Pretty much, except that under physical determinism, it is (in principle) possible to predict all future decisions given perfect knowledge of initial conditions and laws of nature (set aside quantum indeterminacy). — Relativist

I think there is, as long as when you say the words "initial conditions" and "laws of nature" you're also including the initial conditions and laws of the soul realm. You have to include it in everything, rather than treat it separately, because it's causally intertwined with the physical.

My observation is that people's intuition is wrong as often as right. It often seems to be someone's "feeling."

Other times the answer someone's intuition gives them is the answer they get when they consider it and explain reasoning behind it. And a lot of people have some pretty faulty reasoning. I assume a lot of people here will be happy to say mine is faulty. :grin: Perhaps others think I generally do ok. Mainly, we will say someone's intuition is wrong when it leads them to an answer we disagree with.

I guarantee my intuition leads me astray at times.

In short, I don't consider intuition to be very useful. But I don't know what wonderer1 has in mind. — Patterner

To a significant extent I agree:

Absolutely our intuitions can fool us. And logic is subject to GIGO, and can fool us as well. — wonderer1

And yet our intutions (or what Kahneman refers to as fast thinking) provide a necessary basis for us to be able to think at all, and logic (Kahneman's slow thinking) can work synergistically/critically with our intuitions, and lead to us developing more reliable intuitions. For me, understanding 'the scientific method' and the role of observations in testing the reliability of intuitions, and achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run.

I'd suggest not being too dismissive of the value of one's own or other's intuitions, or their potential for improvement. That said, I also advise keeping a grain of salt handy. :wink:

And yet our intutions (or what Kahneman refers to as fast thinking) provide a necessary basis for us to be able to think at all, and logic (Kahneman's slow thinking) can work synergistically/critically with our intuitions, and lead to us developing more reliable intuitions. For me, understanding 'the scientific method' and the role of observations in testing the reliability of intuitions, and achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run. — wonderer1

This reminds me of Karl Popper's "Bold Conjectures," which he posited as an important, initial part of doing science that is then put through the rigors of testing, observation, measuring and other rational methods. In short, "intuitions" are (or can be) "bold conjectures," and can therefore be very useful in pursuing and obtaining knowledge.

:up:

I'd suggest not being too dismissive of the value of one's own or other's intuitions, or their potential for improvement. That said, I also advise keeping a grain of salt handy. :wink: — wonderer1

I don't know if I'm defining it correctly. It seems as though people sometimes think of intuition like a hunch to play certain numbers in the lottery. The extreme majority of times, everybody loses the lottery.

Other times, when thinking things through thoroughly, intuitive knowledge is seen to be false. Maybe a science experiment.
"What do you think will happen when x, y, and z?"
"Intuitively, I think it will ____."
Wrong often enough. Our intuition doesn't suggest time works the way Einstein tells us it does.

Sometimes it's unprovable. Like someone's intuitive knowledge of whatever deity they believe in.

Intuition has lead people into terrible romantic relationships now times than we can count. "My intuition tells me he's a great guy."

And, of course, sometimes intuition is correct. You said "achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run." I'm thinking you mean something like recognizing a flaw in critical thinking?

You said "achieving recognition that one of my current intuitions is faulty has been something which had enabled me to improve the reliability of my intuitions over the long run." I'm thinking you mean something like recognizing a flaw in critical thinking? — Patterner

First, let me state that unusual intuitive abilities is an aspect of how autism affects me, so it is certainly something where YMMV. However, I've good reason to think everyone has somewhat similar intuitive capacities, on the basis of human neurology, talking with diverse others about their experiences with intuition, and introspection, amongst other things.

Yes, recognizing flaws in critical thinking is an aspect of it, but there is a very significant subconscious aspect as well. Conscious recognition that intuitions I hold are not logically consistent with each other seemingly affects my subconscious so that it works in its mysteriously subconscious way to eliminate the cognitive dissonance. Sometimes the result can be the development of a new intuitive perspective which is free of the logical inconsistency that my older set of intuitions had. Sometimes the new intuitive perspective seems to arise out of the blue from my subconscious, in which case it is what I experience as an epiphany.

Having improved intuitions in some realm is a key aspect of having expertise as explained here:

Chess provides a clear example, as usual: there's a saying among masters that the move you want to play is the right move, even if it seems impossible. This is intuition, and the idea is that careful analysis will justify your inclination, so some part of your mind must have zipped through that analysis without bothering to keep you informed, which would only slow things down. That fits nicely with the two-systems model, because the fast system here is just the unconscious and efficient habits that used to be carried out laboriously and consciously. --- But that still suggests that the conscious analysis you do is properly modeled as reasoning of the most traditional sort. There's no difference in kind here, only a difference in implementation. (This algorithm is known to work, so we can run it on the fast but unconscious machine.) — Srap Tasmaner

So if you want to grok what I am saying, it might be worth considering your thinking with regards to something that you have expertise in.

Srap's whole post is excellent.

If intuition is, as it says in the part you quoted, "zipping through the analysis," that's fine. That doesn't make it any kind of mysterious sources of knowledge. And the many times people's intuition leads them to the wrong answer would be explained by the fact that their careful analysis also leads to the wrong answer. As you say, whether the answer comes from intuition or analysis, you'll be correct more often in areas where you have some expertise.

I'm not aware of ever coming up with an answer intuitively. Even areas in which I have some knowledge, I get the answer because I remember some information, or do the multiplication quickly, or whatever. I'm always aware of the analysis.

Srap's whole post is excellent. — Patterner

That should be "@Srap Tasmaner's whole post is excellent."

Legend has it, that if you say it just like I did, he will appear.

If intuition is, as it says in the part you quoted, "zipping through the analysis," that's fine. That doesn't make it any kind of mysterious sources of knowledge. And the many times people's intuition leads them to the wrong answer would be explained by the fact that their careful analysis also leads to the wrong answer. As you say, whether the answer comes from intuition or analysis, you'll be correct more often in areas where you have some expertise. — Patterner

I wouldn't describe it that way myself, though as a metaphorical way of describing it, I think it is pretty good.

I think it is more a matter of subconscious pattern recognition developing in the process of gaining expertise and stored as deep learning in the expert's neural nets.

This is a relevant article.

Legend has it, that if you say it just like I did, he will appear. — wonderer1

I was lounging comfortably in my bottle, thank you very much, but I honor the code of my own free will.

:grin:

Legend has it, that if you say it just like I did, he will appear.
— wonderer1

I was lounging comfortably in my bottle, thank you very much, but I honor the code of my own free will. — Srap Tasmaner

Holy cow! You guys are great! Penn and Teller wouldn't have been able to pull that off more smoothly!

This is a relevant article. — wonderer1

It seems fascinating. Probably moreso for those who know how to play Go. I imagine there are online groups to play, so I really don't have an excuse.

Holy cow! You guys are great! Penn and Teller wouldn't have been able to pull that off more smoothly! — Patterner

:sparkle: :pray: :sparkle: