It is currently Thu May 01, 2025 10:34 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

Are you a logical player or an intuitive player?
Logical player 27%  27%  [ 13 ]
Intuitive player 43%  43%  [ 21 ]
Richard Nixon (Probably warrants an explanatory note) 31%  31%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 49
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #21 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:04 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
palapiku wrote:
And the ones who voted for logic probably feel that their sense of shape isn't good enough.


Wrong guess (in my case). Reasoning can create good shapes where necessary.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #22 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:06 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
jts wrote:
So is it guesses that you don't exist, or the feeling of being right as divorced from an explanation of it?


As a non-native speaker, I am having difficulty parsing this sentence. Please explain.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #23 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:10 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
Laman wrote:
even though i think it could work for you


The problem is: I learn too little for too much effort this way.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #24 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:15 pm 
Gosei
User avatar

Posts: 2011
Location: Groningen, NL
Liked others: 202
Was liked: 1087
Rank: Dutch 4D
GD Posts: 645
Universal go server handle: herminator
IMO, there are two kinds of players:

1. Intuitive players.
2. Weak players.


This post by HermanHiddema was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, gasana, gogameguru
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #25 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:40 pm 
Oza

Posts: 2264
Liked others: 1180
Was liked: 553
RobertJasiek wrote:
jts wrote:
So is it guesses that you don't exist, or the feeling of being right as divorced from an explanation of it?


As a non-native speaker, I am having difficulty parsing this sentence. Please explain.

As a native speaker, I'm having trouble parsing that sentence too. I think maybe he left out a few key words while typing too fast?

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #26 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 5:13 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 477
Liked others: 192
Was liked: 357
Rank: 5d
HermanHiddema wrote:
IMO, there are two kinds of players:

1. Intuitive players.
2. Weak players.


Left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot... ;-)

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV


This post by gogameguru was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, Phelan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #27 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 6:38 pm 
Lives in gote

Posts: 370
Liked others: 91
Was liked: 254
Rank: Weak
HermanHiddema wrote:
IMO, there are two kinds of players:

1. Intuitive players.
2. Weak players.

One definition that philosophers like to use for intuition is knowledge without justification. If you are an intuitive player, you already know things without having learned them! It is only natural that they are stronger than the rest of us given that they had a head start. No wonder I am so weak... :sad:

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #28 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 8:24 pm 
Oza
User avatar

Posts: 2659
Liked others: 310
Was liked: 631
Rank: kgs 6k
You said intuition doesn't exist. You suggest two candidates for the name "intuition":

1. Guesses
2. The feeling of being right

Which is the one that doesn't exist?


This post by jts was liked by: gogameguru
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #29 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 9:25 pm 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 477
Liked others: 192
Was liked: 357
Rank: 5d
lemmata wrote:
HermanHiddema wrote:
IMO, there are two kinds of players:

1. Intuitive players.
2. Weak players.

One definition that philosophers like to use for intuition is knowledge without justification. If you are an intuitive player, you already know things without having learned them! It is only natural that they are stronger than the rest of us given that they had a head start. No wonder I am so weak... :sad:


[TLDR; Intuition exists, don't question it, exploit it ruthlessly instead! :tmbup:]

While we might have trouble agreeing on a definition of intuition, most of us should be able to agree that our brain does things that we're not actively conscious of, at least to some extent.

For example, your heart beats, you can walk, form sentences, catch balls, drive cars etc. When you throw a ball a long way for a dog, how does the dog know where to run to to catch it? Why do they tend to take the shortest path? Can dogs do calculus? Not really.

The implication that relying on intuition is somehow lazy or didn't require learning doesn't ring true to me. Intuition is the precious result of experience and learning.

How does one develop intuition in Go? Some of the ways I know of include, playing lots of games, solving lots of Go problems, replaying lots of pro games and looking at lots of examples in books. Perhaps we love Go, but to many people that would sound like hard work. When you do the 'work' though, something a little bit magical starts to happen, you start to see good moves and have good ideas more often - reflexively. I'm not claiming to understand how that works, but my personal experience and the anecdotal experience of others suggests that there's something there.

Looking at Herman's categorization, pretty much all us here fall into the category of weak players (feel free to exclude yourself from this grouping if you feel offended :blackeye:), because most of us didn't learn Go until were already adults (or at least teenagers). The adult brain is (has learned to be?) more analytical and less intuitive in the way it thinks. So it's natural for us to think more in terms of principles, but intuition is still important too.

The real intuitive players are the ones who learn Go from a very young age, as if it's a second language. People like Lee Sedol.

I find it really hard to believe that anyone, even Robert J, doesn't rely on intuition to some extent when playing Go or doing other things that they may be skilled at. Surely there is nobody here he feels the need to rationalize every minute decision they make throughout a day?

There are countless examples of case studies that scientists have looked into to try and understand our brains better. Like the famous one about the more senior fireman in Britain who sensed that he had to get his team out of the building before it exploded (when none of the young guys had any inkling about it). I remember studying that one at university. That kind of 'sense' is a product of great experience.

Going back to Go... Relying on intuition doesn't mean you just play moves without thinking about it. It means you might have a feeling that 'this is the important place' (some might call that temperature) or 'this is the move', but after that you read and analyze the situation to see if your intuition is good.

Using my personal experience as a reference point, when I get my games reviewed by a pro, I notice that most of my biggest mistakes these days are made when I choose to ignore my first instinct and rely on some sort of principle instead. One of the biggest improvements to my game occurred when I learned to listen to the strange feeling that tells you 'this move is heavy'. And heavy is a very vague term.

Robert, with regards to this comment:
RobertJasiek wrote:
I wish I could ask the "intuitive" players how they learn, but, lacking logic, maybe they can't? I ask because I have also countless teaching by example books (with useless text if any) for intuitive players and want to learn more from them than I can so far. How? (Note: IMO, intuition does not exist. So advice of the kind "apply your intuition" won't work.)

You've hit on something interesting here and I started to see things from your perspective. Think about what it 'feels' like trying to read one of these books with 'useless text if any' and then imagine that some people might feel very similar when reading a book about capturing races. I'm not trying to devalue your work, so please don't feel the need to defend it. I respect your books. I'm simply pointing out that people are different and learn in different ways.

A lot of the logic that stronger players present to explain the reasons for a particular move is presented in a post hoc manner anyway. Intuition comes first and reason comes second.

Personally, I don't feel a burning need to define all things and explain how intuition works. For me it's just enough to know that it works and to make as much use of it as much as possible ;) - because it produces better results in less time. I'd rather spend my time working on other things and, if I have any time left, I still like to play Go now and then :).

Some might call that laziness, I see it more as pragmatism.

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV


This post by gogameguru was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, lemmata, rlaalswo
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #30 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:46 pm 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
gogameguru wrote:
How does one develop intuition in Go? Some of the ways I know of include, playing lots of games, solving lots of Go problems, replaying lots of pro games and looking at lots of examples in books.


When I started go, I still believed my school's biology teacher that there was intuition. I did all those thousands of games, problems, pro games, examples. To improve, what helped me, was to find understanding in the sea of all those samples. The more I searched for and found understanding, the more I realised that "intuition" is only pretence of laziness of better explanation by reasons.

Quote:
When you do the 'work' though, something a little bit magical starts to happen,


It is not magical, but reasoning. For those who do not care about the reasons, the brain takes care of it nevertheless to process its prior learning "experience".

Quote:
I'm not claiming to understand how that works


I am claiming that I can found out how it works for me.

Quote:
I find it really hard to believe that anyone, even Robert J, doesn't rely on intuition to some extent when playing Go or doing other things that they may be skilled at.


I have no doubt any longer:)

Quote:
Surely there is nobody here he feels the need to rationalize every minute decision they make throughout a day?


Not explicitly. I am not saying that the brain would be working only rationally. I am just saying that the concept of intuition is a fake. vitation (well, unless the universe grows infinitely);)

Quote:
That kind of 'sense' is a product of great experience.


But... experience is not intuition.

Quote:
Going back to Go... Relying on intuition doesn't mean you just play moves without thinking about it. It means you might have a feeling that 'this is the important place'


Reasoned thinking, not feeling.

Quote:
after that you read and analyze the situation to see if your intuition is good. [...] Intuition comes first and reason comes second.


Rough reasoning is replaced by detailed reasoning.

Quote:
most of my biggest mistakes these days are made when I choose to ignore my first instinct and rely on some sort of principle instead.


Change your principles or their priority or relative connection!

Quote:
heavy is a very vague term.


Heavy can be derived from efficiency, which can be defined.

Quote:
because it produces better results in less time.


I have usually made the opposite experience.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #31 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 1:15 am 
Lives in gote
User avatar

Posts: 477
Liked others: 192
Was liked: 357
Rank: 5d
Thanks Robert,

To make things clear, I'm not trying to argue against your position that logic and reason are valuable tools, but I do disagree with the claim that something which we choose to call 'intuition' doesn't exist in any form. The premise of this thread is misleading insofar as it pits logic and intuition against one another, when really one complements the other. We don't fully understand how the brain works. When we don't have a complete understanding of something, creating definitions and principles can be helpful, but can also create the illusion of certainty where there is none.

If you tell me that intuition doesn't exist in your experience of the world, I'll believe you. It's impossible for me to understand how that would work, but I'll trust you anyway. And likewise, if I tell you that in my experience it does exist, please believe me, even if you can't comprehend it. We all formulate our own interpretation of the world inside our own minds and that's why when you play Go with someone you see a game and a person, instead of vibrations of light and sound.

You're never going to convince me to agree with you by just quoting a selection of what I've said and stating what amounts to the opposite back to me. Think about it. If I did the same back to you, it wouldn't change your opinion either.

We can have an interesting discussion though if you address the important point of whether dogs can do calculus ;). I joke, but this is something that's important to your argument. Please answer these three questions to help me understand:

1. If intuition doesn't exist in any way shape or form, then both people and dogs don't have intuition. How is it that they know where to run to catch balls? Are dogs reasoning logically? Are they doing calculus? Are they some sort of automaton?

2. Are you able to drive a car? Do you have to make hundreds of mathematical calculations while driving and, if so, how can you do them so quickly?

3. I rely on intuition heavily in my own games - something you claim is irrational and doesn't exist. If intuition really is figment of my imagination, I must be some kind of crazed idiot, playing at the level of a retarded gerbil. But, somehow, I manage to play as a 7 dan on Tygem. How is this possible?

For the third point: if, as you said above 'For those who do not care about the reasons, the brain takes care of it nevertheless to process its prior learning "experience".' Which you followed with 'But... experience is not intuition.' Then what should we call the ability to instantaneously apply accumulated experience? Why can't we call that process intuition? We can use your term 'rough reasoning' if you like. How is it not the same thing?

A discussion for another time: I just checked your Joseki 1 and 2 and didn't find a definition of 'heavy' in there. Perhaps you could define it in terms of efficiency, as you suggest, but I think it has more to do with strategic freedom and flexibility on a global scale. The number of stones is much less important than the whole board context. One stone can become heavy if the game develops so that it has no effective way to move and giving it up would entail losing the game.

P.S. Your new book arrived today and I'll start reading it soon. Thanks!

_________________
David

Go Game Guru: Learn Go | How to Get Better at Go | Go Game Shop | Go Boards | Baduk TV


This post by gogameguru was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, daal, topazg
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #32 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 2:42 am 
Judan

Posts: 6269
Liked others: 0
Was liked: 796
gogameguru wrote:
1. If intuition doesn't exist in any way shape or form, then both people and dogs don't have intuition. How is it that they know where to run to catch balls? Are dogs reasoning logically? Are they doing calculus? Are they some sort of automaton?


