Saturday, March 25, 2017

How Intuition Can Be a Form of Manipulation

ExtraSensory.News | Mar 25, 2017 | R. Mark Sink

© one-mind-one-energy.com
Yesterday, an article was posted at Collective Evolution about DARPA using studies on intuition to supposedly (enhance) solders abilities to foresee danger in the field. I was intrigued by the notion and claim made in the title of the article and have researched a bit deeper into the understanding of the word "intuition."

Unfortunately, most researchers are unwilling to define the "words," they use properly before making the claims in which they are intended to portray as legitimate. The five senses are often considered of a certain category without looking deeper. Often the claim of additional senses are given without even looking into what the original sense-making machinery is up to. The creation of an additional "noun," can be explained and why it keeps occurring if one is willing to track down the origins of the problems.

In the article, the army spent nearly $4 million in attempting to train intuition, and provide many examples of study where participants ability to foresee a type of noun are successful through pattern matching. They call the nouns 'objects,' which the participants begin to sense what they might be and were more often successful than not.

The first place I checked to make a comparison was in the book written by Daniel Kahneman, 'Thinking Fast and Slow," where Kahneman makes the statement, "Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition." From page 237 up to the end of Chapter 22, is quite revealing.

The claim of an additional sense begins to break down once one realizes that we are dealing with two of the five senses in which he calls System 2 and 1, and I would call touch and taste respectively, and not what everyone assumes are voluntary senses, rather involuntary senses primarily.

He tells the story of a doctor on page 240 whose intuition was a form of manipulation of recognition and intuition had nothing to do with it. The hiding of the verb or System 2 sits at the heart of this problem, and the enthusiasm of the noun is the target subject.

In comparison to war, one could easily make the notion that if a soldier is taught that war is indeed not a disfunction, that finding IED's would be a reality. Is the soldier really being taught that his intuition is being enhanced? I would rather imply that his recognition is being enthused.

These subtle differences are hardly noticeable and the reason (synonymous with intuition) is shown to be associated with the original arguments between the noun intuition and the verb intuit. It was thought that if a human intuited something it was less believable than if science did. This relationship pertains to the understanding of meaning in direct correlation between the verb and noun.

This is further substantiated by the words enthuse (verb) and enthusiasm (noun) which hold the same argument to some degree where the shortcomings of the verb keep arising and often referred to as a back-formation as though you were traveling back in time.

Conclusion

Fortunately the word enthusiasm has a root which immediately proves our notion that intuition is recognition as Kahneman has implied and we see that DARPA is not really enhancing soldiers ability to foresee anything other than a few keyword we'll now reveal that are contained in the root enthusiasm are associated with. It turns out these are words associated with religious concepts such as feast, atheism, and the prefix theo- which is defined as god.

These claims are that the noun is god and that the verb is inferior to it which makes the noun a profane temple. Without war there would be no IEDs. Our ability to intuit is based on our retained knowledge and memory and the integration of history. Some people say that the future is now, and intuition would not originate from training but from these sources, not where repetition is simulated, as in synthetically produced.

The collection of skills may not be inclusive of everything System 2 is capable of and Kahneman suggests that in determining validity of intuition provenance outweighs objectivity as associated memories often reveal false intuitions where emotions have been tied up (reference Pavlov's dogs, page 238). System 1 often provides quick answers which are simple substitutions to the underlying truth.

The completion of recognition takes much work in addition to normally obtained memory and then and likely only then could one understand the future and relying on synthetically generated notions might lead to creatures not really in keeping of humanity.

Notes:

Etymological references derived from American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd Edition.

I wanted to thank Alexa Erickson for bringing forward the article in question for evaluation.

At first I thought the graphic was ridiculous but after writing this short eval I thought different.

We are all susceptible to these machine-type influences.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment