Intuition: Epistemology | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY 

Love how Socrates (Plato) thought of the gettier problem even in ancient times! I love the Socratic philosophers and ppl around me say things like how they’re outdated and there are modern philosophers now but this fact begs to differ!

As a philosophy major and lover of the subject for over a decade this video is just top notch. This is the most succinct, educational and informative video I've found in all of RU-vid about intuition so far! Thank you so much for this and much respect, Prof. Nagel!

My intuition is telling me you can’t do all that artwork with a sharpie.

I think it's very important to distinguish different types of intuition rather than lumping them all together. E.g. mathematical intuition could work very different from conceptual intuition. And conceptual intuition (e.g. about what counts as "knowledge") could be yet different from moral intuition. Maybe psychologists do not even talk about the same types of intuition as philosophers.

Carl Jung (mostly influenced by Kant and his own investigation) divided the functions as so: Reasoning/Judging functions: Thought and feeling Irrational perception functions: intuition and sensory perception He also talked about about intuitive thinking as a basic form of judgement that is more intuition than reasoning. People often neglect to talk about feeling judgement as a valid form of reasoning and lump it with either emotional reaction or thinking.

In religious and philosophical writing, there seems to be a notion that intuition is by definition true. In religious writings in Vedic texts, intuition seems to be something like a message from the gods, while in the Upanashads it's a connection with some mystic truth deep within us. Plato l, Aristotle, and even later Decartes seemed to echo this. Aristotle's process of perception, recollection, experience, and intuition for getting at knowledge seems to suggest that intuition is just this thing that happens, and Descartes called it the "light of reason." Plato seemed to suggest that when it comes to axioms and self-evident truths, you just know it. Of course, this requires intellectual honesty. But it seems like philosophers and mystics seem to say that intuition is the basis for knowledge, as they allow us to understand things that go beyond reason and open the door to self-evident truths. But it can't be "trained," and is not identical to reason.

according to me , intuition is a conclusion of thoughts. when we try to solve problems, we think about it and we find the solution of the problem. we just keep in memory the solution of problem and forget how we solve that.

This is so concise, yet elaborate and titillating! Thank you Prof Nagel.

I suggest Daniel Kahnemann's "Thinking, Fast and Slow". It's a nice read about these two kinds of thinking and particularly the biases of intuitive judgment

Very good approach. Thank you

I think the reason intuition sometimes fails can be understood in terms of a probe analogy (using an object to learn about another object).... intuition is like a large granular probe that can give you certain information but not the finer details for which you would need a smaller, finer probe. It simply works in some but not all cases requiring a check or supplement system (or a finer probe).

Good if listened to a little at a time. I had to watch it a few times just to put it all together.

Actually it amazes me to think that everything is formula, we, everything, therefore philosophy is also a formula; exterior + (interior x dimensions)

How do I know that this video is true?. Edit: Doesn't matter, I will trust my instinct.

No Circle is a Square? What is a circle ? // what is a square ? Can a circle (at the limit) enclose zero area? Can a square (at the limit) enclose zero area? Is a "zero area circle" in fact also a "zero area square"?

It is not always the case that a triangle is not a circle. It is true in Euclidian space, which is what the world around us looks like and hence the way our intuitiom developed. But in spherical space, like the surface of the Earth, three equidistant points along the equator are connected by a triangle thqt is also a perfect circle. Move those points closer and closer together and take them out of alignment and you get a triangle with angles that approach 180 degrees, which is the triangle of our intuition. But the definition of a triangle, generalized into a situation where our intuition is not developed and you get an answer that intuition falsely tells us is wrong. Intuition is data. It needs to be explained by any theory. But that doesn't mean the explanation needs to be that the intuition has to be correct. Why doesn't quantum mechanics fit our intuition? Because the weirdness of quantum mechanics averages out into a world approximating Newtonian physics in our everyday experiences. Same for relativity. When String Theory first proposed 26 (later 11) dimensions, the first thing the theorists had to do was explain why our intuition has only 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. (They managed to do that, but the harder problem turned out to be coming up with a way to test it.)

Doesn't it make most sense to see Intuition as a shortcut for Reason? You cannot intuitively know that 5x11 is 55 if you have never done multiplication before, therefore intuition is based on previous knowledge. You won't have to do the reasoned steps, since you already recognized the pattern (multiplication) and have therefore sidestepped having to consciously reason what will happen, because you already know. So you take a short cut to the answer, Intuition.

It seems that if intuition is to be a valuable concept, within the parameters given here, it must be seen as either an innate idea, as (I claim) with the square circle, or one which is incapable of being doubted, as in the Cogito.

I was just walking into Walmart and got the thought I was gonna see a certain person I have not seen in 15 years. And there he was?

Listening To Your Angel: The Science Of Focussing On Your Intuitive Intelligence. According to this book, we have a felt sense of different things that gives us an intuition about them. For example you might have an uneasy feeling that you forgot something when you left the house and you'll later realize you left your wallet or forgot your cup of coffee. This is your body's way of communicating an intuition to you. You can learn to tune into these messages and become more intuitive. This process has helped me a lot.

I got sudden need to save 3000 dollar in january 2021. And in april 2021 i was admitted in hospital for 10 days for covid 19, when i payed 2000 dollar to hospital.. i guess something from inside advised me to save that 3000 dollar cause i was about to need money in couple of months. Is it intuition? Other event like this have also happen in my life many times. I just get helpful advice from inside.

What of Kant's intuition?

Thank you for providing quality content.

If you do something that requires reflective thinking often enough, that which is intuitive will change and grow as a result. Intuition only comes by a great deal of exposure. To a new born baby only what they have known since the womb is intuitive (5 x 10 is not one of the things intuitive to a baby, it becomes intuitive after practicing reflective thinking in arithmetic)

Thanks so much. I hadn't realized I was thinking it was from the same kind of source, I would guess that comes from religious teachings or the like? If one is wise, they are aware that they will have intuition about something and be careful as it might be personal bias and test against it. But largely it will be pattern based and our brains are smoothing over the lack of information, rather than there being some kind of guidance from external sources. As I am older, I am really struggling, mentally I just don't recall much of anything, but that doesn't mean I don't know it at some level so I might not be readily conscious of it but it seems like the test of it brings it out of me. Otherwise I will just be frustrated because I should know it and yet don't. It is also dangerous in that I might miss steps, or remember outcomes rather than the totality of the journey and find myself committing similar errors. Arg

I love to see that a fellow youtube channel also talks about intuition and logical thinking!

What does it mean to say that "[reflection] is *mediated* by stages of thinking." How is 'mediated' being used here?

Thank you x3

Isn't there little distiction between philosophy and psychology if philosophers are doing empirical tests (I know natural philosophers used to, but doesn't that make them polymaths who do science and philosophy)? Why does it not?

How can we explain mathematics and counter-argue the Socrates-slave geometry lesson, when we interpret Locke's views? Descartes and Socrates believe that the logic we reason mathematics is innate, based on intuition and deduction...what will be an argument of Locke against this ?

I thought intuition is like past life achievement in reason or experience but that called priory knowledge call first impression like love in first sight ect...while most science deny the survival of spiritual or reincarnation then where did priory knowledge came from?

The distinction is meaningless. The "intuitive" here is just a more basic form such that we dont notice the steps. If you break down these "intuitive things" operationally(bescribing the real world opperations required to complete an action and the result) you will see that it is functionally no different. Input -> calculation -> output

I know how far intuition can take you Ultra instinct.

are you related to Thomas Nagel?

Mnd numbing information. I want to know more.

1:00 But, sir Locke, you would not know the difference between a circle and a square, if you never saw and never touched a circle and a square. 4:50 What's a person? What's "harm"? 8:00 Aaand she said it. "Intuition can lead us astray. And everyone may have a different intuition." Why are you still discussing intuition then??

Is reasoning intuitive?

What Evans and Stanovich don't get, is that parallel intuitions often lead to unique associations (inventions) between elements from different sub-processes, occurring subconsciously. These associations are, essentially, the pre-analytical 'sets', which system 2, analyzes to extract some new concept. System 1/System 2 are both involved in human intelligence. They are both generative systems. System 1 generates sets; eg; 45, 108, 1602, and System 2 generates operators that fill in the blanks (eg; reverse and double each element in the set). System 1 and 2 are not "decision making" systems (actually, they aren't systems at all), but describe, low-level components of thinking, which are involved in the reasoning process. Of course, someone can make intuitive decisions without much rationalizing them, but that doesn't mean those intuitions won't be extremely useful, or lead into novel insights. If rationality was the sole factor to human intelligence (at least, if one upholds the very reasonable postulate that human intelligence, is a means to be practical), then we we expect every long sentence to be more useful than any short sentence (because longer sentences take more rationality to understand/learn from). That clearly isn't the case.

Round is not square is intuition. Round is circle is information. Square is rectangle. Rectangle is not square. This is required knowledge and it means knowing or learning.

There are a few Nagels in philosophy.

Multiplication had nothing do with intuition but theory of general relativity is intuition

3 O’S IN HOLLYWOOD….AND TORONTO

John Lock? I thought he was in a plane crash and got stuck at some island?

Ancient advanced civilisations must be from only one option: Aliens. Saw it on all streaming channels

It should be acknowledged that there is evidence that is neither quantifiable or even qualifiable - cannot be represented in a proposition - and in fact it may be most of the evidence employed moment-to-moment. This ineffable evidence I prefer to call "intuition".

Well isn't that convenient? Counting intuition as knowledge. Many people have lost their money on intuition.

الدحيح

Aphanisis+no theory of mind.

FFS! It's pronounced biases, not biasees. My intuition tells me this is a sign of creeping pretension in the academic world. I've even heard people say processees when they mean processes.

It means ,endless doubts …total loss

The reason we are clueless about intuition is that we keep using words to describe intuition that have nothing to do with this sixth sense.. Intuition is not an emotion, like fear of excitement. To use the word feel is always off the mark . Use the word perception or sense. Intuition is not an instinct. Instincts are genetically determined knowledge or behaviour. Intuition is not tacet knowledge. Unconscious competence in a task is NOT intuition. It seems that this video is a description of all of these things. Intuition is a perception by means of the collective unconscious (Conscious) C Jung. Please Please please. . .

Yea intuition is FAKE AF

Thats not intuition. Intuition is knowing something that is not known. Im really sorry but this is wrong. Your talking about memory and reasoning. The sum is already known and the question in court is material truth.