If she "easily" has 30 points on me, she'd own the world record and be rather famous. Since Marilyn vos Savant isn't a college athlete, I rather doubt the accuracy of your sweeping generalization. What does _that_ say about _you_?
Nice, using a definition from a specialized field to create ambiguity in the definition.
Very first sentence of article:
"Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy."
If you read the following paragraphs, you'll discover that intuition in philosophy relates to beliefs. While it's a related concept, it doesn't help much with the concept of "counter-intuituive". That article also explains that there are two competing schools of thought, and that one of them directly supports my point of view: Intuitions are a species of belief, and based ultimately in experience.
OK, so let's agree that both a priori and experience play a part.
No, a priori has pretty much nothing to do with it, and I explained why. In fact, it can be argued that there's no such thing as a priori knowledge, and the only thing we are born with is the ability to process information.
But the whole point is the meaning of the term "counter-intuitive" for the title of this article! That is why I said "layman's expectation".
In short, if you insist on defining "intuition" by experience, the term "counter-intuitive" is meaningless.
So non-laymen have no intuitions? Everybody's different, pretty much from our genetics to the entirety of our experience. Just as there's no actual "average" person, average being a statistical construct, there's also no such actual "layman", especially if one considers the incredibly broad range of cultural and technological exposure that exists among the 7 billion people on the planet. My father finds Nokia dumbphones difficult to use -- in your words, "counter-intuitive". He finds the old Ericsson phones "intuitive". My perception is the exact opposite -- Nokia's UI behaves as I expect it. It's "intuitive". I find Ericsson's UI clunky and inefficient, involving plenty of trial-and-error. "Counter-intuitive". You think that's not because of experience? You think I'd have found Nokias just as intuitive when I was 2?
It's like protesting that 6'2" isn't "tall", because you're 6'4" (that your personal reference frame overrides the general usage of the word).
"Tall" isn't an absolute measure. A tall person is short compared to a giraffe, and the giraffe is short compared to a skyscraper. That is about as relative as one can get. Besides, what does "tall" have to do with "intuitive" and "counter-intuitive"?
Sadly, this discussion isn't going anywhere, because based on your post, you didn't really read my reply or try to understand what I said, you simply reacted to the fact that I was disagreeing with you, grabbed the first Wikipedia link that even remotely looked like it helped your argument (again without reading it thoroughly), and fired off a response, one that didn't actually refute my points.
From the GPP-linked wiki article: Dawkins suggests that religious belief in the "faith-sufferer" typically shows the following elements: * It is impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, the believer feels as totally compelling and convincing. -- Nope. We require evidence, extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. * The believer typically makes a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, despite it not being based upon evidence. -- Nope. A basic idea to the scientific process is that our theories are the best we know of, today. Tomorrow, we could be proven wrong, and that's a good thing, it means we learned something new. * There is a conviction that "mystery", per se, is a good thing; the belief that it is not a virtue to solve mysteries but to enjoy them and revel in their insolubility. -- Nope. Our goal is to solve the mysteries. In the words of Gregory House: "Knowing is way cooler." * There may be intolerant behaviour towards perceived rival faiths, in extreme cases even the killing of opponents or advocating of their deaths. Believers may be similarly violent in disposition towards apostates or heretics, even if those espouse only a slightly different version of the faith. -- That's going to require a citation, I personally know of no instances where an atheist was violent towards a religious person _because of their religion_. * The particular convictions that the believer holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, are likely to resemble those of the believer's parents. -- Nope. In fact, most atheists practiced some form of religion, usually their parents', before they became atheists. To quote Carlin: "When I was a kid, I was a Catholic, at least until I reached the age of reason." * If the believer is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may be cultural transmission from a charismatic individual. -- Or it might not. Does it matter how you learned about it? Not really a "symptom", IMHO. * The internal sensations of the 'faith-sufferer' may be reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. -- LOL. Okay, that's one I've never heard anyone accuse atheists/atheism of. Again, citation?
And governments are made of what, chocolate syrup?
People go to wars. People pursue their agenda, people steal money, people start the wars and then people are forced to participate and die in them, dear roman_mir.
I too wear my nerd/geek/weirdo/freak with pride, but it doesn't excuse or justify being a complete asshole and calling someone a moron for a perfectly reasonable question. Why don't you shut the fuck up yourself.
Although the insults were there, he did make arguments, in the form of questioning the poster's reasoning, or lack thereof. I do share his curiosity as to what the topic (religion and thinking) have to do with distinguishing one's sister from one's mother. I also agree with his point that atheists tend to think a lot more than religious people, based on my experience with both. Finally, I detected no fear in his post, merely contempt.
Ok, I think we read that differently. I read him to mean "plants emit near-infrared wavelengths" and you apparently read him to mean "plants emit when exposed to near-infrared wavelengths". I would have understood him the way you did if he said "plants flouresce under near-infrared". Anyway, if he meant what I think he meant, then you're both correct.:)
in.tu.i.tion/,int(y)oo'iSHun/
Noun:
(1) The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
(2) A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
Synonyms: insight - instinct
Note there is nothing in the definition about laypersons, or a priori comprehension. Intuition is defined by the absence of conscious reasoning, not by the absence of all reasoning. A large portion of our processing is unconscious, below the surface cognition we normally consider "thinking". The brain is massively parallel and is constantly processing a vast amount of data. Some of this we are aware of, the conscious portion. Other portions only come to the surface in the form of dreams. But most of it we never really see.
Your education and experience are part of this processing, and the more "education/experience/whatever" you have on a particular subject matter, the better your intuition is on that subject matter. This is not voodoo, it simply means the processing has been integrated into the deeper regions and we no longer have to actively or consciously think about it. To the conscious mind, it's like we "just know it".
As an example, a beginning driver, especially on a stick shift, will be thinking about details like gas pedal, brake pedal and clutch pedal timing, which gear to shift to, when to shift to neutral, and on top of all that, steering and navigating. An experienced driver doesn't need to consciously plot the gas off, clutch down, shift, etc... steps, they basically happen automatically. Some will argue it's muscle memory, but it's more than just the movements. The timing of all that, of what to do and when to do it, requires being able to integrate multiple data streams.
Another example, diagnosing computer problems. I've been fiddling around with computers for decades, and basically, family and friends come to me when their computers "don't work". Many times, they'll be describing (in non-tech terms) the problem and I'll "just know" what's wrong when they're barely done with the second sentence. I don't think "a priori" is correct, at all. If I I didn't have the education/experience/whatever, I simply would not be able to figure that stuff out. But because I do, I can, often intuitively, meaning, I don't have to consciously think about it. The character Dr. Gregory House, from the House, MD TV series, also displays this. His expertise is broad and deep, and so he can intuitively figure out obscure medical problems.
The brain is a constantly self-adjusting neural network, sort of like an FPGA, and although they aren't exact analogies, one can think of education as data/software. Early on, you're thinking about it and solving problems in software. But given time and practice, the software in the brain migrates into the hardware, kind of like programming an FPGA. Once it's coded in the FPGA, it can mostly avoid using the stack and registers (your conscious mind) and you "just know" the answers/solutions/whatever. And yes, intuition is very personal. What is intuitive to me will not necessarily be intuitive to you, and vice versa. We have differently-programmed FPGAs.
The non-beneficial mutations tend to die out, therefore not propagating. Over time, the beneficial mutations accumulate. Your system will tend towards increased order. Your premise is basically how evolutionary algorithms operate. If things happened as you predicted (gradual increased disorder), genetic algorithms would be useless for solving problems. Obviously untrue.
I know you're just being funny, but if they're eating the same thing (grass) all day, how can they get all amino acids from that, no matter how much they eat?
It may have sounded like a joke, but the content of that post was truth. Elephants, for example, spend up to 16 hours a day feeding and an adult will consume up to 270 kg (600 lbs) of food a day. Cattle only sleep 4 hours a day, and are ruminants, which regurgitate partially digested food (cud) to chew it again.
Most herbivores, especially the larger ones, have much longer digestive tracts and rely on symbiotic bacteria and fungi in their gut to ferment plant matter and break down the cellulose. In addition, the microbes themselves provide a secondary food source as they die and are replaced by successive generations. It's like they have internal Marmite/Vegemite factories.:P
Nice disingenuous use of the term "primary diet source." There is in fact no such belief that humans with incredible ability to discern plants ever evolved in a situation where meat was more than a "secondary diet source," whereas in the modern world, a typical human will eat meat every day, and almost as often, with every meal. Foraging is just as much part of human nature as hunting.
Slashdot Mirror
If she "easily" has 30 points on me, she'd own the world record and be rather famous. Since Marilyn vos Savant isn't a college athlete, I rather doubt the accuracy of your sweeping generalization. What does _that_ say about _you_?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(philosophy)
Nice, using a definition from a specialized field to create ambiguity in the definition.
Very first sentence of article:
"Intuition is a priori knowledge or experiential belief characterized by its immediacy."
If you read the following paragraphs, you'll discover that intuition in philosophy relates to beliefs. While it's a related concept, it doesn't help much with the concept of "counter-intuituive". That article also explains that there are two competing schools of thought, and that one of them directly supports my point of view: Intuitions are a species of belief, and based ultimately in experience.
OK, so let's agree that both a priori and experience play a part.
No, a priori has pretty much nothing to do with it, and I explained why. In fact, it can be argued that there's no such thing as a priori knowledge, and the only thing we are born with is the ability to process information.
But the whole point is the meaning of the term "counter-intuitive" for the title of this article! That is why I said "layman's expectation".
In short, if you insist on defining "intuition" by experience, the term "counter-intuitive" is meaningless.
So non-laymen have no intuitions? Everybody's different, pretty much from our genetics to the entirety of our experience. Just as there's no actual "average" person, average being a statistical construct, there's also no such actual "layman", especially if one considers the incredibly broad range of cultural and technological exposure that exists among the 7 billion people on the planet. My father finds Nokia dumbphones difficult to use -- in your words, "counter-intuitive". He finds the old Ericsson phones "intuitive". My perception is the exact opposite -- Nokia's UI behaves as I expect it. It's "intuitive". I find Ericsson's UI clunky and inefficient, involving plenty of trial-and-error. "Counter-intuitive". You think that's not because of experience? You think I'd have found Nokias just as intuitive when I was 2?
It's like protesting that 6'2" isn't "tall", because you're 6'4" (that your personal reference frame overrides the general usage of the word).
"Tall" isn't an absolute measure. A tall person is short compared to a giraffe, and the giraffe is short compared to a skyscraper. That is about as relative as one can get. Besides, what does "tall" have to do with "intuitive" and "counter-intuitive"?
Sadly, this discussion isn't going anywhere, because based on your post, you didn't really read my reply or try to understand what I said, you simply reacted to the fact that I was disagreeing with you, grabbed the first Wikipedia link that even remotely looked like it helped your argument (again without reading it thoroughly), and fired off a response, one that didn't actually refute my points.
From the GPP-linked wiki article:
Dawkins suggests that religious belief in the "faith-sufferer" typically shows the following elements:
* It is impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, the believer feels as totally compelling and convincing. -- Nope. We require evidence, extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims.
* The believer typically makes a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, despite it not being based upon evidence. -- Nope. A basic idea to the scientific process is that our theories are the best we know of, today. Tomorrow, we could be proven wrong, and that's a good thing, it means we learned something new.
* There is a conviction that "mystery", per se, is a good thing; the belief that it is not a virtue to solve mysteries but to enjoy them and revel in their insolubility. -- Nope. Our goal is to solve the mysteries. In the words of Gregory House: "Knowing is way cooler."
* There may be intolerant behaviour towards perceived rival faiths, in extreme cases even the killing of opponents or advocating of their deaths. Believers may be similarly violent in disposition towards apostates or heretics, even if those espouse only a slightly different version of the faith. -- That's going to require a citation, I personally know of no instances where an atheist was violent towards a religious person _because of their religion_.
* The particular convictions that the believer holds, while having nothing to do with evidence, are likely to resemble those of the believer's parents. -- Nope. In fact, most atheists practiced some form of religion, usually their parents', before they became atheists. To quote Carlin: "When I was a kid, I was a Catholic, at least until I reached the age of reason."
* If the believer is one of the rare exceptions who follows a different religion from his parents, the explanation may be cultural transmission from a charismatic individual. -- Or it might not. Does it matter how you learned about it? Not really a "symptom", IMHO.
* The internal sensations of the 'faith-sufferer' may be reminiscent of those more ordinarily associated with sexual love. -- LOL. Okay, that's one I've never heard anyone accuse atheists/atheism of. Again, citation?
+1 :D
My error, I got it confused with S60, which does run on Symbian. The point still stands, however. The next billion isn't going to be on Maemo.
The next billion use Series 40 (Symbian), not Maemo.
People go to wars. People pursue their agenda, people steal money, people start the wars and then people are forced to participate and die in them, dear roman_mir.
FTFY.
Only for varying degrees of "capable":
Nvidia cripples GPGPU in Geforce GTX 680
Benchmark Results: Sandra 2012
NVIDIA GTX 680 Reviewed: A New Hope
Except the GK104 is double-precision crippled, making them not-very-useful for HPC.
But what does it taste like?
Spam.
It is a word, like obelix ;p
There really should a -1 Fucking Asshole mod.
I too wear my nerd/geek/weirdo/freak with pride, but it doesn't excuse or justify being a complete asshole and calling someone a moron for a perfectly reasonable question. Why don't you shut the fuck up yourself.
Adobe announced Australians would be charged up to $1,600 more for Adobe CS6.
Although the insults were there, he did make arguments, in the form of questioning the poster's reasoning, or lack thereof. I do share his curiosity as to what the topic (religion and thinking) have to do with distinguishing one's sister from one's mother. I also agree with his point that atheists tend to think a lot more than religious people, based on my experience with both. Finally, I detected no fear in his post, merely contempt.
