# Intuition is still sensation



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


----------



## Aladdin Sane (May 10, 2016)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


Thats like saying, if a dog is an animal its only a matter of time until it turns into a spider.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


lol,... intuition is perception, just like sensing is perception. If apples are fruit and oranges are fruit, it doesn't mean that apples are oranges.





...........
...........
...........
logic
...........
...........
...........


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Aladdin Sane said:


> Thats like saying, if a dog is an animal its only a matter of time until it turns into a spider.


So, intuition doesn't affect your senses? I mean, why are the first 5 senses called sensation and the 6th called intuition? Don't they all happen in your physical body? Vision is still sensation... even though you don't 'sense' with vision (not part of the epithelial tissue).


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

Some think intuition is just delayed sensing.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Another Lost Cause said:


> Some think intuition is just delayed sensing.


like, you get hit one day but only feel the pain in the next day?


----------



## psyche (Jan 5, 2011)

I think that when you're using your five senses, you're essentially dealing with three dimensional reality. The way I think about it, intuition is almost like living in a fourth dimension of sorts; everything is abstract rather than tangible, it's something you sense without being able to touch or hear or anything else.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


To a degree, all perception is pattern recognition. The difference is where and how we perceive those patterns, and which patterns we prefer to accept as reality to us.

Where I think that intuition is "sensing" is that it is, IMO, based on memory. But not memory in the sense of how, for instance Si perceives it. To me, as I observe Si types, I see them perceiving sensation as a continuum. The present is constantly held in place to a continuous thread of perception memories, and the pattern compared to past sensations--in a very direct (though subjective) manner. by subjective, I mean it's held to a standard that the Si type has in their head. My mother, for instance, has these certain memories that hold eternal value and everything is held up to that--in regards to us, her children, that is. Every experience we have had since is, in a way, a result of that childhood experience she holds--it's not really just one experience, but it like a culmination, I guess. I find it hard to describe, so what I said above must have that caveat--it's not an accurate depiction. ;-) But to Si, it's one, long continuous thread. Si types I know, tend to be very good at placing their memories in space and time, and in relation to each other. 

That is important to what I'm about to say. I am terrible about memories. I have disjointed ones that don't fit into place or time. They are all fuddled and mangled and munged into a hodge-podge of feelings and emotions. My memories are spotted and distorted, and even things that never happened in reality become memories to me, because they evoked a feeling--even if they never happened. I cannot trust my memory one whit. What I do have, though, is a week pattern recognition. By that, I mean that I can pull patterns out of behavior or happenings that match previous patterns. It' all hazy, etc. and I can't really trust it, but it's there.

Having observed my wife for the past 30 years, I have noticed that her Intuition (Ne) is really good at picking up on all sorts of patterns that are not directly linked with sensation--here and now--and while her memory is better than mine, it still doesn't match the Si continuum. But here's the thing. I am sure that much of her insights or major jumps that her intuition reveals, are from this patchwork of the past. Her brain doesn't remember events or things or people. It remembers the jumps between them. Hm. Sounds weird.... It's like it remembers the movement through time and space, but devoid of the actual happenings.... Think of looking at a page of a magazine, and not noticing the contents, but the white space around it--the negative space--what isn't there. It's like that is what her brain retains, and re-pieces together, so that when she perceives a new pattern, she compares the two, and can piece something out of the old, with something new, and move on. Wow... reading back over that, I hope I'm understood. ;-) The thing is, that to her, that is not what she's doing... She is seeing new relationships and new ideas, but not necessarily being aware of how it fits into the past--sometimes she knows, and when she knows, she can quickly and easily pull it together, and show convincingly how they all go together so other people understand it, but this is not true in every case. 

To me, Ni works with different "data" but in a similar way. It's focus is different, but I've already said enough to confuse and un-enlighten, so I better stop here. ;-) 

To summarize, Neither sensation as a psychological function (Se, Si) nor intuition is the same as sensing, i.e. what our five senses take in. It is pattern recognition, and each of the four orientations do different things with what our five senses take in. So, Se is _not_ merely the five senses. It is completely different--it is an attitude toward our five senses that seems, on the surface, to be most synonymous with our five senses, but, in fact, is not. It is just one more attitude, equal with the other three, towards them, but differently orientated in its approach to the input. Confusing enough?

(some of the above--in particular, the last paragraph, and the pattern recognition--I got from Jung, the rest is observation and pondering what I've observed)


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

Sensing is focus on physical things, intuition is not. If you have a "6th sense" thats intuition, it isnt sensual, right?.


----------



## Wiz (Apr 8, 2014)

Sensing is pure information. 

Intuition is connecting that information intuitively with other information in an instant.

______

What are you trying to achieve with this post? Does it matter how you define it?


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


If intuition would be a sixth sense, and if sensation would be simply observing things, then yes, I'd agree. However, the "sixth sense" that is intuition, is not really the same thing as Ne/Ni. 

