Welcome to Philosophy Forum.

I think of 'intuition' as 'knowing without knowing how you know', which I think is consistent with Bonjour's use. He claims intuition plays a crucial role in the epistemic justification of beliefs, serving as foundational sources of justification, providing immediate and basic support for our beliefs while also recognising that intuitions need to be critically examined and subjected to reflective evaluation to ensure their reliability and avoid potential errors.

In any case, I'm with Bonjour. I take it that he's arguing for a rationalist view which accepts that there are necessary truths. Harman's response seems like typical modern relativism, which basically depends on the hypothetical argument that 'anything can happen' with the implication that there are no necessary truths. The idea of other possible worlds is often cited in support of that view, with the view of reducing what seems necessary truths to contingencies which just happen to be true 'for us'.

Finally, how could you discern if an intuition were really 'a neuron circuit'? Presumably such a circuit will not be labelled 'intuition' so you would have to judge what the 'neuron circuit' encoded or implied or meant by evaluating the data. And any such judgement would be, well, a judgement, which relies on just the kind of intuitive insight that Bonjour is arguing for.

Cassirer characterizes intuition as a consonance of being and knowing which bypasses and transcends discursive understanding. It overcomes the limitations of discursive thought and is the basis of metaphysical cognition. I like this view.

The law of non-contradiction seems like a rational insight. And it seems to be both a reliable source of justification as well as something independent of experience. Where in experience is the law of non-contradiction to be found? Further, following the law of non-contradiction does not seem to involve a lack of imagination.

Your simultaneous red and green scenario demonstrates how easily intuitons can be misleading.

Suppose you have a white piece of paper in a totally dark room. You have the ability to shine a monochromatic red light on the paper, or a monochromatic green light on the paper, or both lights on the paper simultaneously. What do you see in these three different cases of illuminating the paper?

You can play around with a fairly analogous situation at https://www.rapidtables.com/web/color/RGB_Color.html, where you can choose a color to be displayed in terms of levels of red, green, and blue by selecting integers between 0 and 255 specifying the intensity of your display's emissions of each RGB element. For example, when I put in 255 for red and green and 0 for blue I see a bright yellow. Assuming your color vision is normal I expect you will see bright yellow as well.

The situation is a bit different when we are talking about the color of an object when illuminated by white light. In the situations discussed above we are talking about emission spectrums. When we talk of the color of an object we are talking about absorption spectrums. The absorption spectrum of an object is an indication of what wavelengths of light are absorbed by the object and what wavelengths are reflected by the object. However, the principles involved are related. We might have a chemist design a pigment or combination of pigments such that when white light shines on the pigmented object only a narrow band of red wavelengths and a narrow band of green wavelengths is reflected into our eyes, and no yellow wavelength light is reflected into our eyes. I expect we would see the object as yellow, even though it is reflecting red and green at the same time.

Now about intuition... I've been talking a lot about it recently. I think intuitions are a matter of deep learning in the neural networks constituting our brains, and the reliability of our intuitions is situational and a function of what the training inputs to those neural nets has been in the past.

However, I don't know if you are really interested in a naturalistic understanding of intuition, so I'll leave it there for now.

Edit: IIRC the pigment example may yield the experience of seeing brown. (which in a sense is a 'dim yellow')

Edit 2: If you use the website I linked and enter R=120, G=120, and B=0 I predict you will see a brown square.

Intuition is a summary of a book, while knowledge is the book itself. I can give you an overall idea of what the book is about, but unless you carefully examine the specifics, you won't know the full picture. Sometimes summaries are accurate, and sometimes they aren't. What they are is efficient, and can be a guide to motivate you to read and understand the book itself.

Intuition is the immediate response you get on a subject based on experience, prior knowledge and culture. In short it’s pretty biased.

As for its accuracy, tests show intuition seems to right about 50% of the time, so you’d have better odds through guessing

As for its accuracy, tests show intuition seems to right about 50% of the time, so you’d have better odds through guessing — Darkneos

Can you provide a link to the testing you are referring to?

I’m having trouble finding it due to all the pop sci articles.

But suffice to say it’s not something apart from normal cognition, it just happens faster. You don’t just know, you think you do.

However research finds that if someone is an experience in a field then their intuition about something regarding that field is reliable.

So I guess if you don’t know anything about a subject then it’s no better than a random guess.

This leads me to doubt the nature and reliability of "intuition" since this word has been and is being used by philosophers in nearly every discussion. Is intuition constructed by our experience, language or knowledge? Or a particular neuron circuit creates the illusion of intuition, the feeling of "that must be true"? — Charlie Lin

In my experience, intuition is much more than a recognition of a priori or logical truths, it's a fundamental way of knowing. An example - when he was running for president, people claimed that Barak Obama was not a natural born citizen of the US. Although I had no direct knowledge of the situation, I didn't believe those claims. Looking back, I can give reasons 1) in order to get has far as he had in the world, Obama must have had a birth certificate, i.e. proof of his citizenship 2) I judged that Obama is an intelligent and honest person who wouldn't lie. 3) I judged his opponents would lie or distort the truth for political advantage.

Another example - I've been paying attention to the war in Ukraine. Related to that is unrest in Moldova with the possibility of Russian invasion. That didn't make sense to me because I know the Danube River flows through Moldova and the Danube doesn't come anywhere near Russia, so the two countries shouldn't border each other. Turns out I was right about the border - Moldova and Russia don't border each other. But there is a large Russian population in Moldova which has broken away in a separate republic on the eastern side of the country. Russian troops have been stationed there as "peacekeepers." So, my intuition was wrong in this case, which I realized when I checked. I don't know why I knew the Danube flows through Moldova or that the Danube doesn't go anywhere near Russia. It's just part of the body of knowledge I've built up over the years.

That's the essence of intuition for me - based on 71 years of experience, I have a feel for how the world works, how people work. I have a body of knowledge that I've picked up mostly without formally learning it - just from observation and experience. I make judgements based on intuition - a non-specific understanding without specific justification. If it's important I'll go back and check to verify my judgment.

:up:

This leads me to doubt the nature and reliability of "intuition" — Charlie Lin

I don't think you can doubt about the nature of anything, including concepts. Nature refers to the basic or inherent features, character, or qualities of something. Everything that we can conceive has a nature. The only thing you can doubt about is the explanation, description, interpretation etc. by someone of the nature of something. And I believe that this is what you mean, isn't it?

Moreover, there are different kinds, aspects and contexts for "intuition". SEP has an article about 15,000 words about Intuition. And its first chapter talks about "The Nature of Intuitions". So, as you can see the subject is not so trivial that it can be confined in discussion like this one. Still, I believe that one can filter all that and talk about intuition in its common meaning, that is a direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process. Or in whatever similar description one can offer.

Then you cannot doubt about the reliability of something either, except if you refer to a context, purpose, aspect, etc. It's not reliable as or for what? From what aspect?
Using my intuition to know whether what I'm doing is right or wrong, to order a dish in a restaurant, to solve a mathematical problem, to create a relationship, etc. is very different from using my intuition e.g. to take an important financial decision, which might have catastrophic consequences.

Then, one can also look at the subject in a cool way. like Einstein, who has been reported to have said, "I believe in intuition and inspiration. At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason.”

\Indeed, intuition and inspiration go together. That's why artists trust and used their intuition a lot. Technical people on the other hand trust more their reason, skills and expertise.

As for me, personally, I don't use my intuition often since I'm too rational in nature. :smile:

However research finds that if someone is an experience in a field then their intuition about something regarding that field is reliable. — Darkneos

This gets at something I found highly questionable about the way you originally described the research results. Intuitions within certain domains can have very good reliability, when the neural nets underlying those intuitions have had a high degree of training on the way things in those domains work in reality.

Someone who understands the way development of reliable intuitions works, can then make relatively accurate judgements about the reliability of his own intuitions in relation to whatever the present situation happens to be. Furthermore, the reliability of one's intuitions can sometimes be tested to increase or decrease the confidence one has in the reliability of one's intuitions before deciding whether to commit to going with intuitions. Over time one can develop good intuitions about the reliability of one's intuitions.

IOW, doubting and logically evaluating intuitions can lead to having very reliable intuitions in the future. There is a synergy that can arise from the interaction of slow thinking and fast thinking.

IOW, doubting and logically evaluating intuitions can lead to having very reliable intuitions in the future. There is a synergy that can arise from the interaction of slow thinking and fast thinking. — wonderer1

Not exactly no, intuition is more just playing off what you already know hence why it’s reliable with an expert. Logically evaluating them won’t take you anywhere.

IOW, doubting and logically evaluating intuitions can lead to having very reliable intuitions in the future. There is a synergy that can arise from the interaction of slow thinking and fast thinking.
— wonderer1

Not exactly no, intuition is more just playing off what you already know hence why it’s reliable with an expert. Logically evaluating them won’t take you anywhere. — Darkneos

Do you speak from experience? Have you tried improving your intuitions, and always failed?

Intuition is the immediate response you get on a subject based on experience, prior knowledge and culture. In short it’s pretty biased.

As for its accuracy, tests show intuition seems to right about 50% of the time, so you’d have better odds through guessing — Darkneos

I suspect this right - I have certainly had those stats pointed out in seminars on organizational pschology.



One complication with intuition is that it is an umbrella term to describe a range of different, albeit similar phenomena. The intuition of a doctor about matters of health are going to be far more accurate than the intuitions of a photocopier mechanic. Intuition benefits enormously form a person's background, age, experience, education. It practice, it may be worth separating experience and wisdom from sheer guesswork. The more we have seen and done, the more likely our intuitive speculations about something will be informed by a kind of wisdom.

In my experience, intuition is much more than a recognition of a priori or logical truths, it's a fundamental way of knowing. — T Clark

Indeed. Although 'way of knowing' might be too strong for me. I'd probably frame it more in terms of an approach to sense making. Or something like that.

That's the essence of intuition for me - based on 71 years of experience, I have a feel for how the world works, how people work. I have a body of knowledge that I've picked up mostly without formally learning it - just from observation and experience. — T Clark

I think this is right.

What do you think of this? I've noticed that intuition seems to work better when you are feeling well and happy. There's something about the mindset required that for me makes it less accurate or harder to pull off when you are feeling down or troubled.

Cassirer characterizes intuition as a consonance of being and knowing which bypasses and transcends discursive understanding. It overcomes the limitations of discursive thought and is the basis of metaphysical cognition. I like this view. — Pantagruel

:100: Old school.

Amazon page, Lawrence Bonjour's Defense of Pure Reason (this was the philosopher mentioned in the OP):

This book is concerned with the alleged capacity of the human mind to arrive at beliefs and knowledge about the world on the basis of pure reason without any dependence on sensory experience. Most recent philosophers reject the view and argue that all substantive knowledge must be sensory in origin. Laurence BonJour provocatively reopens the debate by presenting the most comprehensive exposition and defence of the rationalist view that a priori insight is a genuine basis for knowledge. This important book will be at the centre of debate about the theory of knowledge for many years to come.

I know it's a book that I will probably never get around to reading, but it rings true.

Although 'way of knowing' might be too strong for me. I'd probably frame it more in terms of an approach to sense making. — Tom Storm

To the extent I understand the distinction you are making, I don't agree. As I've said before on the forum, I spent my work life knowing things and knowing how I know them. I paid a lot of attention to this issue. Observations and reason don't can't make knowledge by themselves. Measurements and observations don't come with ideas attached. Reason can test them, but it can't generate them. Ideas come from somewhere else. You get ideas by opening up your mind and seeing what comes out. If you do it with other people, it's called brainstorming.

I've noticed that intuition seems to work better when you are feeling well and happy. There's something about the mindset required that for me makes it less accurate or harder to pull off when you are feeling down or troubled. — Tom Storm

I haven't noticed that personally. For me, intuition is a very satisfying, sometimes exhilarating, experience. As I said, I see it as opening myself up to ideas that come from a part of my mind I'm not aware of. I don't know if you experience it like that at all. But it would make sense that that kind of openness would work better if you are feeling good.

Do you speak from experience? Have you tried improving your intuitions, and always failed? — wonderer1

There's no way to improve your intuitions apart from learning about something, and even then it's not a guarantee.

You get ideas by opening up your mind and seeing what comes out. If you do it with other people, it's called brainstorming. — T Clark

I suspect we are thinking of intuition differently.

For me, in the work I do (moderately reliable) intuition means being able to grasp almost immediately if someone has a hidden weapon on them or not and if they might be violent or not. Or if they are experiencing delusional thinking or psychoses. Or knowing if someone can do a very challenging job or not within seconds of meeting them in a job interview. I can generally tell when someone is suicidal whether they will act on it or not, based on intuition. I've gotten to the point when I meet a new worker I can often tell within a minute or two how long they will last in the field and what path brought them here - a relative, lived experience, etc. I think there are probably key indicators we can read but you need to be 'open' to them in some way and have relevant experience.

:100: Old school. — Wayfarer

Discursive or conceptual cognition operates by casting concrete particulars in symbolic terms, which relies on general concepts or universals. But there is always a gap between the ideal rational cognition made possible by symbolic thought and the concrete totality. I remember being very struck by this when I moved from the high-school physics of vectors and formulas to university physics, where the plethora of approximations involved in real-world calculations were suddenly being considered.

So intuition is what bridges the gap between the cognitions made possible within discursive thought, and the reality that is being cognized. In essence, it is about making estimates that are based on information that is extracted from an idealized model of your perceptions. And allowing yourself to trust that faculty is also part of intuition.

So intuition is what bridges the gap between the cognitions made possible within discursive thought, and the reality that is being cognized. — Pantagruel

YEA!!! Best rendition of the nature of intuition yet, I think.

In essence, it is about making estimates that are based on information that is extracted from an idealized model of your perceptions. — Pantagruel

BOO!!! Extracted from a model? To build a model requires information, so, what….information is put in to build it, then extracted from it? Why not extract information from perception and build an idealized model from that?

Actually, this is probably what you meant to say. There is an idealized model of the information received from perception, it even has its own name; intuition constructs the model but does not use it, hence, the notion of being a bridge.

…..allowing yourself to trust that faculty…. — Pantagruel

Might I suggest the trust is misplaced?

Discursive or conceptual cognition operates by casting concrete particulars in symbolic terms, which relies on general concepts or universals. But there is always a gap between the ideal rational cognition made possible by symbolic thought and the concrete totality. — Pantagruel

Very interesting. Doesn't this reflect the distinction between mathematical idealisation and reality? The former allows for complete precision as a matter of definition, of which the reality is always an approximation. (I have in mind the argument from equality in the Phaedo.)

Very interesting. Doesn't this reflect the distinction between mathematical idealisation and reality? The former allows for complete precision as a matter of definition, of which the reality is always an approximation. (I have in mind the argument from equality in the Phaedo.) — Wayfarer

I think mathematics could be construed as the extreme limit of ideal-theoretical symbolization? The golden ratio appears in organic forms, but these instantiations are close approximations to the mathematical ideal.

Actually, this is probably what you meant to say. There is an idealized model of the information received from perception, it even has its own name; intuition constructs the model but does not use it, hence, the notion of being a bridge. — Mww

Without delving too deeply into the informational aspect, what I wanted to emphasize was the way that intuition bridges the gap between the ideal-theoretical and the actual, especially as that relates to the need to operate and enact in the real world. I'm not saying information is unimportant, but information is inextricable from symbolization or encoding, and what I'm suggesting is that intuition is integral to the cognition of the differential between the concrete totality and its only-ever-partial or approximate conceptual cognition.

As for the trust being misplaced, good intuition is effective, so being committed to the accuracy of one's intuitions is an ontic-epistemological commitment. If I really believe in the truth of something, that is a practical commitment. Hypothetical truths are empty. Consciousness does not just believe truths, it instantiates them.

There's no way to improve your intuitions apart from learning about something, and even then it's not a guarantee. — Darkneos

Right, learning is required and the consequences of that learning are not fully predictable. However, I'm not talking in black and white terms, of intuitions either being perfectly accurate or totally unreliable. I'm just suggesting that intuitions can be improved to a significant degree.

We’re saying the same thing for all practical purposes, in language two centuries apart.

Except for the trust part; that I can’t reconcile with disparities in language. My problem, not yours.

We’re saying the same thing for all practical purposes, in language two centuries apart.

Except for the trust part; that I can’t reconcile with disparities in language. My problem, not yours. — Mww

Well, knowledge is essentially self-justifying, right? It contains the framework of its own validation. Intuition doesn't. So what other option is there?

I suspect we are thinking of intuition differently. — Tom Storm

Interesting. I see you and as both talking about intuition as it has developed for each of you. Could you elaborate on what key differences might be?

….knowledge (…) contains the framework of its own validation. Intuition doesn’t. — Pantagruel

I’ll disagree with that. Insofar as intuition is a faculty, it must contain its own framework from which it obtains its validity. Knowledge, by the same token, is not a faculty, hence does not contain a framework at all. Knowledge is an end; the means are elsewhere.

Well, falling back on the traditional, "true belief based on sufficient evidence," the sufficiency of the evidence constitutes part of the knowledge.