Dialogue

[Thomas Hood]

If you believe iconicity applies to all these areas, you're broadening the scope of this subjective lens beyond utility.

Well, first, iconicity is not subjective. It is a concrete modification of the medium of expression. Iconic signs are objective, but recognition of them may require a subjective response -- visceral and kinesthetic, not just mental. Nor am I "broadening the scope" of application. Iconicity is a universal property of communication. Typing, telegraphy, and vocabulary usages are instances.

Instances of this concept may be more readily picked up on by intuition, but it does not equate to intuition.

If the definition of intuition is limited to popular, subjective ideas found in "How to Improve Your Intuition" books, you are right. These books are useless because valid intuition depends on objective iconic signs, not subjective chakras.

The nuances of modes of communication are not intuitive knowledge.

Modifications of the medium of expression are not intuitive knowledge unless recognized, and this recognition requires the reader to turn away from the content of the message and focus on the medium. In many situations, "the medium is the message" because information needed to resolve the situation is conveyed iconically. So far as I know, Mcluhan did not acknowledge the universal presence of iconicity in communication but instead focused on the social implications of a medium's existence.

Tom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

[Interbane]

TH: "Well, first, iconicity is not subjective."

This is a fun sentence to think about. Recently, I was contemplating some of what I've read in Objective Knowledge by Popper. His thesis basically was that, as an example, as soon as I hit the submit button for this post, this knowledge is objective. Not to say that it contains objective truth, but that it is in an objective form. Books are knowledge that is contained objectively. My thought was that even the human brain has knowledge that is contained objectively, but we simply don't have a way to access this knowledge(the arrangement of neurons) besides expressing it ourselves. Iconicity would be a characteristic of this objectivity of knowledge.

TH: "Nor am I "broadening the scope" of application."

Back to the matter. Intuition is receptive to more than just iconicity. Iconicity may be perceived by means other than intuition. Therefore, intuition does not equate to iconic knowledge. Only if you were to say that iconicity applies to everything that intuition is receptive to would you be broadening the scope. I'm glad to see this isn't the case.

TH: "If the definition of intuition is limited to popular, subjective ideas found in "How to Improve Your Intuition" books, you are right."

I'm referring to the understanding that cognitive scientists have on the matter. You use the word "limit". Should we not limit the definition of intuition? Should it be defined on a whim? Perhaps we are getting a better understanding of how the brain works and we're zeroing in on what intuition really is, rather than relying on philosophical speculation. What I've been trying to tell you is that this is the case, and there are books you should read on the topic rather than relying on archaic definitions and understandings.

TH: "In many situations, "the medium is the message" because information needed to resolve the situation is conveyed iconically."

I've always wanted to talk to McLuhan to pick his brain on the meaning of that phrase. Even if information is needed to resolve the situation, and that information is conveyed iconically, that doesn't answer the question of sufficiency vs necessity. The medium may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Likewise, the information in the message may be necessary, but not sufficient.

[Thomas Hood]

Intuition is receptive to more than just iconicity.

Please give examples.

I'm referring to the understanding that cognitive scientists have on the matter.

My idea of intuition is from Chinese philosophy, American Transcendentalism, Bergson, and personal experience. Bergson's idea of intuition as overcoming Kant's unknowable Ding an sich I agree with, but Bergson does not give concrete examples.

Tom

[Interbane]

The nuances of modes of communication are not intuitive knowledge. Instances of this concept may be more readily picked up on by intuition, but it does not equate to intuition. Intuition can also apply to patterns in your environment, introspection, and bio-mechanics. If you believe iconicity applies to all these areas, you're broadening the scope of this subjective lens beyond utility.

[Thomas Hood]

The nuances of modes of communication are not intuitive knowledge. Instances of this concept may be more readily picked up on by intuition, but it does not equate to intuition. Intuition can also apply to patterns in your environment, introspection, and bio-mechanics. If you believe iconicity applies to all these areas, you're broadening the scope of this subjective lens beyond utility.

Please give specific concrete examples. I did.

[Interbane]

Knowing when it's going to rain, suddenly understanding why you changed your mind to go do laundry, knowing how to dance. Why even ask for specific examples? Can't you deliberate and reason these out yourself? It's curious that you're so very good at language, yet terrible at philosophy.

[Thomas Hood]

Knowing when it's going to rain, suddenly understanding why you changed your mind to go do laundry, knowing how to dance. Why even ask for specific examples? Can't you deliberate and reason these out yourself? It's curious that you're so very good at language, yet terrible at philosophy.

No, Interbane. I cannot reason them out for myself because I cannot go from vague abstractions to specific instances without guidance. Why do you express yourself in evasive generalities? Afraid of being pinned down?

Nor do I know how you went from "Intuition can also apply to patterns in your environment, introspection, and bio-mechanics" to "Knowing when it's going to rain, suddenly understanding why you changed your mind to go do laundry, knowing how to dance." Is a rainstorm a pattern in my environment? Am I a pattern in my environment? Probably you have something specific in mind like the structure of sand dunes, but you don't say it. You would be more intelligible if you did.

Tom

[Interbane]

TH: "Why do you express yourself in evasive generalities? Afraid of being pinned down?"

Being pinned down to the truth isn't a bad position. I've also no motive to be evasive. Do my examples help, or do they also need to be anecdotal? I've given examples clear enough that the connection should 'click', but apparently your definition of intuition is so far off base that the concept must be explained front to back. I don't mean this as an insult, only a pragmatic remark.

[Thomas Hood]

I've given examples clear enough that the connection should 'click' . . .

It doesn't, but thanks for trying.

Tom

[Interbane]

Odd forum for this thread to be hiding in.

Here's an anecdote then.

I was around ten years old, playing out in the woods near my home in Upper Michigan. As usual, I was alone and quite a ways out. Without any noticeable change in the weather, I had a strong feeling that it was going to rain. I ran home just in time to catch a glimpse of clouds gathering off on the horizon; with my house on the edge of a large field, the horizon was more visible. The indicators of why it was going to rain aren't as important as the fact that my unconscious was aware of them while my conscious wasn't.

TH: "Why do you express yourself in evasive generalities? Afraid of being pinned down?"

This made me think of something else. What I was expressing wasn't a generality, but was a straw man representation of the concept. In this case, a straw man representation is a good thing. For an expansion of this idea, read "Tales of the Rational" by Massimo Pigliucci, pages 33-42. But I digress; if the anecdote helps the concept 'click', then I'm happy to supply it.