+1
Is this why plants fluoresce in near infrared?
Ok, I think we read that differently. I read him to mean "plants emit near-infrared wavelengths" and you apparently read him to mean "plants emit when exposed to near-infrared wavelengths". I would have understood him the way you did if he said "plants flouresce under near-infrared". Anyway, if he meant what I think he meant, then you're both correct. :)
in.tu.i.tion/,int(y)oo'iSHun/
Noun:
(1) The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
(2) A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
Synonyms: insight - instinct
Note there is nothing in the definition about laypersons, or a priori comprehension. Intuition is defined by the absence of conscious reasoning, not by the absence of all reasoning. A large portion of our processing is unconscious, below the surface cognition we normally consider "thinking". The brain is massively parallel and is constantly processing a vast amount of data. Some of this we are aware of, the conscious portion. Other portions only come to the surface in the form of dreams. But most of it we never really see.
Your education and experience are part of this processing, and the more "education/experience/whatever" you have on a particular subject matter, the better your intuition is on that subject matter. This is not voodoo, it simply means the processing has been integrated into the deeper regions and we no longer have to actively or consciously think about it. To the conscious mind, it's like we "just know it".
As an example, a beginning driver, especially on a stick shift, will be thinking about details like gas pedal, brake pedal and clutch pedal timing, which gear to shift to, when to shift to neutral, and on top of all that, steering and navigating. An experienced driver doesn't need to consciously plot the gas off, clutch down, shift, etc... steps, they basically happen automatically. Some will argue it's muscle memory, but it's more than just the movements. The timing of all that, of what to do and when to do it, requires being able to integrate multiple data streams.
Another example, diagnosing computer problems. I've been fiddling around with computers for decades, and basically, family and friends come to me when their computers "don't work". Many times, they'll be describing (in non-tech terms) the problem and I'll "just know" what's wrong when they're barely done with the second sentence. I don't think "a priori" is correct, at all. If I I didn't have the education/experience/whatever, I simply would not be able to figure that stuff out. But because I do, I can, often intuitively, meaning, I don't have to consciously think about it. The character Dr. Gregory House, from the House, MD TV series, also displays this. His expertise is broad and deep, and so he can intuitively figure out obscure medical problems.
The brain is a constantly self-adjusting neural network, sort of like an FPGA, and although they aren't exact analogies, one can think of education as data/software. Early on, you're thinking about it and solving problems in software. But given time and practice, the software in the brain migrates into the hardware, kind of like programming an FPGA. Once it's coded in the FPGA, it can mostly avoid using the stack and registers (your conscious mind) and you "just know" the answers/solutions/whatever. And yes, intuition is very personal. What is intuitive to me will not necessarily be intuitive to you, and vice versa. We have differently-programmed FPGAs.
Kiloton? Even megaton is fairly mainstream. I know the mainstream use is for imperial tons of TNT, but there is such a thing as a metric ton.
The non-beneficial mutations tend to die out, therefore not propagating. Over time, the beneficial mutations accumulate. Your system will tend towards increased order. Your premise is basically how evolutionary algorithms operate. If things happened as you predicted (gradual increased disorder), genetic algorithms would be useless for solving problems. Obviously untrue.
Microkiapple?
Silly me, thinking they stood for Non-Disclosure Agreement and DeoxyriboNucleic Acid.
They're still not acronyms. They're initialisms.
I know you're just being funny, but if they're eating the same thing (grass) all day, how can they get all amino acids from that, no matter how much they eat?
It may have sounded like a joke, but the content of that post was truth. Elephants, for example, spend up to 16 hours a day feeding and an adult will consume up to 270 kg (600 lbs) of food a day. Cattle only sleep 4 hours a day, and are ruminants, which regurgitate partially digested food (cud) to chew it again.
Most herbivores, especially the larger ones, have much longer digestive tracts and rely on symbiotic bacteria and fungi in their gut to ferment plant matter and break down the cellulose. In addition, the microbes themselves provide a secondary food source as they die and are replaced by successive generations. It's like they have internal Marmite/Vegemite factories. :P
Nice disingenuous use of the term "primary diet source." There is in fact no such belief that humans with incredible ability to discern plants ever evolved in a situation where meat was more than a "secondary diet source," whereas in the modern world, a typical human will eat meat every day, and almost as often, with every meal. Foraging is just as much part of human nature as hunting.
You know that incredible ability to discern? That started happening shortly after we started eating meat. So yeah, primary diet source, if you're human.
Eat all day. Eat all night. Eat while you sleep.