I think what you call sense is the Natural Drawing of conclusions from earlier percepts in a conscious Reasoning Step. The fact is that Conscious Reasoning is a very small part of what we perceive and know, and represents only that portion of our knowledge that passes through consciousness, Alternatively it passes through the rest of the brain which isn't conscious, and some conclusions seem to "Magically" appear from nowhere because they don't come as a result of reasoning. We call this capability Intuition when we are aware that it is happening.

It is an interesting question you pose, and you seem to be revealing yourself as a physical reductionist. Do you think an investigator's job is to make the all the mysteries of thought, feeling, and intuition "turn into" observable physical phenomena, as if this would fully account for them? You ask what is mysterious about the coupling of the mind and the body, as if  the mind's correlation with the brain activity is enough to explain all there is to know about it. If consciousness, thought and feeling and intuition, is an emergent property of brain activity that does not mean this emergent property can be fully explained by said brain activity. Intuition may be thought of as a form of implicit learning, the coming together in the present moment of accumulated knowledge and experience in in lived time.  This does not explain it away. This theory does not help us access our intuition more effectively. How do we know when someone is looking at us? How many times have you been looking at someone and they turn to meet your gaze? How many times have you felt someone looking at you and turned to see them look away? What explains this? There is indeed mystery here. We may someday correlate it with certain brain activity, but will this help us navigate the bodily felt lived experience of being a person in an inter-subjective world?

If perception is our guide, how do we differentiate between something which is known through thought or intuition rather than sense, you ask.

First of all I would like to point out that I consider thought to be incisive in quality, whereas both perception and intuition appear to be receptive in nature. So I make a clear distinction between something you arrive at through thought and something you know through perception or intuition.

Secondly, it is important to take into account that sensory perception is usually filtered through unconscious beliefs that are held in the body through habitual tension patterns. Therefore it takes practice and careful observation and reflection to sort out what is being perceived through the senses from the interpretations we make of it based on past experience and generic or specific assumptions derived from it.

Unconscious beliefs and the tension that holds them in the body are incisive in nature, based on the differentiation between pleasant and unpleasant. The discrimination between liking what is being perceived or not liking it, is a primitive type of thought that interferes with perception and knowing. Here the incisive element tries to override the receptive, which then comes to the fore through all kind of unconscious behaviors and symptoms. This type of relationship between the incisive and receptive elements lies at the root of violence, greed and many different types of problems that have brought us to the brink of destroying our planet and each other.

It is therefore important to keep this primitive thinking in check and learn to describe what is being perceived to make it understandable for the thinking mind. The information coming in through the senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, is taken in all at once as a global unit and translated into something like an image, an analogy, a simile as part of the receptive process of perception. It takes a bit of time -20 to 30 seconds according to Eugene Gendlin, author of Focusing- to bring it to awareness, so that words can be found to describe it. Then it becomes possible to sort out what is a judgement or belief based on the interpretation of past experience, and therefore in need of verification or easily recognizable as erroneous and to be discarded, from clear perception of objective, verifiable data, and intuition of something that is not –yet- verifiable due to lack of a known context.

I believe that the coherently organized water that hydrates the tissues that make up our bodies functions as some kind of antenna that is sensitive to local as well as non-local informational fields. The more the primitive thinking mind can be held in check, the more sensitivity can increase, making perception clearer and leading to clearer intuition. So to speak, intuition would be perception of information that adds more subtle elements to what is being perceived through the senses.

While putting the information received into words, the higher thinking mind can evaluate it, make decisions and act on it or not. This is a type of relationship between the incisive and receptive elements that is based on respect and can lead to decisions that are respectful of all elements involved and, therefore, sustainable. We need leaders who are able to make this distinction instead of those caught in primitive thinking that are trying to run governments and corporations all over the world at this time.

I don’t know if this is the kind of answer you were looking for, but it is what you question evoked for me.

Oh, and please bear in mind that it is not only the brain that supports the mind, but the whole body, which the brain is but a part of.

From where do these extrasensory phenomena arise, you ask? It seems clear that they arise through connection between the living being one is and the natural world one is a part of. Try following the natural motion of your exhale, which will take you to rest towards the central axis of your body, the very depth of what you are as a living being, and towards the ground, your base of support in the material world you are a part of. At the end of the exhale, just give yourself a little moment to feel the connection between the depth of what you are as a living being and the material world you are a part of, and cherish it.

Thanks to you all for your much thoughtful and perceptive analyses. This discussion turns out to be a stimulating one. I will try to analyse each of your valued comments separately since they opens up new dimensions of thought related to this current topic.

Starting with Brigitte's insightful comment:

This statement yet again reinforces that the brain needs the support of the body as much as the mind needs to be supported by the brain. Physiologically, there is no counterpoint to this premise but if we are to introduce the concept of artificial embodiment or coupling of the mind, the whole supportive elements of the mind needs serious rethinking (but not at this hour).

Let me spare a few words on this topic:

Matter can couple with matter, nothing special about that in sense of science, at least in sense of physical chemistry. If mind is material, then it does in some way couple with the brain states. The prime query which however eludes everyone is, by how? When mind couples with the brain, it is embodied. In fact it is difficult to conceive a mind without its corporeal stud. A lector is of little service without having any followers to teach to. But then, what if we claim that mind can also decouple from the brain―given that, matter can as well decouple from matter? What about the concept of extended mind aka disembodied mind (Blose, 1981), as raised by different scholars of thought? Indeed mind is not like anything given as a locomotive engine coupling and decoupling to its sleepers.  If it were, then it would seem something strange―very outlandish, or again, “phenomenal”―to say so. That mind can exist without a body, that is, being material, it has the power or the ability to decouple from its corporeal stud, just as a train engine can decouple from its sleepers, and become immaterial. This is unequivocally gibberish. Which means that─ an embodied “material” mind disembodied from its brain would itself become immaterial and exist as a free and spontaneous entity. This does not seem to be a witty explanation─ but way too funny.

 Bamboozled! How can mind really exist without its corporeal stud? What this means is perhaps that a disembodied mind would refer to a phenomenal phantom (Chalmer’s zombie), or for instance, a spirit!!! Welcome to the zombie land then. Again, this is exotically imprudent.

 So for the time being, I would be happy enough to attach the word “sense” to nerves only, since it is neurons which are unique in that sense that they are the only units of living organisms capable of perceptive and sensitive functions, biologically speaking. We are guided by perception: and one has to simply think that the visual, haptic, olfactory and the auditory experiences are largely integrated inside the brain which generates the feeling of awareness about us and our surroundings. A component of experience that is less discernible than the above given ones is- "thought". Yet, we may avoid complexity and simply acknowledge the fact that thoughts originates from the brain and which guides us in our decision making, as much as the organs of perception helps our brain to shape and reshape our thoughts. As beautifully put in words by Prof. Brigitte above, "While putting the information received into words, the higher thinking mind can evaluate it, make decisions and act on it or not. " And so be it.

Now, we can experience thinking as part of normal psycho-physiological phenomenon because we have enough evidence that thoughts have neural origins. And then, it is because the brain is the master integrator of all sensory inputs, inputs which are of course received in as physical states of matter (material information: light, sound, smell, taste, touch). But such transient states of experience like “hunch” or intuition is not a regular phenomenon of experience sensed by our brain. And this is where the real problem crops up. Some believe that these extrasensory feelings do not actually originate from the brain: i.e., they have different origin- they are epiphenomenal. Again, I strongly resist such considerations for the reasons I have mentioned above.

Again, coming back to the point of analyses by Brigitte, Graeme, and Gordon, intuition may be considered as some kind of information generated by the brain, suffice it to say, it may not be so extra-sensory in such sense. 

Regards, Sidharta

Reflecting on Graeme's comment:

"some conclusions seem to "Magically" appear from nowhere because they don't come as a result of reasoning"

I am not sure what you referred to as "Magically", since neurons are not supposed to play tricks inside the brain, but using those neurons by summing up their functions, humans do indeed play tricks and perform magic.

Reasoning is one of the many cognitive skills of the brain. Cortical neurons of the frontal lobe are responsible for functions those related to reasoning, planning or problem solving among others. Assuming that if I am on the way of inferring "intuition" as some form of subconscious reasoning (drawing conclusion from given precepts), the idea may not be that much imperfect (but not perfect either). You chose sense reasonably as this is the part of information passing through consciousness- the part required to reason, make decisions or deliver commands but that which is difficult to assess (how much?). It is equally problematic to assess how much precepts are processed to derive transient states of “intuition” when other modes of reasoning fail to derive effective conclusions. Also, we must consider the fact the brain is sufficiently interconnected and information processing mostly occurs in the neocortical tissues (because of their unique layering). Extensive interconnections (pathways) between and within the neocortex and the hypothalamus, amygdala, hippocampus forms the pathway (through the supportive white matter) to relay feed-forward and feedback signals that constantly modifies the rate and rhythm of information processing by the neocortical neurons. Not all of the sensed information is sent to these supportive structures of the deep brain. So, there isn’t any magic, but perhaps limitations in overall information transmission/processing capacities between the neocortex and the deep brain structures which limits reasoning to some extent, and “intuition” is perhaps the consequence of any such half-hearted interactions between these structures. This is just a hypothesis anyway. 

...not information generated by the brain! Information perceived by the organism from an inner or outer source and converted into some kind of representation generated by the brain that becomes understandable for the thinking mind.

I would also question your statement: "... since it is neurons which are unique in that sense that they are the only units of living organisms capable of perceptive and sensitive functions, biologically speaking."

You may want to look into Mae Wan Ho's article on Quantum Coherence and Conscious Experience: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242341915_Quantum_coherence_and_conscious_experience

And Alfredo Pereira Junior's question What are the main results relating astrocyte functions with conscious activity? https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_main_results_relating_astrocyte_functions_with_conscious_activity

Article Quantum coherence and conscious experience

Thanks for the info Dr. Brigette. Yes, I am well aware about astrocytes and glial cells, in fact I am sorry to have generalized the brain consisting of neuroglial cells by which I meant that only these kinds of cells (i.e., neurons) could support consciousness. It could have been other way around for example, neurons support glial cells in communication. But the fact is that, only the brain cells are supportive of thought and conscious functions.

From my own paper (2011):

"We shall see in the next section how ‘Glial Cell Theory’ contributes to this fascinating phenomenon of cognitive evolution in hominids. Since  the  overall  number  of  neuron  populations  tends  to  remain  same  or diminutive with no new neuronal growth, the newly established role of glial cells seem to compensate for the general loss of synaptic connections. In the course of re-establishing new connections among the existing neurons by forming new synapses and interneuron networks, it facilitates nerve impulse conduction and impulse routing among newly available synapses that aid in complex functional efficiency of the brain."

The Neuroeconomics of Learning and Information Processing; Applying Markov Decision Process

https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/28883/ 

Regards, Sidharta

Dear Sidharta, first of all, I am not a professor nor a doctor, but a simple hands-on practitioner of DFA Somatic Pattern Recognition and independent researcher, trying to understand what I interact with, when I work with people. Still I question your statement that "only the brain cells are supportive of thought and conscious functions." What about the heart?

Check this out: http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-heart-as-a-bidirectional-scalar-field-antenna-2090-8369-1000121.php?aid=60866

Well then Brigette, my statement is not beyond contention and is certainly open to refutations. I am open to learning, and new theories fascinates me as long as scientific evidence supports such claims.

 As a researcher with an open mind, I have learned to accept scientific theories based on proof of evidence. New ideas often replaces the older ones. Conventional wisdom suggests that our notion about senses, perception, and awareness rests on fundamental models of neuroscience that have been the standard curricula of scientific, medical, and technical learning and which still holds good.

The study which you have pointed out to is albeit interesting, but not surprising, since heart has always been the source of fascination; i.e., emotional triggers, and electrical activities (besides the brain). But it is hard to accept anything beyond this (although heart may considered as a gland as well which secretes several cardiopetides including ANP, VNP) fact that consciousness originates from the brain, and we think using our head, not our heart. Quantum physicists, anesthesiologists, and others from time to time have invoked quantum mechanics to explain the inexplicable origin of consciousness, so that's not surprising at all. If you are indicating to some waves emitted from the heart, then there must be several thousands of them being emitted from the brain (but yet to detected[except EEG waves]). Such studies refer to bioenergetics, quantum cardiodynamics, quantum thanatodynamics, QBH etc. I am particularly not referring to these. What I am trying best is to understand the origin of intuitions from an anatomical/physiological viewpoint, if that's feasible. However, its good to keep an open mind.

The sole function of all the organs of the body down to each cell is to support the brain metabolism, supply it with nutrients, and maintain homeostasis so that it can in turn regulate the functions of all the organs (maintain homeostasis) according to its own need. And its need is simply to support consciousness, which is a complex stuff for us to understand.  

Best Regards, Sidharta

Sidharta:

"I am not sure what you referred to as "Magically", since neurons are not supposed to play tricks inside the brain, but using those neurons by summing up their functions, humans do indeed play tricks and perform magic"

If perception is our guide, then how do we differentiate between something which is known through thought or intuition rather than sense? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_perception_is_our_guide_then_how_do_we_differentiate_between_something_which_is_known_through_thought_or_intuition_rather_than_sense#view=56728d1b5f7f719f268b4577 [accessed Dec 17, 2015].

I did not say that the Neurons Played tricks inside the brain, I said that "some conclusions seem to magically appear from nowhere" because they aren't based on Conscious Reason. The difference is akin to implicit memory not being conscious, and explicit memory being conscious. Much goes on in the Unconscious that never sees conscious reporting. Since Conscious reporting is how we know we have reasoned, the items that do not get reported until they are already conclusions do not have the historical conscious connections to know that we reasoned them.

Graeme,

OK then I might have misconstrued your statement. Then what remains to draw a conclusion is that, intuitions or hunch are based on some information processing without reasoning and under subconscious state that do not involve any known senses (auditory, visual or other). But still it uses some memory (of course implicit) since a subconscious mind is a memory tank. But this is again confusing. Nobody can draw intuition without having an explicit knowledge of the matter. Intuitions are mostly linked to the current problem one is facing, otherwise, intuitions would be irrelevant and out of context of the problem one is facing. I can't say what kind of reasoning it involves, but it is factual as well that subconscious mind do not reason.

One school of thought conceives of 'intuition' as a function of right hemispheric simultaneous reasoning which assembles innumerable data points at such speed that verbalization is not possible and so it is mediated to the thinker as a 'feeling.'

Sidharta:

"Nobody can draw intuition without having an explicit knowledge of the matter. Intuitions are mostly linked to the current problem one is facing, otherwise, intuitions would be irrelevant and out of context of the problem one is facing. I can't say what kind of reasoning it involves, but it is factual as well that subconscious mind do not reason."

If perception is our guide, then how do we differentiate between something which is known through thought or intuition rather than sense? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_perception_is_our_guide_then_how_do_we_differentiate_between_something_which_is_known_through_thought_or_intuition_rather_than_sense#view=5675f3db7c192049118b45b3 [accessed Dec 19, 2015].

Edward:

"One school of thought conceives of 'intuition' as a function of right hemispheric simultaneous reasoning which assembles innumerable data points at such speed that verbalization is not possible and so it is mediated to the thinker as a 'feeling.'"

I didn't say that the subconscious could reason, I suggested that it arrived at conclusions without reasoning. This could be parallel processing as suggested by Edward, or it could be simply a Heirarchical Learning process like Deep Learning, that results in a result that is unique enough to become conscious. In any case the link between implicit and explicit knowledge is indeed mysterious. One thing that I find important is the fact that implicit memory is mostly accessed by content, but explicit memory is mostly accessed by place-code addressing. So we would not be sure what implicit conclusions we have come to without them somehow becoming explicit. The conversion process is therefore very important.

While that would seem to be a tautology Link, it is hard to suggest a mechanism whereby a rock would be aware enough to "Experience" anything.

It becomes mystical when we assume that the rock experiences things without that mechanism. Instead, let us assume that there is a mechanism whereby certain subgroups of matter can reflect back on themselves an image of what they experience, and thus become aware of experience. This does not require a rock to have experience without a mechanism but therefore is not as mystical, and unnatural as assuming that matter has a fundamental experiencial aspect.

The main reason this is such an issue recently, is that we are now getting to the point where we can design machines that reflect their experiences back on themselves in such a way as to become aware of their own experiences, but have not yet achieved true consciousness. By insisting that we cannot create a fundamental aspect of matter, people who dislike the trend for other reasons can slow down the development of conscious computers, thus protecting us from a culturally sensitive mistake like freeing up a Terminator type processor. Of course, the Penrose Types simply assume that there isn't enough processing capability in a massively parallel processor like the brain to achieve consciousness.

Swanson:

Exactly you have made a good point so as to avoid the dubious trap of "panpsychism".

One should not be confusing between the two aspects of a single phenomenon: content access (recall), and experience. Both involves processing of information, and information is material, as a matter of fact. As Graeme pointed out above, implicit memory is accessed by content, which in anyway is data stored that can be utilized so that makes sense to say that such information (or concepts) are of material in nature.

Graeme:

It is the interaction between matter or information with the sensing modalities that generate the phenomenon of experience. Sensory modalities is a prerequisite to experience and perceive what's outside one's own body.

Simple forms of experiences require simpler brain structures and organization, and an entity is conscious in its own world if it possesses the minimum requirements to sense, analyse and perceive in its own way. But that doesn't make a robot conscious since it lacks the will power and power of thinking independently. It is always "guided" by some form of explicit instructions.

Hi all.

You may be interested in Vision-Space. It's a new form of illusionary space based on perceptual structure as opposed to optical projection, central perspective etc. Vision-Space has been developed through experiential exploration (or study) of the phenomenon of vision as VISION! The primary finding is that mind has to assemble visual experience using both a) explicit: contemplation of form (central vison) and b) an implicit: holistic spatial awareness (contextual/peripheral) - two takes-on-the real. So 2 entirely different processing systems.

Vision-Space: The protagonists http://youtu.be/516mjrU3aC0

It also appears that 'awareness' is essentially a dynamical system where conceptual thought 'about' the world can be considered a bifurcation from sensory awareness. I attach a host of online presentations and below 3 recent ones. Many of the considerations that you touch on play out in Vision-Space? The point is that if we adopt an experiential ontology over that of 3rd party observation and work back from a system (new paradigm) developed from that encounter we will be more likely to resolve the issues raised by a system developed by the former paradigm?

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/gzzBYOs6mc8

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

Vision-Space: Follow-up: The painter, reality and the real https://youtu.be/JMGhI7hfDhE

This (the nature of reality) is precisely an inquiry which still haunts philosophers and physicists alike. Dr. Stoica's thought can be further interpreted as how can we know what lies beyond our perceptive spheres if we are to search for a bigger picture? We perceive and express our thoughts in space-time dimensions that are confined within our narrow spectrum of VISION, as Prof. Jupe mentioned above as awareness and conceptual thought as a component of dynamical systems, and yet introduced an interesting concept of Vision-space. Our knowledge about reality is defined by what we see, perceive, and derive explanations about such a reality which is bounded by space-time continuum. Extended vision is a concept which works on illusionary spaces and imaginations that may not be real, a phenomenon alike intuition to say so. 

