G.E. Moore developed a concept of ethics and aesthetics called intuitionism.

Basically he assumed that moral facts existed (i.e. moral statements are definitely true or false in the same way as equations or statements like 2+2=5). His theory then stated that it was possible to intuit whether a moral statement or an artwork was good or bad.

This rested on the idea that goodness or badness is a property of a statement or thing. Intuitionism was simply another sense that allowed one to detect that property.

Now obviously this idea runs into some problems. One problem is proving that goodness or badness is a property distinct from other properties. For example, let us assume that we all agree that the Mona Lisa as an artwork is fantastic, etc. Now, imagine that I create a copy of the picture. I use a special process and ensure that everything is identical, the chemicals, the exact positioning of every molecule is identical to the original. Now I put them side by side. One is a work of genius, the other a realistic forgery. You look at them, you study them, but they are completely identical, could you still intuit which one was the 'good' artwork?

To respond to this I might provide an example where your intuition does appear to kick in. Suppose you overhear a conversation on the train. The conversation is friendly and upbeat, but you can tell immediately if the people talking are genuinely pleased to see each other, or just being polite. In both cases they are likely to say the same things in much the same way, but you can pick up on the slight nuances that belie their real feelings.

Anyway, I find the concept of intuitionism and the subject of intuition very interesting and have been intrigued recently by some mentions and new connections.

The first mention of intuition was in the Channel 4 Program Soul Searching. This discussed the idea that western and eastern approaches to seeking the soul were very different. Basically western methods relied on experience, whilst eastern methods tried to remove the confusion of experience to see more clearly.

One of the people interviewed said the "The self is absent in creative and intuitive processes". This struck me because it was as if the 'self' in the brain got in the way of the mind in the brain. Thinking about this in more depth I struggled to find a way in which the self was involved in this type of thinking.

This type of concept came up again in one of the books I am currently reading. A discussion of a chapter in which the character felt very connected with the world suggested that to reproduce the feeling yourself you should not attempt to extend yourself into the world, but surrender to the world trying to get in.

The connection that I saw was that in the same way we might need to surrender ourselves, or make the self absent, in order to experience certain thought types, be it a feeling of connectedness, or intuition.

Then I got to thinking how this might happen. Another person interviewed on this soul Search program discussed quantum computers and revealed that one of the properties of such devices is that they seem to be able to solve problems in fewer steps than are apparently logically possible!

Now he was quick to point out that quantum computers are not an exact analogy for the brain. However, knowing that things like this are possible got me to wondering if this is the root cause of creativity and intuition. Describing intuition as reaching an answer in seemingly less steps than required seemed a good definition of the phenomenon to me…

Got a suggestion?, email Dave