in the column you refer to two different foundations, both of which you call “intuition” (of course there’s nothing wrong with your calling both by the same name; one just has to distinguish between them):
There is the more common sense of intuition: solving a particular case by weighing data unconsciously. That applies to the example you gave at the beginning, about the scientist who suddenly came up with the answer; likewise the intuition that a certain person is lying; the intuition—from seeing a facial expression—that a person is angry; the intuition that we took the wrong road. In all these cases we are dealing with a particular case for which there is certain data, which can be compared unconsciously to cases we encountered in the past.
There is a more basic sense in terms of our thinking, namely the principles of our thought. For example, Occam’s razor that you mentioned. Or the very understanding that there is regularity in the world, that one can learn from the past about the future, and so on. All these are not built on the basis of any data, but are embedded in our intellect beforehand. A person who has never seen a liar or an angry person will not have the intuition to distinguish lying and anger, but he is born with the understanding that the past teaches about the future.
Did I understand correctly? Do you agree with what I wrote? Or was I not precise about something?
Thanks
Answer
First of all, if you’re referring to a particular column, it’s better to post this as a talkback on that column rather than as a separate thread.
I don’t see a sharp difference between these two contexts. Even what is based on data is created through generalization, and generalization makes use of a priori principles exactly like your second type.
Discussion on Answer
I respond wherever people comment.
I don’t see any difference. In every case we are talking about drawing conclusions as a result of intuitive principles. By the way, the principle of non-contradiction is not intuition. That is logic. If that’s what you call intuition, then it is indeed intuition in a different sense.
Thank you.
I didn’t know you still respond to old columns.
Of course generalization makes use of a priori principles. But it works with the help of an additional stage, namely the use of data.
In other words: there is one root, and that is the a priori principles. From it branch out different offshoots: reliance on the senses, reliance on reliable testimony, conscious inferences from data, intuitive inferences from data.
In the end, when we compare information that came to us only through a priori principles (such as the principle of non-contradiction) with information that came to us through intuitive inferences (such as: this person seems nice to me), there is a big difference. For example, as I wrote, regarding someone who has never experienced such an event. He knows the law of non-contradiction, but he does not know how to identify nice people.
Hope I made myself clearer