BTW, Happy New Year 2016 to all RG members!   

This may be relevant here? It's the last painting of 2015. Let's hope things improve in 16!

There is no 'signal' in the light array. Signals are sent from one individual to another sharing a common code. In the same way that the branch falling in forest makes no sound if there is no one there to resonate the air vibrations.

Hence it is pointless to take 'us' out of an act of observation without understand what's involved in an act of observation, and we don't! So what is that our current instrumentation records? What's the likely outcome of us spending so much time in so called 'virtual reality' systems? Neural and even system redundancy. 

4 fixations and 3 saccades. (overlaid)

Fixations are made in terms of subjective perceptual structure, i.e., within Vision-Space and not in terms of the geometry of optical projection or central perspective. So a record made of the experiential space that includes all the fixations does not 'add-up' in terms of environmental space. They do not amount to some navigation of a picture or even to the positions existing in the real setting. Spatial awareness is dependent on the navigation of the egocentric, condensed experiential space of the phenomenon.

The various branches/stalks of the plant belonging to the 3 individual fixations made on the flower heads would converge at the pot. However, they do not arrive in the same place in the overlaid experiential records. In fact the pot has to be referenced in 4 position, one for each fixation. The same is true for all the contextual settings that surround the various fixations. I have indicated these in drawn colour lines.

Why don't we notice all these 'changes' taking place as we make fixations? Because we don't make any records! There are no frames. The ONLY consistent spatial referencing system we experience is that of perceptual structure, the condensed field of Vision-Space. We don't 'map' the environment we experience the environment in terms of the subjective space we generate.

The generated space is reliant on our relationship to light. We develop an 'imaging system' that's far more advanced than our current instrumentation with implicit spatial awareness probably relying on a computational process involving 1/f noise, mesoscopic physics, complex neural cascades and self-organisation that's embedded in our very makeup?

Best - J

  Dear Sidharta,

The reason why your question is difficult to answer is because cognitive phenomena, like perception or intuition, are irreducible to changes in sensory variables.  To be sure, psychophysics can help, but only through a glass darkly: by establishing measurable isomorphic relationships between physical changes and sensory variables.  But the root of the problem is that, in the cerebral cortex, intuition and perception share the very same substrate: a complex array of widely distributed, interactive and largely overlapping neuronal networks that in the aggregate constitute memory and knowledge—i.e., semantic memory.  Both perception and intuition are based on past experience and are largely unconscious.  Yes, perception is largely unconscious, and itself contains intuition.  Consider the truth in Helmholtz’ words (I’m paraphrasing): We remember what we see and we see what we remember.  We perceive and categorize the world by constantly interpolating missing elements from past experience.

Even the wildest imagination does so, consciously or unconsciously.  Intuition is not different in this respect.  Intuition is unconscious reasoning or perceiving from minimal or even physically absent cues. 

         The bottom line is is that cognition is not reducible to measurable physical elements like molecules, action potentials or neurons.  The cognitive cortical network is the minimal unit amenable to cognitive analysis.  That network marks the methodological floor to the epistemology of cognition.  By trying to pierce that floor with physical reductionism we destroy the very object of our study.  Does that destroy intuition, perception, or what you call the mystery?   Not at all.  These are incontrovertible realities at the phenomenal level, way above that floor, and amenable to study only by phenomenological methods.  I am a psychiatrist, in addition to brain researcher.  For many years, I have successfully used phenomenology (e.g., à la Karl Jaspers) with my patients and in my teaching.

