Thursday, September 22, 2011

Intuition



Q: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?

A: Well, my intuitive answer was 5 cents, and I was right. My intuition is also that the article may overgeneralize. If the author is going to test and measure "intuition," then he has to define his term simplistically, in some quantifiable fashion, so that it can be measured. So, he ends up "proving" what he has only contrived by the nature of his assumptions and definitions. I have an intuition that smart, intuitive people do as well in science as people who disdain intuition and think the concept should be committed to the flames. I suspect many breakthrough ideas came to geniuses in unexpected strokes or dreams, without previous reflection. Almost like they were gifted by a higher power. There was the intuitive insight, followed by the objective confirmation. Often, while having hardly ever before consciously reflected on the problem. There are insecure folks who need the crutch or security of a church (like the church of global warming) or a dogma (which can also be secular). Their predilections and collapses into dogma do not circumscribe my idea of intuition. My idea of intuition permeates far beyond, more to being receptive to a quality that is not simplistically measurable. It relates more to capacity to receive insight to know when one's dispositions will tend to be consistent with what unfolds to oneself. If it's just guessing in default of conditioned dogma, rather than being receptive to something novel and beyond oneself and one's comfort zone, then it isn't intuition in any expansive, qualitative sense. Now, when the dogma was new, it may have been arrived at by intuition. Some dogmas can be objectively tested. Some can only be tested for whether they seem consistent with a good life. My 2 cents. Or was it 5?

***********

Regarding the speed of Neutrinos:

"Neutrino" is a concept. It exists only as such, not as that which it models, of which Something more encompassing than humanity may be the Author. So long as we remain mortal, that Something will remain beyond any conceptualization by us that is complete, consistent, and coherent. As concept, neutrino is susceptible of being found, however incomplete the concept, both to have capacity to exceed the speed of light and not to exceed the speed of light. The "finding" will depend on purpose of the conceptualizer, point of view, and frame of reference. That much is assured. As concept, neutrino will evolve. Indeed, all mortal concepts serve temporal placeholders for signifiers, without reality independent in themselves. We're just playing with our minds.
 
 
Mortals being without a complete, consistent, coherent explanation of Earth (temporal space-time), so also for heaven (eternal present). Jesus did not attempt to use a dictionary to define or confine heaven in any quantitatively measurable or manipulable terms. He used figures of speech to avail intuitive interpretations. "In my Father's house are many rooms." John 14:2. As mortals, we can't test whether He was right. At most, we might test, in good faith and intuition, whether his message conveyed a quality of being appreciable. Many seem rather inclined to try to impose more confining suites. To their intuitions, perhaps that's their "good."
 
 
However, as I conceptualize "Intuition," it cannot be broken down into confineable, measurable, testable parts. This is because Intuition relates to an aspect that is apprehended as feedback from a Holism, to which feedback one may be positively, neutrally, or even negatively inclined. In any event, that feedback is received holistically. To try to scientifically break it down into figments of imagination, indigestions of stomach, or burnings of heart is as useless and futile as trying to find the tinkle in a bell. It's to miss the point of conceptualizing "Intuition" more as a quality than as a quantity. My concept of Intuition can no more be confined to a quantifiable concept than Ought can be derived from Is. To know thyself would be to know the limits of one's science and the possibilities of one's imagination. But Who knows that? Still, Ought exists, as also does a concept of conscious Intuition. Indeed, we have no choice but that we ought to make choices. Necessarily, Intuition accompanies our investments in the consciousness of our identities. Yes, Virginia, there is an "Otter." Thus spake Dlano.
 
*************
 
Intuition: It's how we do our most important stuff, like elect our leaders, choose friends, and decide whether to ask a woman for a date. Scary. How do you test, objectively, to say whether such choices are wrong?

Hypothetical Logic: Could a neutrino exceed the quantitative speed of light in any qualitative way that we can conceptualize or relate to, other than by stepping outside space-time as we know it, to take a short cut, through the eternal present? This would seem to implicate an eternal present, as well as something that is "real yet metaphysical," beyond quantification within our unfolding world, by which a neutrino is availed to signify such metaphysics being stepped into. Must such a neutrino abide in aspects both as Substantive-Thing and as Qualitative-Signifier (logos for communication of Information) from a superior Field of Conscious being?
 
 
For neutrinos to mess with our illusions for the unfolding of chronological sequences of signifiers, must they do so in ways that coordinate beyond our consistent measure or comprehension, so long as we remain so lost in space-time as to be necessarily oblivious to the eternal present? Do neutrinos function as a kind of symbol, that the function of our bodies is less as agents of causes than as agents for feeding back apprehensions? If so, to what sort of Field are our apprehensions being fed back to? May neutrinos signify that there does abide an inter-functioning, meta Now-ness, with "capacity that defies our bivalent logic?" Must there abide some higher logic, which need not conceptualize relations as if they were manipulable as "ultimately particular things-in-themselves?"


Should Intuition best be considered as related to Hypothetical Logic? May Something be unfolding to our apprehensions, in step with our developing wills and conscious capacities to intuit it? There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy (Hamlet, I.5)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's your intuition about this:

http://news.yahoo.com/roll-over-einstein-law-physics-challenged-215819033.html


No doubt, relativity dogmatists will say, Impossible!


I wonder what happens when the "thing" (neutrino) being measured for its "speed" fluxes mid-path between reflecting as Substance versus Information? Is Substance composed of Information, or is Information composed of Substance? Does the Conscious focus of an observer effect a role? Is a neutrino entirely a Quantifiable thing, or does it flux partly as a relational Quality? Must every existent flux among protoplasmic poses as Substance, Information, or Consciousness, depending on point of view, frame of reference, and purpose of psyche? Apart from "just happening" to serve some shared purpose of consciousness, could the neutrino exist as an independent thing in itself?

*************

Client to lawyer: My neighbor stole 2 cents plus 2 cents from me. I want to sue him. How much is that?

Lawyer: How much do you want it to be?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Science-Of-Things: "Neutrino" is a concept. It exists only as such, not as that which it models, of which Something more encompassing than humanity would be Author. So long as we remain mortal, that Something will remain beyond conceptualization by us that is complete, consistent, and coherent. As concept, neutrino is susceptible of being "found," however incomplete the concept, both to have capacity to exceed speed of light and not to exceed speed of light. The "finding" will depend on purpose of conceptualizer, point of view, and frame of reference. That much is assured. As concept, neutrino will evolve. Indeed, all mortal concepts serve temporal placeholders for signifiers, without reality independent in themselves. We're just playing with our minds.



Hypothetical Logic: Could neutrinos exceed the speed of light in any qualitative way that we can conceptualize or relate to, other than by stepping outside space-time as we know it, to take a short cut, through the eternal present? That would seem to implicate an eternal present, as well as something "real yet metaphysical," beyond quantification within our unfolding world, by which a neutrino is availed to signify such metaphysics being stepped into. Must such a neutrino abide in aspects both as Substantive-Thing and as Qualitative-Signifier (logos for communication of Information) from a superior Field of Conscious being?





For neutrinos to serve or mess with our illusions for the unfolding of chronological sequences of signifiers, must they do so in ways that coordinate beyond our consistent measure, so long as we remain so lost in space-time as necessarily to be oblivious to the eternal present? May the concept of neutrinos function as symbol, that the function of our bodies is less as agents of cause than as agents for feeding back apprehension? To what sort of Field may our apprehensions feed back to? Concept of neutrino may signify that there abides an inter-functioning, meta Now-ness, with capacity that defies bivalent logic. Must there abide higher logic, which need not necessarily serve to conceptualize relations as if they were measurable or manipulable as "ultimately particular things-in-themselves?"

Anonymous said...

The Higgs boson is a concept. It's a concept that tries to wrap up reality in a bow that is complete, consistent, and coherent. However, if that cannot be done, then that which the Higgs is meant to conceptualize, for accomplishing what is desired for it to accomplish, cannot exist. No more so than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If Godel is right, that we cannot mathematically map reality in a way that is complete, consistent, and coherent, then how can the Higgs possibly be found? Now, if the goal is something less than tying up a theory of everything into a nice bow, that surely can and will continue to be done. For that, however, there will always recede the next undeveloped and unfolding aspect, will there not?

Anonymous said...

If not a wise man, a man of settled science. A zombie renaissance man. Zombie Ceteris Paribus (all zombies remaining equal): Factors that seem to account for many complex systems, such as systems governing human civilizations, are so interconnected and fluxing that they defy analysis via customary techniques that use double blind experiments while varying only one factor at a time. In every complex regime, a despot and his party-line toeing elitists will deceive the easily misled or bribed hoi polloi by claiming the blessings of "settled science." Apart from preference of myth or faith, there is no scientific basis to weigh whether a despotism or republic will tend to be "more moral." The apologist for every NWO despotism that is run by elite lackeys for international crony corporatists will claim to be guided not by receptivity to higher faith but by the superior blessings of science. His usefulness to the regime will be as as liar, idiot, or both. Only by reducing the masses to the maleducation of ignorance and to the divisive corruption of envy could a static heirarchy of bureaucrats serving a central despotism claim to be able to adjust in time to the myriad of factors that flux within a dynamic civilization. In other words, only by reducing the freedom and dignity of the citizenry, thus giving them the "equality" of moral zombies. If you desire to be or to serve the wise king of the zombie collective, that would be your "go-od." The MSM propagates it 24/7. The people want a king, so they make themselves equal in subservience to his "science." If you disagree with Der Leader's science, you're a sciencephobic, racist, anti-humanist luddite. Like Hank Williams Jr.