Intuitive Proof

[BeHereNow]

Intuition is a method of arriving at direct knowledge, not based on organized, rational thinking, such as logic, deduction or inference, and not based on the evidence available. It is also not a divine revelation, or truth learned from sacred texts.

Because of these things, it is not scientific or religious in nature.
I started studying Zen (Buddhism) many years ago and did not know it at first, but I was studying about Intuitive Proof. It was not until I started studying about Deism that I made connection and started to see the actual reference to intuition as a way of knowing things.
Buddhism is neither atheistic nor theistic, so not inherently religious, although some do adopt one stand or the other. Deism has a belief in god, but none of the trappings of religion, little or no personification of god, and is little more than a form of naturalism. God is part of the natural, the supernatural does not exist. Some will consider Deism a “religion” because it contains the word god, but under classical definitions of religion, Deism falls very short. It is a philosophical world view that does not appeal to Atheists or Theists with strong convictions in these beliefs.

From Deism I investigated the sciences to see if there were a ‘rational’ basis for accepting a non-rational way to truth. I found that there were indeed mathematicians and scientists who accepted and advocated for intuition as a means to truth.

Words in themselves have no meaning. They are arbitrary symbols meant to represent thoughts, concepts, or the existence of actual objects or events.

We give words meaning by mutual agreement of what the symbols represent. Some words have the exact same appearance, but different meanings based on context. The symbols remain the same, the meaning changes.

Words used in this thread will have a particular meaning, applicable to this context, but in other context they may have other meanings.

We will need a common agreement of many words.

The subject of this thread is “Intuitive Proof”, so we will start with defining this one term. This is a term BHN uses, and to my knowledge no one else on this board has supported it or indicated they have prior knowledge of it although everyone has heard the word intuition. Some, such as beto believe the term represents a false belief, so in effect say it does not exist, since it is false. It is up to BHN to define the term and show how there is no evidence it is false, and there is supporting evidence to show it is true. Whether it is convincing evidence will depend on the individual. That is the nature of convincing evidence, it is not universally convincing. I must do this by using words in their commonly accepted meanings, and not creating some truly arbitrary meaning simply to make false statements seem true. In order to do this there has to be a mutual agreement on the meaning of key words in addition to the immediate subject (intuitive proof).

Each word or term can be accepted, rejected, or questionable.
Rejected or questionable meanings will need clarification, with beto stating his objections so BHN can reply and together, arrive at acceptable meanings.
~
Naturally this is not a closed debate, so others may challenge the meanings of words and offer their opinions.
~
Intuitive Proof is comprised of two words in conjunction. Beto has given us a starting point by offering some dictionary definitions of the individual words. As I mentioned in the thread that spawned this thread, QED taught me years ago that dictionary definitions of words are wonderful for those who do not know the meaning of the words, but for true meaning discussion is needed. I have found dictionaries can be a starting point for those with strong disagreements, so do not object to starting there and incorporating what they offer.

Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind
of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the
validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements
in accordance with principles of reasoning

Cogency can have a quality of logic, but this is not acceptable as intuitive proof is not derived from logic. We will take cogency to mean a simple, or clear thought, with elements of plainness, not complex or complicated. Using the first definition of ‘proof’ we have:
~
Proof: A clear thought of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact.
~
We can see from this that what is proof to one person (mind) many not be proof to a different person (mind). A proof convinces the mind, but may not convince all minds. This may seem obvious, and yet it may be a point of contention.
There is proof of global warming, yet not all accept the ‘proof’.
There is proof the surge of globing warming we are experiencing is a result of mankind and the burning of fossil fuels, yet not all accept the ‘proof’.
If our measure of proof is that all must accept it, we will find the meaning of ‘proof’ is useless.
There are sane, (otherwise) rational persons who honestly believe NASA never put a man on the moon. For them, there is no proof this happened, only fabricated evidence.
Proof convinces many rational minds, but not everyone always.

Intuition - 1: quick and ready insight
2 a: immediate apprehension or cognition b: knowledge or conviction
gained by intuition c: the power or faculty of attaining to direct
knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

This last definition (2c) is acceptable when putting meaning to the term ‘intuitive proof’.

So we have:
Intuitive proof: The power of attaining knowledge that is convincing to the mind without evident rational thought or inference, what we can call the tools of science.

By knowledge I mean the accepted meaning of general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles.

That which actually exists is truthful. If I identify or describe accurately, a particular planet that orbits a particular star, I have knowledge of that planet.
If a planet orbits a particular star, but I am not aware of it, I have no knowledge of it, yet it still remains a truth that it exists. My lack of awareness does not change a truthful thing into a false thing.
If a law of physics exists, but we have no awareness of it, it is no less a law of physics, it simply has yet to be discovered.

Science is incapable of revealing all true things.
Science may have the potential to reveal any true thing, but this is quite a different admission.

Science has revealed to us that there are other planets orbiting other stars, but I doubt that any of us will see the day science catalogs all of the planets in our galaxy, let alone our universe, and this is a small example.
There are things which are true and science has no knowledge of them.
In some cases, science is so unaware of them, they are not even being investigated. In other cases science is aware of them, but lacks the tools or motivation to investigate them.
By ‘science’ I use the broad meaning of logic, and rational thought applied to material and empirical evidence, which would include the science of math, physics, etc.


Intuitive proofs are not replacements or substitutions for scientific proofs.
Intuitive proofs lead the way for scientific proofs.
Those who accept intuitive proofs can point to much anecdotal evidence for their position.
When a scientist or mathematician says:
“Suddenly it just came to me. . .”
“I had been on the wrong path, when it all became clear. . .”
“I don’t know why it didn’t occur to me sooner that. . .”
“I awoke one night and had to write my thoughts down immediately, before I was fully awake and forgot them.”
There are examples of the anecdotal evidence I am referring to.

Those who object to intuitive proofs point out that any outlandish idea may appear to be true and the results may do great harm if others accept as true what is rubbish.
I should not have to point out that these same charges were leveled against science in the days of Galileo and others.

There is no doubt that by today’s standards science is a safe way of attaining truth, and intuition is like playing with fire in a petroleum refinery.
Caution is the watchword.

Whenever possible, look to the tools of science to support intuitive proofs, because in some cases they are available.

It would be the height of arrogance for any believer of science to say “Science is aware of all true things.” An absence of scientific proof is not proof of non-existence. It is simply an absence of scientific proof, no more.

I would also suggest that for those who argue that science is the only means for discovering truths, they do so with truth they have intuited. The proof that they have the correct approach has been intuited, or is reasoned by scientific means. When scientific means are the rational for accepting only scientific means, we have a belief system built on circular reasoning.

If this is not true, it seems to me science would produce this proof they have that there is no supernatural explanation for any event. (I do not advocate for the supernatural myself, but have friends who do). Certainly there have been tests to demonstrate that some events credited to the supernatural are suspect or even flatly untrue, and continued belief will be based on faith.
Things such as the creation of the universe are beyond scientific testing at this time.

Epistemology is the philosophy that tells us about knowledge, what is knowable and how we know things.
Metaphysics is the philosophy that tells us what is real.

Those of other epistemological or metaphysical beliefs systems can dismiss Intuitive Proofs out of hand, as being contrary to their belief system.
“God tells me everything I need to know.”, is a rebuttal from a different belief system.
Similarly, “Science tells me everything I need to know.”, has different pillars that support their beliefs.
I see both positions to be essentially the same, one is just a little more complicated than the other (stands on shakier ground).

I will point out that if numbers mean anything, it is likely I am wrong.
I have chosen the path less taken, and have found it quite comfortable.

[byofrcs]

.....

There is no doubt that by today’s standards science is a safe way of attaining truth, and intuition is like playing with fire in a petroleum refinery.
Caution is the watchword.

Whenever possible, look to the tools of science to support intuitive proofs, because in some cases they are available.

.......

No, it isn't trusted because it is unreliable short circuit. Your petrochemical example is case in point. Benzene rings anyone ?.

Sleeping on it is an acceptable way of letting the subconscious work stuff out. This isn't unscientific nor distasteful to the scientific method because in the end the knowledge obtained must be made neutral to the observer.

If intuition allowed one person to derive a proof, it doesn't mean the next person requires the same intuition or mental state to test the validity of the proof.

We use intuition all the time. I certainly use it to fault find stuff. I also know that though it may allow me to short circuit the testing it's not always right and I must resort to the usual 1/2 split method or a methodical search.

In other words once someone has told me benzene is in rings I don't need to dream of snakes to use this information.

[BeHereNow]

byofrcs No, it isn't trusted because it is unreliable short circuit. Your petrochemical example is case in point. Benzene rings anyone ?.

Sleeping on it is an acceptable way of letting the subconscious work stuff out. This isn't unscientific nor distasteful to the scientific method because in the end the knowledge obtained must be made neutral to the observer.

Science accepts inspiration and solution to problems wherever it can find them. In that sense intuition is not distasteful to science. I never implied science is not willing to accept intuited truths, quite the opposite.
Sleep and dreams is not a part of the scientific method, surely we can agree on that.
Accepting ideas that are fruitful regardless of the source is acceptable to science, surely we can agree on that also.

If intuition allowed one person to derive a proof, it doesn't mean the next person requires the same intuition or mental state to test the validity of the proof.

Of course not. In fact, the reasonable truth of the matter is that it would be impossible if and intuited truth has been shared with an associate, for that associate to now intuit the same truth. This is because the associate now has prior knowledge of the solution, and can no longer intuit the same solution.

On the other hand, if someone intuits a truth and tells the associate they have a solution, and the associate asks for an explanation, and the reply is “I cannot tell you what it is. You will have to figure it out yourself.” IF the associate finds the same solution, THEN he did not get it from his friend, whether by intuition or the scientific method.

Intuition is an experience. Experiences are personal things and cannot be given to others. Valid truths gained from experiences can be given to others. Some easily, some not so easy.

We use intuition all the time. I certainly use it to fault find stuff. I also know that though it may allow me to short circuit the testing it's not always right and I must resort to the usual 1/2 split method or a methodical search.

My advice as well, as clearly stated. When the tools of science can be applied to test or verify an intuited truth, my advice is to do so. This is not always possible (in the short term).

In other words once someone has told me benzene is in rings I don't need to dream of snakes to use this information.

Of course not.

In Zen the answers that come to students are universal truths experienced on a personal level. This type of knowledge is very difficult to transfer to others, unlike scientific truths which can be transferred relatively easily.
In science a person may work for years for a solution to a problem, but once found, can share it with associates within minutes or hours.

In Zen if the master holds the answer and wants to impart it to his student, it could easily take years or decades for this transference. In many cases one or the other decides it is not possible, and the transfer never happens.

[Beto]

Science accepts inspiration and solution to problems wherever it can find them.

When developing theories, sure.

In that sense intuition is not distasteful to science.

It is if you propose to accept it as proof of anything.

I never implied science is not willing to accept intuited truths, quite the opposite.

"Intuited truth" (if implied to be valid to anyone else at face value) is an even worst oxymoron than "intuited proof".

Sleep and dreams is not a part of the scientific method, surely we can agree on that.

A dream might provide new data, insight previously missed. It's still no proof, merely an aid in developing theory.

Accepting ideas that are fruitful regardless of the source is acceptable to science, surely we can agree on that also.

It's reasonable.

In fact, the reasonable truth of the matter is that it would be impossible if and intuited truth has been shared with an associate, for that associate to now intuit the same truth. This is because the associate now has prior knowledge of the solution, and can no longer intuit the same solution.

On the other hand, if someone intuits a truth and tells the associate they have a solution, and the associate asks for an explanation, and the reply is “I cannot tell you what it is. You will have to figure it out yourself.” IF the associate finds the same solution, THEN he did not get it from his friend, whether by intuition or the scientific method.

Intuition is an experience. Experiences are personal things and cannot be given to others. Valid truths gained from experiences can be given to others. Some easily, some not so easy.

In Zen the answers that come to students are universal truths experienced on a personal level. This type of knowledge is very difficult to transfer to others, unlike scientific truths which can be transferred relatively easily.
In science a person may work for years for a solution to a problem, but once found, can share it with associates within minutes or hours.

In Zen if the master holds the answer and wants to impart it to his student, it could easily take years or decades for this transference. In many cases one or the other decides it is not possible, and the transfer never happens.

If you can't verbalize the intuition you had, or its practical application, what use is it, to you or anyone else? Wasting years to experience the same intuition as the "master", without it having any practical use (or you could verbalize it) seems to be a monumental waste of time.

[BeHereNow]

beto

You choose not to address any of my comments to you, but rather to respond to my responses to another poster. Oh well.
You may not understand this, but I do not respond to words, I respond to posters.

BHN: Science accepts inspiration and solution to problems wherever it can find them. In that sense intuition is not distasteful to science.
beto : It is (distasteful to science) if you propose to accept it as proof of anything.

By “solution to problems”, I of course mean by the standards of science. I would have thought that would have been clear, but apparently it was not. For your eyes I will say this: 'If intuition provides science with a solution it accepts, then intuition in that sense is not distasteful to science.' I hope that makes it clearer.

beto "Intuited truth" (if implied to be valid to anyone else at face value) is an even worst oxymoron than "intuited proof".

I thought I made it clear that intuited truths are personal experiences. I thought I made it clear that for science, intuited truths require scientific substantiation before they will be acceptable to science.

Intuited truths are accepted at face value ONLY to the one who has gained knowledge by intuition. It is up to her to keep it to herself, or try to provide others with evidence they will accept. This would mean scientific evidence if she is trying to sway the opinions or convince the minds of scientists.

You have made no attempt to explain why you refer to intuited proof as an oxymoron.
I have used your words to give meaning to the term, and you mention no disagreement.

You disagree for no apparent reason, or at least no reason you can express in words. Perhaps you intuit your disagreement. Very unscientific, very emotional.

beto If you can't verbalize the intuition you had, or its practical application, what use is it, to you or anyone else? Wasting years to experience the same intuition as the "master", without it having any practical use (or you could verbalize it) seems to be a monumental waste of time.

You do not understand Zen or religion, which is no surprise.

beto, please imagine, for the sake of argument, that I have a pill I can give you.

If you take the pill, you will have eternal contentment, even happiness. You will never again find yourself lacking for any creature comforts. If the air were cold, and you were unprotected, it would not bother you. If you went without food or water, it would be a minor inconvenience, hardly worth mentioning. If your friends deserted you, you would find solace in the clouds or streams. If you died an early death, you would remember only the wonderful times you had, and expire with a smile on your face. You will happily do those things you want and are able to do, even study or practice science.
In short, you will have found your bliss.
You, for reasons only you understand, have no doubts what I describe is truthful, in this ‘for the sake of argument’ exercise I propose.

Nothing comes without cost, so here is the cost of the pill I might offer:

You must wait ten years before you can take the pill.

There is even a chance (not great) you will die before the time is up, and you only get the pill in the last few fleeting moments of your life.

During that time you will clean my house and do the simple exercises or mind puzzles I prescribe.
You get no extra pills for your friends, but you can tell them how they might get such a pill. As a matter of fact, that is how you found out about my pill. Some of your friends have told you “I have found my bliss.”

When asked about the effects of the pill you may only respond “I have found my bliss”, no further explanation is allowed.

Do you refuse the opportunity for my pill?

Of course, this is only one of those mental exercises philosophers sometimes pose. No such pill exists, and there is no path to your bliss. This is just something to think about. Some may find such a path, but no such path exists for you. I do not mean to deceive you or trick you into doing what is against your nature.
I only ask a hypothetical question.

[Beto]

You choose not to address any of my comments to you, but rather to respond to my responses to another poster.

It was my first post in this thread. In the other, your last post was devoid of argumentation, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here.

Oh well.
You may not understand this, but I do not respond to words, I respond to posters.

I respond to argumentations contrary to my convictions. But if you resent other people replying to your posts, when they're directed at someone else, I'll refrain from doing so. I think you'll be missing out on a great forum advantage, though. For future reference, feel free to address any of my posts or arguments.

By “solution to problems”, I of course mean by the standards of science.

I would have thought that would have been clear, but apparently it was not. For your eyes I will say this: 'If intuition provides science with a solution it accepts, then intuition in that sense is not distasteful to science.' I hope that makes it clearer.

Hardly. I probably have as much problem with your definition of "solution", as with your definition of "proof" (since "proof" in the context of "intuition", and according to you, isn't scientific).

I thought I made it clear that intuited truths are personal experiences.

Am I supposed to agree with your insistent use of the expression "intuited truth" just because you think it makes sense? Call it "opinion" and I'll argue with you.

I thought I made it clear that for science, intuited truths require scientific substantiation before they will be acceptable to science.

Intuited truths are accepted at face value ONLY to the one who has gained knowledge by intuition. It is up to her to keep it to herself, or try to provide others with evidence they will accept. This would mean scientific evidence if she is trying to sway the opinions or convince the minds of scientists.

You have made no attempt to explain why you refer to intuited proof as an oxymoron.

Not in a single sentence, I guess, so here goes: "Proof" is inherently objective, "Intuition" is inherently subjective. An expression composed of both will be an oxymoron.

I have used your words to give meaning to the term, and you mention no disagreement.

You disagree for no apparent reason, or at least no reason you can express in words. Perhaps you intuit your disagreement. Very unscientific, very emotional.

Since you were incapable of inferring it, you can argue against it, now.

beto, please imagine, for the sake of argument, that I have a pill I can give you.

If you take the pill, you will have eternal contentment, even happiness. You will never again find yourself lacking for any creature comforts. If the air were cold, and you were unprotected, it would not bother you. If you went without food or water, it would be a minor inconvenience, hardly worth mentioning. If your friends deserted you, you would find solace in the clouds or streams. If you died an early death, you would remember only the wonderful times you had, and expire with a smile on your face. You will happily do those things you want and are able to do, even study or practice science.
In short, you will have found your bliss.
You, for reasons only you understand, have no doubts what I describe is truthful, in this ‘for the sake of argument’ exercise I propose.

Nothing comes without cost, so here is the cost of the pill I might offer:

You must wait ten years before you can take the pill.

There is even a chance (not great) you will die before the time is up, and you only get the pill in the last few fleeting moments of your life.

During that time you will clean my house and do the simple exercises or mind puzzles I prescribe.
You get no extra pills for your friends, but you can tell them how they might get such a pill. As a matter of fact, that is how you found out about my pill. Some of your friends have told you “I have found my bliss.”

When asked about the effects of the pill you may only respond “I have found my bliss”, no further explanation is allowed.

Do you refuse the opportunity for my pill?

Of course, this is only one of those mental exercises philosophers sometimes pose. No such pill exists, and there is no path to your bliss. This is just something to think about. Some may find such a path, but no such path exists for you. I do not mean to deceive you or trick you into doing what is against your nature.
I only ask a hypothetical question.