Cheers, Joaquín    

The human being is aware of his necessities, tastes and inclinations, as well as his primary emotions, generated from the depths of his mind, which will guide the impulses of his mental activity. As a result of such transformations and inclinations  will emerge his activities, placing his objectives and adapting his subsequent mental processing. In response from them they are exposed other needs as well. Thus, mental processes are not the result of chance, but are paths marked by the mind itself, whether we take full account of such guidelines or not, this is because the field of our mental awareness, the perception limited to a partial  content of relations in each moment leaving aside the possibility of appreciating the rest of their contents. This means that such processing leads us to develop an object or a concept that will define the directions of  evocations and prosecutions that can also  be expressed in terms of skills and secondary emotions on each human being.

Martha, I am by no means sure that it is awareness that guides the brain. Certainly there is an awareness channel that seems to be guiding the brain, but that may be an illusion of the attribution of agency to the only reporting mechanism that monitors the brains activity, rather than a causal link. Have you been exposed to Wegners work on the illusion of Conscious Will?

In order to understand consciousness and intuition, it is likely that we require a paradigm shift focused on energic reasoning and continuing discoveries relating to new cells in the eyes, the skin and low frequency auditory processing all of which has yet to be clearly linked to the simple notion that everything is energy, only appearing as tangible to us by virtue of lowered frequency - eg. A. Einstein,

http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/2019/05/why-is-there-something-rather-than.html

Thomas Kuhn, a great philosopher of Science ( inventor of paradigm shift concept) stated " Wrong paradigms are only corrigible by intuition, not by conscious self-correction". Can someone explain what Kuhn meant?

I look forward to a more informed answer about what Kuhn was saying in the context of his overall work, but to me this makes perfect sense. A famous quote by Fichte comes to mind:

“What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can accept or reject as we wish, it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it.”

We may deliberate about a belief or value, but we live within a paradigm. It provides a self-contained system of prediction, expectation, meaning, and interpretation. A paradigm cannot shift with mere intellectual effort. It subsumes thought and is not only a vantage point but the whole ecosystem of our perspective. Arguments from the outside make little impact because they can simply be framed in our paradigm's terms. Ever tried to convince a positivist researcher that phenomenological investigation can yield equally valid knowledge that should be able to alter belief based on double blind trials? The only way to begin changing a paradigm is listening to a tiny voice inside that whispers "there is something more here" and is willing to experience a tectonic shift of awareness in a growing restlessness of unsettled being. Logic and deliberate thought disappear impotently like space debris into a black hole. A much deeper bodily felt openness that can embrace profound uncertainty is called for.

Gordan, I like your response very much. What you say is very correct. Once we are stuck in a wrong paradigm the arguments from outside have little impact. But good news is that the old and wrong paradigms do eventually change if an alternate correct paradigm is offered to replace it. Even then it may take a generation or more to replace it. Humans don't change easily.

Speed and the element of surprise are key reference points for me as as to whether intuition is in play or not. As one with a strong left brain, getting an answer in a nanosecond keeps the rational mind at bay. Furthermore when an intuitive response is in the forefront the reply would not be expected from a rational or "knowledge-based" perspective. The information offered could be a visual image or feeling, even words or phrases, but that sensory data comes too quickly to be "manipulated" by past actions, reasoning, and patterns. That is why I call my intuitive process "seven second decision making." In that intuitive world seven seconds is a very long time, but for individuals starting out there is a little extra leeway to pay attention and to learn how to frame intuitive data.

Nice Contribution Syed Hasnain

Sidharta Chatterjee Because we can also perceive that distinction. Depending on the situation we assign more confidence to the externally sourced or the internally sourced conclusions.

Intuition may be the highest form of knowledge, but is it not the result of the subconscious workings of the mind? The knowledge that can be derived from intuition or hunch can either be true or false, as it is believed to originate not from the result of conscious self-correction. But it is often the best that we can have or lay our hands onto, under trying and difficult circumstances when intuitions seem to be our good guide. And that might be the reason so often we are driven by hunch that hits the target.

Of course, the immediate response derived from intuition is also based on knowledge and experience, information processing ability of the brain, and cognitive reflex of the responder, as some of our colleagues and experts have denoted herein in this thread.