Intuition over Deduction?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Some of the studies by Libet and his peers on the consciousness's delay in recognizing our actions implies that the material processes in our brain controls our actions, and what we recognize as intention or reason is more of an ad-hoc organizing of our experiences. It is certainly possible for our minds to construct its own narrative; our dreams prove that.

Also, Nietzsche's treatment of the will has led me in this direction, as he tears apart the I and considers it merely the association with the most powerful of many competing wills.

What initially set me in this direction was that it seemed reason is more often assumed as self-apparent and then used to justify something else. I don't trust arguments like this and reason appears to me to be just as metaphysical as some of the concepts that many wish to prove with it.

This is not to say that what we consider to be reason doesn't exist, or that it is actually epiphenomenal. This ordering of events certainly represents reason and appears to occur, and I don' believe that it could contribute to further actions by altering those values that guide our actions.

The proper term would be automatism, I guess. As we act before conscious recognition but the consciousness is not entirely ineffectual.

One amazing thing to realize is that, if this idea is taken to the extreme, we could sever a part of the brain and people would could continue to act in "rational" ways but not be able to offer reasonable explanations (I believe there are studies that have actually shown this), or machines could be created that have no consciousness but a person could never actually tell.

[all-inclusive]

Mr. Fight the Power,

Thank you for that bit of insight.

Also, Nietzsche's treatment of the will has led me in this direction, as he tears apart the I and considers it merely the association with the most powerful of many competing wills.

Then would you say that all thought are impulsive?(of course different levels of impulse apply acording to the situation, which determines the size of the 'reaction')

The reactions would be based on what apply to your sense of pleasure, would they not. The 'reaction' would have to be somewhat appealing to you as the 'reactor'. So in this sense, you wouldn't call it logic, because different 'reactions' obtain to the different 'reactors', assuming that the X numbers of 'reactors' were on opposing ends of a sitution.

Any thoughts?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by all-inclusive

Mr. Fight the Power,

Thank you for that bit of insight.



Then would you say that all thought are impulsive?

Yes, exactly.

The reactions would be based on what apply to your sense of pleasure, would they not. The 'reaction' would have to be somewhat appealing to you as the 'reactor'. So in this sense, you wouldn't call it logic, because different 'reactions' obtain to the different 'reactors', assuming that the X numbers of 'reactors' were on opposing ends of a sitution.

Any thoughts?

I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

It seems that you are getting it a little wrong, as there is no "you as the 'reactor'". There are reactions, I suppose, but the "I" that we assume to be reacting does not actually exist.

[all-inclusive]

It seems that you are getting it a little wrong, as there is no "you as the 'reactor'". There are reactions, I suppose, but the "I" that we assume to be reacting does not actually exist.

What do you mean, "the I that we are assume to be reacting does not actually exist"? Are you saying that we do not have control over our reactions, or are you saying that the preditermined outcome that we are percieving while reacting is non-existent(a facade), and that there is no actual reaction, but only will to power, if I am using the term correctly as nietszche would have it.

Please enlighten me, I'm getting good stuff.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by all-inclusive

What do you mean, "the I that we are assume to be reacting does not actually exist"? Are you saying that we do not have control over our reactions, or are you saying that the preditermined outcome that we are percieving while reacting is non-existent(a facade), and that there is no actual reaction, but only will to power, if I am using the term correctly as nietszche would have it.

Please enlighten me, I'm getting good stuff.

There is no ghost in the machine pulling switches and pushing buttons.

I, as a human being, am a collection of competing wills, some subservient, some dominant, but none of them in constant control. What "I" am as a person is the constant recognition of this competition of will and the recognition of the after effects.

When we make a decision, we do not actually make a decision, rather these competing wills generate action, with us recognizing the action and rationalizing it later.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by all-inclusive

"Intuition is that non-dubious apprehention of a pure and attentive mind which is born in the sole light of reason; and it is surer than deduction in virtue of its being simpler."
-Descartes

Can anyone shed some light on this statement? Descartes will also claim that 'deduction can never be wrongly performed by us', so the question must be, how does intuition dominate deduction in surety if deduction cannot be wrongly performed. It almost seems to me that intuition is a prosses based off of instinct, or paranoia.

Any thoughts?

Deduction requires taking steps from one statement to the next, as for example the argument, 1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
Therfore: 3. Socrates is mortal.
3 has be deduced from 1 and 2.

But intuition requires no steps. It is immediate. Descartes thought that the proposition that all triangles have three sides was an intuition, and could be "seen" to be immediately true.

Are you sure that Descartes wrote that deduction can never be performed wrongly? I think you might be wrong about that. In any case, people obviously do make mistakes in deduction. If you try to add up a long column of figures you can easily make mistakes. At least I do.