Balls have size, location, speed, way of movement. An animal observes and stores these parameters. Then it uses this "database" knowledge and fits the currently flowing ball's parameters with (according to the quality of the database) the best match and acts accordingly. If there is no database and it is the first ball catch, then less useful knowledge about moving objects, arms and legs is consulted.

Quote:
2. Are you able to drive a car?


I do not know; I use a bike.

Quote:
Do you have to make hundreds of mathematical calculations while driving and, if so, how can you do them so quickly?


Database knowledge. (This is a simplification; there are also related "rules" or "principles".) Quickly: the human is very quick for the things it is familiar with. Why? Because neural nets process highly parallel.

Quote:
If intuition really is figment of my imagination, I must be some kind of crazed idiot,


No, it just means, IMO, that you have not studied your own thinking process analytically in as careful detail yet. Maybe you lack the ability of such analytical thinking to understand your "subconsience" better than by the excuse word "intuition".

Quote:
somehow, I manage to play as a 7 dan on Tygem. How is this possible?


Because your brain uses lots of subconcious decision making you conscious thinking is not aware of explicitly.

Quote:
Then what should we call the ability to instantaneously apply accumulated experience?


See above.

Quote:
Why can't we call that process intuition?


It is like calling a computer a "mystic black box", which would be nothing but an excuse for not bothering to study how it really works. "Intuition" and "instinct" are excuses for not studying the details of thinking.

Quote:
We can use your term 'rough reasoning' if you like. How is it not the same thing?


"Intuition" comes with the implied notion of being magic. "Reasoning" is explicit about the (by me assumed) nature of thinking processes.

Quote:
I just checked your Joseki 1 and 2 and didn't find a definition of 'heavy' in there.


Heavy is "overconcentrated and currently without local life". For overconcentrated, see Joseki 2, p. 42. I know, I have not provided a strict definition for it; in the book, I have concentrated on defining strictly part of the more difficult terms. The book's description "stones situated closely together and one could remove a part of them without hurting the group involved" is good enough for the purpose of the book and indicates how to approach a strict definition, if one needs it.

Quote:
Perhaps you could define it in terms of efficiency, as you suggest, but I think it has more to do with strategic freedom and flexibility on a global scale.


This is an implication from "currently without local life", because it implies the player's need for defense or sacrifice in the global context.

Quote:
The number of stones is much less important than the whole board context.


A definition along the line suggested above does not prevent one from doing global positional judgement, which includes the heavy group and its positional context.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #33 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 3:24 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Location: Vancouver
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 14
Rank: mid-SDK
DGS: rhubarber
Universal go server handle: rhubarb
There are so many ways we could understand a "logic/intuition" distinction. Maybe we can profitably rename some of them.

[TL;DR: Nixon, and either we need more polls or almost everyone should probably vote Nixon.]

Sticking for the moment to the pandanet article linked in the OP, they characterize the distinction in terms of whether the player can explain or likes to discuss reasons for playing a given move (this is interpolating a bit). So it sounds like we've got something like a verbal/nonverbal distinction. But it's not totally clear to me how this is to be cashed out either in play or in study.

(Aside: as someone who always got stuck out of the way in right field, I like their idea that people who are good at math are the same people who are good at sports.)

But the article also has a bit of a weird mix between talking about learning styles and talking about playing styles. The above is a bit more toward the playing end of the spectrum, if we're interpolating the bit about discussing specific moves. So let's go the other way: they could have a distinction between learning via explicit and/or principled reasoning vs learning via example. So we might more suggestively talk about a distinction between learning a trade and developing a taste.

Actually, it almost sounds in the article like the distinction is between people who try hard to learn and people who don't--but that's a silly distinction so I'm not bolding it.

It seems at least from the first page of posts that most people here have in mind something more about playing habits--roughly, how do you read? There are lots of nice distinctions we could have here: maybe intuition gives you better breadth and logic gives you better depth in your search for a line of play. Put another way, are you more likely to miss the long-term consequences of your play, or do you have lots of short-term blindspots?

