Reply
Mon 24 May, 2010 10:40 am
Is it possible to have a reason for believing what you do yet not know the reason for why you believe what you do? The standard good answer may be "no."
However, consider suspicion. Sally believed that the guy who entered the area was up to no good. She was confident in her belief. She even went so far as to tell her companion friend what she thought: "He's up to no good."
Of course, her friend (Mack) looked over at the guy and didn't notice anything out of the way, so he wasn't in a hurry to take her word for what she was sure of. He asked her for her reasons for thinking what she did, but she couldn't put her finger on it, yet her inability to nail down and convey any reasons for thinking what she did implies she had no reasons at all? Yes, she couldn't articulate what it was about him and his demeanor that triggered her doubts about him, but I'm not about to attribute the fact that her belief turned out to be correct to luck.
Mack concluded that she doesn't have any reason since she doesn't know what they are, and if that's the case, fine; she doesn't have reasons, but she sure as heck has something (be it unknown reasons or something else), for my friend also felt as weary about the guy as was she.
My friend can read people. He can tell you when they're full of it. He can tell you when they're up to no good. He can tell you if they're lying. How so? He's been trained to pick up on the subtle clues that many people give. Mack can't.
As it turns out, I too (like my friend) can get a good bead on things. But, I'm more like Sally in that I can't quite put my finger on what it is that drove me to believe what I did either.
It seems to me that the only person in the small crowd that was clueless was Mack-the one sensibly asking for good reasons for thinking what Sally said.
As it turns out, we were right, as he was up to no good, as evidenced by what he did later. That doesn't mean (of course) that she in fact knew he was up to no good. She believed it and had much confidence in her belief, but I'm not so sure she didn't have reasons for thinking what she did. See, neither Sally nor myself could convey the reasons Mack asked for, but my friend could-and that I think that is important. He was able to list each reason and expound on it. Perhaps none of this meant that even he knew the guy was up to no good, but he sure as heck had his reasons for thinking the same thing Sally and I were thinking, so he was able to address Mack's concerns even though neither Sally nor myself could.
What bothers me is if my friend wasn't there to convey the reasons he had, neither Sally nor myself would have a leg to stand on when faced with Mack's request for reasons, since he is the only one in the crowd that was able to shed light on the subtleties of what we all were picking up on (except Mack of course) yet couldn't put our finger on (except my friend).
Maybe hidden back behind intuition and gut feelings are nuggets of hidden reasons.
@fast,
fast;168122 wrote:I'm not about to attribute the fact that her belief turned out to be correct to luck.
Why not, is she always correct? If so, your story needs amending to make that condition clear.
@fast,
fast;168122 wrote:Is it possible to have a reason for believing what you do yet not know the reason for why you believe what you do?
A reason for believing that P need not be
the reason I believe that P. A reason for marrying Edna may be that she is beautiful. But the reason (my reason) I married Edna is that her father is Sam Walton. The reason (or my reason) is the motivating reason. I may not know all the reasons for marrying Edna (maybe she is kind-hearted, but I never knew that) and I may not even be aware of what really motivated me to marry Edna. These are, of course, reasons for doing, rather than believing. But I think they run parallel.
@fast,
fast
It's very simple,
genetic memory.
In prehistoric time, when brains wasn't the biggest thing around, our CNS would account for most of our actions. Millions years ago, when our ancestors were primitive animals without and evolved language, we had to rely on our visual and autitorial impressions. If an animal was hunting us or running from us, if a predetor had cought our scent, all such minescule things would help us survive and deafeat prey and predetors.
Those are primedorial instinct heird through genetic memory, therefore it doesn't rely on the greater brain that can make reason, and philosopy.
@HexHammer,
On another forum regarding a financial matter, one member said to another member, "I do trust you [username] because you are my friend."
I responded with the following:
[INDENT][INDENT]
Yes, there's nothing wrong with trust, but you still should have good reason for doing what you're doing. Recall what Ronald Regan told us: Trust but verify.
Yes, there may very well be good reasons for doing what you're doing, but unless you know what those good reasons are, then you aren't doing what you're doing for those good reasons. You're doing what you're doing because you trust who is telling you what to do. He may very well have good reasons, but (and again), if you don't know what those reasons are, then you aren't doing what you're doing because of those reasons. You have a different reason, and that is you trust someone that may very well have good reasons.
My point is this. Knowing what to do is nice, but knowing why you're doing what you're doing is better.
[/INDENT][/INDENT]
---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:06 PM ----------
HexHammer;169085 wrote:fast
It's very simple, genetic memory.
In prehistoric time, when brains wasn't the biggest thing around, our CNS would account for most of our actions. Millions years ago, when our ancestors were primitive animals without and evolved language, we had to rely on our visual and autitorial impressions. If an animal was hunting us or running from us, if a predetor had cought our scent, all such minescule things would help us survive and deafeat prey and predetors.
Those are primedorial instinct heird through genetic memory, therefore it doesn't rely on the greater brain that can make reason, and philosopy.
How do we account for Mack's cluelessness?
@fast,
fast wrote:What bothers me is if my friend wasn't there to convey the reasons he had, neither Sally nor myself would have a leg to stand on when faced with Mack's request for reasons, since he is the only one in the crowd that was able to shed light on the subtleties of what we all were picking up on (except Mack of course) yet couldn't put our finger on (except my friend).
Why was your friend able to point out and articulate and you were not able to point out and articulate, is what you are asking? Well, that's hard to tell.
It may be because he has trained himself to focus on the subtitles that are the reasons. Example: Sometimes I can tell when a piece of music is "off". I can't tell you exactly why it is "off", but my friend, who happens to be a music major, can describe in technical detail the reasons why the piece doesn't sound right. He has trained himself, learned the terminology, and is able to better articulate music theory and practice.
It may be because he is a well-spoken person, and you are not. Not everyone has the gift of gab, as they say. Some people, even if they know the reasons, cannot describe the reasons. Spoken language is an artform of sorts, and not everyone is able to convey what they wish to convey at a moment's notice (some people can, though -- great example: George Carlin).
@fast,
fast;169125 wrote:How do we account for Mack's cluelessness?
I'm afraid that I am not familiar with the term, not that is so commonly used that I can look it up on the internet.
I have to ask you, to put it in lay man terms.
@fast,
i agree that intuition may be nothing other than reasonable reactions to stimuli which we dont recognize.
it can work lots of ways, such as zeth's example and also when something from the past triggers a reaction through the subconscious and also when our intellect hasnt bothered to get involved-that also happens to me. it (the intellect) seems to be working behind the scenes. so maybe there is no such thing as intuition? what we think of as intuition is actually when the faculty of reason is working correctly... because it can also be used to play tricks on the mind, like making up reasons that arent there or arent valid.
i also think our intellect can be put on automatic pilot and work better than when we have this kind of two-sided identity that thinks what it is thinking...
we shouldnt have to think; thinking should be taking place just like seeing and hearing and heart beating and lungs breathing...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace