4 ms·

I'm not suggesting it, I outright stated it in my comment. My point is that potentially logical connections can (or must) be made subconsciously and that that

by dmfdmf 10y ago

I'm not suggesting it, I outright stated it in my comment. My point is that potentially logical connections can (or must) be made subconsciously and that that is an aspect of how the faculty of reason works. Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information.

eternalban 10y ago
I would think no rational being would argue that conscious psychological phenomena are disconnected from subconscious phenomena. It is eminently rational to note that we do not have a complete grasp of the inner workings of human consciousness and mind. > Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. > Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information. To claim an equivalence between reason and intuition based on that reasoning would necessarily require that you also include irrational conscious behavior. Which I hope will show you that your position is, in effect, an empty proposition that sheds no light on the matter. Intutitive thought processes and rational thought processes, in my mind, have the same relationship as music and mathematics. Clearly there is a common ground, but they are distinct. Less whimsically, one may arrive at a decision based on intution that is subsequently validated by events. However, this arrival does not permit a retracing of steps to permit future decisions. Of course it is possible to extract a general law or principle from the experience, but that is not a given. Reason, on the other hand, is the application of extant, and formulation of new, systemized understanding. However that should not be taken as a measure of the superiority of reason to intution, for it is equally true that intution can at times give us wings to go where reason can not take us.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
I think the words we use to think about how the mind works help limit our understanding. For example, we refer that part of though, or intuition, whatever, that we don't do consciously (what does that even mean) as occurring subconsciously. If I understand correctly when people say 'subconsciously' they are refer to what happens outside of our awareness, as in like you say we don't sit there with a dictionary or a bunch of idea reference books and flick between the pages in order to form a thought. But why the term subconscious. sub- 1. a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” ( subcommittee; subplot). I conjecture that using the word subconscious causes a linguistic trap that results in us undervaluing what goes on in our minds. Also I think what most people think of when they think of thinking is merely the subvocalisation[1] or internal dialogue we run in mind. Here I agree with what you've written that, actually all, logical connections are done with intuitive reasoning. NB I'm a complete armchair amateur at philosophy / psychology / neurology. Of course everyone's got a consciousness so we're all experts. Right. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization

by dmfdmf 10y ago

eternalban 10y ago

I would think no rational being would argue that conscious psychological phenomena are disconnected from subconscious phenomena. It is eminently rational to note that we do not have a complete grasp of the inner workings of human consciousness and mind. > Here is an example you experience every single day and even right now if you type a reply to my comment. If you want to express an idea in words you don't consciously and methodically select words from a dictionary, no. The words come automatically with nary a thought, you just issue the command to summon the words to express your idea. > Without this ability you (and more specifically reason) could not function at all, ergo, intuition and subconscious processes must be a component of reason, reason being our faculty for processing information. To claim an equivalence between reason and intuition based on that reasoning would necessarily require that you also include irrational conscious behavior. Which I hope will show you that your position is, in effect, an empty proposition that sheds no light on the matter. Intutitive thought processes and rational thought processes, in my mind, have the same relationship as music and mathematics. Clearly there is a common ground, but they are distinct. Less whimsically, one may arrive at a decision based on intution that is subsequently validated by events. However, this arrival does not permit a retracing of steps to permit future decisions. Of course it is possible to extract a general law or principle from the experience, but that is not a given. Reason, on the other hand, is the application of extant, and formulation of new, systemized understanding. However that should not be taken as a measure of the superiority of reason to intution, for it is equally true that intution can at times give us wings to go where reason can not take us.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

I think the words we use to think about how the mind works help limit our understanding. For example, we refer that part of though, or intuition, whatever, that we don't do consciously (what does that even mean) as occurring subconsciously. If I understand correctly when people say 'subconsciously' they are refer to what happens outside of our awareness, as in like you say we don't sit there with a dictionary or a bunch of idea reference books and flick between the pages in order to form a thought. But why the term subconscious. sub- 1. a prefix occurring originally in loanwords from Latin ( subject; subtract; subvert; subsidy); on this model, freely attached to elements of any origin and used with the meaning “under,” “below,” “beneath” ( subalpine; substratum), “slightly,” “imperfectly,” “nearly” ( subcolumnar; subtropical), “secondary,” “subordinate” ( subcommittee; subplot). I conjecture that using the word subconscious causes a linguistic trap that results in us undervaluing what goes on in our minds. Also I think what most people think of when they think of thinking is merely the subvocalisation[1] or internal dialogue we run in mind. Here I agree with what you've written that, actually all, logical connections are done with intuitive reasoning. NB I'm a complete armchair amateur at philosophy / psychology / neurology. Of course everyone's got a consciousness so we're all experts. Right. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subvocalization