Or maybe we're interested in comparing vices. Maybe the question here is: are you more sloppy (intuitive/not logical) or unimaginative (logical/not intuitive)?

We could go on. It might be fun.

Anyway, as a start, that's at least four possible distinctions we could have in mind. We've also seen some discussion about what exactly "intuition" might mean here--but can we maybe worry about "logic," too? [Disclaimer: logic is sorta kinda an area of research for me, so the word may mean totally different things to me and to normal English speakers.] You can't play go without being a logical thinker. Any intuition relevant to go is logical intuition. Logic gives you the consequences of your moves; part of the beauty of go is that logic is all you need to derive the consequences of your moves. It's all logic! If you're a go player, you're a logical player! Or maybe you choose your moves with dice, I guess.

OK, I'll go back to lurking now. Hope I don't sound too cranky.


This post by rhubarb was liked by: daal
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #34 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:07 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 370
Liked others: 91
Was liked: 254
Rank: Weak
rhubarb wrote:
part of the beauty of go is that logic is all you need to derive the consequences of your moves.
Logic, a piece of paper longer than the universe is wide, and more pencils than the universe has protons and neutrons. You might need less paper and fewer pencils if you start playing a purely logical style near the end of the game. I guess I'm being facetious.


This post by lemmata was liked by 3 people: Bonobo, hyperpape, Phelan
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #35 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:16 am 
Lives in gote

Posts: 370
Liked others: 91
Was liked: 254
Rank: Weak
arbitrary interpretation of what gogameguru wrote:
What if we define intuition as a signal produced by an implicit biological computation process that has been improved upon by evolutionary pressures and Bayesian updating? Under such theories, trusting intuition is just a logical decision to take advantage of this process instead of using explicit computation in situations where the former is more efficient than the latter.
Cool theory.


This post by lemmata was liked by 2 people: Bonobo, gogameguru
Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #36 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 6:22 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4382
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Liked others: 499
Was liked: 733
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
RobertJasiek wrote:
I wish I could ask the "intuitive" players how they learn, but, lacking logic, maybe they can't? I ask because I have also countless teaching by example books (with useless text if any) for intuitive players and want to learn more from them than I can so far. How? (Note: IMO, intuition does not exist. So advice of the kind "apply your intuition" won't work.) emphasis added
Robert Jasiek wrote:
jts wrote:
wrote:
What do you take "intuition" to mean?
It is a pretence for laziness not to perceive or explain things carefully.
Speaking of pretenses for laziness, I assume that your comments indicate a carefully reasoned criticism of dual-process theories in psychology? If so, I would like to read it.

Edit: fixed quote tags, moved emphasis added note

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #37 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:05 am 
Tengen

Posts: 4382
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Liked others: 499
Was liked: 733
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
In the past, I have written a bit about intuition, since it is the case that philosophers make heavy appeal to intuitions in defending their theories, and it is not obvious that these intuitions are sufficiently good evidence for the claims they are used to defend (see Philosophical Intuitions and Scepticism about Judgment for the most prominent attempt to deny this claim).

My view is that it is best to think of intuition as an inclination to believe something without being able to state clearly what one's evidence for it is (this is almost but not quite Marc Lynch's definition in "Trusting Intuition" (not available online, but summarized here). This includes both absolute crap like the gambler's hunch that the roulette wheel will come up black next, and the fireman's sense that the house is going to explode in flames.

Some intuitions are capable of being eliminated. Firemen study the signs of backdrafts and flashovers, and have some degree of understanding of the physical processes involved. Thus, a fireman may suddenly intuit that the house is about to explode, and later realize that he had seen such and such signs which he had perceived. This type of post-hoc reconstruction of reasoning is often confabulated, but that doesn't mean it can't ever be accurate.

Other intuitions may not be eliminable. Often, what happens is that one intuition, i.e. that this extension is too wide, is capable of being eliminated in favor of other intuitions, i.e. that after a particular invasion, White will get a good result.

