Intuition

Re:  

http://news.yahoo.com/belief-god-boils-down-gut-feeling-104403461.html

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)