Unfortunately this is an absolutely pointless exercise. First of all, there is an actual "pill" involved, something obviously very objective. And in this hypothetical situation you already made sure I'd be a complete imbecile that believes in "magic" pills (what's the point of an exercise where you forego your hard earned intellect?), making this as a weak analogy as they come. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't even do justice to your own zen philosophy, so I think it was rather inappropriate.

[Beto]

double post, sorry

[BeHereNow]

beto]/b]: Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact .
Later: Proof" is inherently objective

Such a leap you make. And you do not make any reference to the definition you offered. It seems you should be able to explain how the words in the definition show us objectivity. Do not run from your own definition.

What the proof reveals is objective.

The proof itself is ‘acceptance by the mind’. Are you telling us what the mind accepts is objective?

It is my understanding that when the mind accepts something, is does so in a subjective manor. The mind itself is filled with the experiences of person. Acceptance by the mind tells us quite clearly there is subjectivity. The trick is use this subjectivity to reveal the objectivity of truth.

The individual decides what evidence is acceptable to the mind. Subjectivity.

You confuse the method with the result.

The method of proof is subjective, the intended result is objectivity.

[Beto]

Such a leap you make. And you do not make any reference to the definition you offered. It seems you should be able to explain how the words in the definition show us objectivity. Do not run from your own definition.

Not that it matters, but don't you think an honest debater would quote my (Merriam-Webster's) definition as posted?

"Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning"

The purpose of objectifying opinions, intuitions, or subjective perspectives, seems apparent to me.

What the proof reveals is objective.

In my opinion, "proof" is a product of objectification.

The proof itself is ‘acceptance by the mind’. Are you telling us what the mind accepts is objective?

No, the educated mind (that searches for proof) prefers objectivity, by collecting evidence (hence the use of the term "cogency") from other sources (as opposed to relying on one's own opinion). This is, of course, my interpretation of that particular definition.

It is my understanding that when the mind accepts something, is does so in a subjective manor. The mind itself is filled with the experiences of person. Acceptance by the mind tells us quite clearly there is subjectivity. The trick is use this subjectivity to reveal the objectivity of truth.

The individual decides what evidence is acceptable to the mind. Subjectivity.

You confuse the method with the result.

The method of proof is subjective, the intended result is objectivity.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. We have a semantics disagreement, which is why I mentioned previously that defining terms is of the utmost importance if a productive debate is to be achieved.

[BeHereNow]

Not that it matters, but don't you think an honest debater would quote my (Merriam-Webster's) definition as posted?

"Proof - a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning"

The purpose of objectifying opinions, intuitions, or subjective perspectives, seems apparent to me.

It is my term, to define using conventionally accepted meanings of words and terms. It is always possible for the challenger to choose meanings which can show a different meaning, a changed meaning, which does not work.

Of course you do not get to decide which of the accepted meanings are used. That is preposterous.

Choose any term comprised of two words, and give it a meaning. Let me choose which dictionary meanings we use, and I will show you are wrong. I can do it every time. Is that what you consider an honest debator? Your teacher has much to learn.

I explained the meaning of the term as I use it. It fits accepted meanings of the words as you provided.

In my opinion, "proof" is a product of objectification.

This is derived from your belief system. Others disagree.

No, the educated mind (that searches for proof) prefers objectivity, by collecting evidence (hence the use of the term "cogency") from other sources (as opposed to relying on one's own opinion). This is, of course, my interpretation of that particular definition.

And of course your interpretation is subjective.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. We have a semantics disagreement, which is why I mentioned previously that defining terms is of the utmost importance if a productive debate is to be achieved.

You choose to use the word ‘proof’, to mean a specific kind of proof, that being ‘scientific proof’.
There are other kinds of proof.
You do not recognize any other kind of proofs.
I use the word as it is intended.
You use it in a special way.
I modify the word with the word intuitive, and you say that is not acceptable.

I accept the word in its full meaning.
You only accept the word in your special meaning.

The reader can decide who is being objective and who is being subjective.