but it’s not at all what people usually mean when they talk about ‘intuition’.
For my own case I immediately and exactly match Jessica’s use of “intuition” and expect that is what most people usually mean when they talk about intuition, so I think this claim requires greater justification if that seems important to you given a sample size of 3 here.
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
they have a mental representation of the structure as a picture, prototype, graph, etc, which is hooked up to other parts of the mind and is available for quick use in mental procedures”.
i.e. They have the knowledge stored and accessible. The conscious reasoning has already occurred for understanding. Recalling it without (much) effort isn’t intuition, even if it happens as a response to prior training/on a most subconscious level/instinctively.
To me, “intuition” is something that comes from somewhere—a gut feeling, an inspiration, that kind of thing. Intuitively sensing/feeling/knowing what to do in a situation. Quite an experience when “auto-pilot” takes over...
Something that ‘just comes to you’ - what I would call an ‘intuition’. Which seems to fit with the original post’s usage and the example of the “the structure of benzene came in a dream”.
Something done ‘automatically/without thinking’ but has been learned i.e. the example of a chemist being able to recognise and represent benzene is not an intuition. It is knowledge that originated from an intuition.
The issue comes with the usage of “intuitively” in the comments with the examples given. The difference between something learned and something spontaneous/organic that occurs.
e.g. The person that can pick up an instrument and play it without prior training is using intuition, an instinctive feel for how to make it work versus the person that’s practised for years, conscious of their actions until they are so well trained they can play automatically.
For my own case I immediately and exactly match Jessica’s use of “intuition” and expect that is what most people usually mean when they talk about intuition, so I think this claim requires greater justification if that seems important to you given a sample size of 3 here.
intuition
the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.
i.e. They have the knowledge stored and accessible. The conscious reasoning has already occurred for understanding. Recalling it without (much) effort isn’t intuition, even if it happens as a response to prior training/on a most subconscious level/instinctively.
To me, “intuition” is something that comes from somewhere—a gut feeling, an inspiration, that kind of thing. Intuitively sensing/feeling/knowing what to do in a situation. Quite an experience when “auto-pilot” takes over...
That all sounds like part of the same cluster of mental movements to me, i.e. all the stuff that isn’t deliberative.
Talking about “intuition” I distinguish between:
Something that ‘just comes to you’ - what I would call an ‘intuition’. Which seems to fit with the original post’s usage and the example of the “the structure of benzene came in a dream”.
Something done ‘automatically/without thinking’ but has been learned i.e. the example of a chemist being able to recognise and represent benzene is not an intuition. It is knowledge that originated from an intuition.
The issue comes with the usage of “intuitively” in the comments with the examples given. The difference between something learned and something spontaneous/organic that occurs.
e.g. The person that can pick up an instrument and play it without prior training is using intuition, an instinctive feel for how to make it work versus the person that’s practised for years, conscious of their actions until they are so well trained they can play automatically.