All of this bears some relation to things that psychologists talk about, like fast, subconscious heuristic based processes, versus slow, conscious rule based processes. But it's also slightly orthogonal. You can think about things and slowly develop intuitions--it comes to seem a certain way, but you still cannot state any particular reasons. Also you can have intuitions about very sophisticated things like mathematical theorems.

In the case of Go, what we're really talking about is different blends of intuition and calculation/logic. Any time we read, we're doing a great deal of filtering of moves, ignoring lines, things like that. Much of that can be classified as relying on intuition. But then there's also the phenomenon of deciding upon a particular invasion point without reading the followups.

In any case, it's not so clear what the original article was talking about. Takemiya's comments about playing a "natural" style of go with moves that appeal to you came to mind.

P.S. Lemmata: knowledge without justification is a somewhat tendentious definition of intuition. Some people may think intuited propositions can count as things we are justified in believing. See Reliabilism for an easy route there to that claim.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #38 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:32 am 
Dies in gote

Posts: 31
Location: Vancouver
Liked others: 92
Was liked: 14
Rank: mid-SDK
DGS: rhubarber
Universal go server handle: rhubarb
lemmata wrote:
rhubarb wrote:
part of the beauty of go is that logic is all you need to derive the consequences of your moves.
Logic, a piece of paper longer than the universe is wide, and more pencils than the universe has protons and neutrons. You might need less paper and fewer pencils if you start playing a purely logical style near the end of the game. I guess I'm being facetious.


Fair enough. I should have said "all Laplace's demon needs...," or maybe something about the logic of discovery vs the logic of justification.

But I still have my same gripe about what "a purely logical style" could possibly be.

hyperpape wrote:
knowledge without justification is a somewhat tendentious definition of intuition. Some people may think intuited propositions can count as things we are justified in believing. See Reliabilism for an easy route there to that claim.


Well, this depends on your reliabilism. Goldman's reliabilism certainly seems to be about providing an account of justification, but then there are people like Dretske who think justification is just the wrong thing for epistemologists to care about. (NB, Goldman wrote the SEP article you link to.) Anyway, I guess I'm bringing this up because reliabilism is where I'd look for someone who denies that intuition can be a source of justification--doesn't everyone else who believes in a faculty of intuition believe it's a source of justification? Oh, and the other reason is because hey I'm a philosopher too! let's talk philosophy!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #39 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:02 pm 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1103
Location: Netherlands
Liked others: 408
Was liked: 422
Rank: EGF 4d
GD Posts: 952
RJ,

Do you argue that the subconscious mind plays no role in our thought process?

Intuition may be a logical process, but given the lack of interaction between subconscious and conscious, our choice to trust our subconscious is NOT logical.

Doesn't that seem odd to you?

_________________
Tactics yes, Tact no...

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: Logical players, intuitive players ..
Post #40 Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:52 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4382
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Liked others: 499
Was liked: 733
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
rhubarb wrote:
Well, this depends on your reliabilism. Goldman's reliabilism certainly seems to be about providing an account of justification, but then there are people like Dretske who think justification is just the wrong thing for epistemologists to care about. (NB, Goldman wrote the SEP article you link to.) Anyway, I guess I'm bringing this up because reliabilism is where I'd look for someone who denies that intuition can be a source of justification--doesn't everyone else who believes in a faculty of intuition believe it's a source of justification? Oh, and the other reason is because hey I'm a philosopher too! let's talk philosophy!
That'll show me to check the author--I thought there was a lot about Goldman in there, even relative to his obvious importance for the subject. I initially had a line in there about how you might deny that beliefs must be justified to be knowledge, but I can never remember what opinions are common in epistemology, or whether I'm using terms the way they're common used (or if there is even any consensus about them).

I think you're right that most people talk about intuitions as justifying beliefs, though I think it's pretty rare to hear contemporary philosophers talk about intuition being anything like a faculty. It's also currently very popular to deny that philosophy relies on intuitions, and that intuition names any important epistemological phenomenon.

And if you stick around, you'll be surprised how often philosophical topics come up on the boards.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 130 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group