Intuition is perception of things that aren't real, but rather possibilities of things, what they can be. Sensing is perception of what's real. 



Wiz said:


> Sensing is pure information.
> 
> Intuition is connecting that information intuitively with other information in an instant.
> 
> ______


Not really. That'd be introversion. Si connects data from what's real, while Ni connects data from possibilities, and what could be. Ne isn't working with connections, it's working with possibilities. Everywhere, coming up with possibilities for everything.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Pinina said:


> Intuition is perception of things that aren't real, but rather possibilities of things, what they can be. Sensing is perception of what's real.


I thought the perception of things that aren't real was called 'hallucination'


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Felipe said:


> I thought the perception of things that aren't real was called 'hallucination'


Let's define real.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

karmachameleon said:


> Sensing is focus on physical things, intuition is not. If you have a* "6th sense" thats intuition, it isnt sensual, right?*.


You mean they're thoughts? cause thoughts is thinking, not intuition. Or you mean metaphysical things? Because that would require proof, otherwise you're admiting mbti is pseudo-science. I'm gonna explain my logic again:

not in a particular order

1th sense - touch (sensing)
2th sense - hearing (sensing)
3th sense - smelling (sensing)
4th sense - seeing (sensing)
5th sense - tasting (sensing)
6th sense - perceiving things that aren't obvious to the other senses (well, smelling isn't obvious to hearing either) - (intuition???)


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> Let's define real.


No thanks, 'Morpheus'


----------



## karmachameleon (Nov 1, 2015)

Felipe said:


> You mean they're thoughts? cause thoughts is thinking, not intuition. Or you mean metaphysical things? Because that would require proof, otherwise you're admiting mbti is pseudo-science. I'm gonna explain my logic again:
> 
> not in a particular order
> 
> ...


intuition is coming up with a conclusion without knowing how you came to that conclusion or what procedure you took, or knowing what will happen without being able to say how you know it will. so it is thinking but unconscious thinking... but everything we do is thinking. "this smells good" is a thought. so where do you draw the line


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

karmachameleon said:


> intuition is coming up with a conclusion without knowing how you came to that conclusion


that's speculation...



karmachameleon said:


> so it is thinking but unconscious thinking


thinking becomes unconscious when it's repressed by feeling. Are you saying intuition can only come with feeling, because if so, all 'NT' types don't exist anymore


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

karmachameleon said:


> so it is thinking but unconscious thinking...


Unless the thinking you're talking about doesn't necessarily have to do with thinking function in mbti. In this case there is a 3rd option too:

You agree with what I said first that it's only intuition while it's still unconscious, when it becomes conscious it's sensation.


----------



## Scoobyscoob (Sep 4, 2016)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


Intuition is simply another form of perception and is a form of perceptions that simply reuses information gained from the tangible senses. It's abstract in other words; but there's nothing mystical or magical about intuition. If you've ever seen a mind chart then you're looking at a visual representation of how Ni works. If you've ever seen a flow chart with many branching possibilities, then you're seeing a visual representation of how Ne works. There really shouldn't be any mystery behind intuition, it's simply looking at information gained from the senses and arranging them in a way to form a new precept or idea. I think what people really revere about intuition though is sometimes that new way of looking at the world can be world changing to some or even many.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Scoobyscoob said:


> If you've ever seen a mind chart then you're looking at a visual representation of how Ni works. If you've ever seen a flow chart with many branching possibilities, then you're seeing a visual representation of how Ne works..


If that's how Ne and Ni works, I'd say 'Ne' and 'Ni" are very tangible.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Can you name few of these other senses? Just so I can do more research on it.


Vestibular, temperature, proprioception, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Felipe said:


> If intuition is a sixth sense, it's just a matter of time until it's conscious enough to call it sensation. Do you agree?


No. It will never become conscious enough, because it _is_ perception via the unconscious. Or rather, it's the conscious perception of unconscious contents. 



> Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs; by thinking I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; feeling is a function of subjective valuation; *intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious contents*



Here is an example from Jung on intuition:



> _Intuitive types very often do not perceive by their eyes or by their ears, they perceive by intuition. For instance, it once happened that I had a woman patient in the morning at nine o'clock. I often smoke my pipe and have a certain smell of tobacco in the room, or a cigar. And she came and said, "But you begin earlier than nine o'clock" — earlier, I said, you call that early? — "you must have seen somebody at eight o'clock." I said, "How do you know?" There had been a man there that had come at eight o'clock already. And she said, "Oh, I just had a hunch that there must have been a gentleman with you this morning." I said, "Hum, but how do you know it was a gentleman?" And she said, "Oh well, I just had the impression, the atmosphere was just like a gentleman here." And all the time, you know, the ash tray was under her nose, and there was a half-smoked cigar! But she wouldn't notice it. The intuitive is a type that doesn't see, doesn't see the stumbling block before his feet, but he smells a rat for ten miles._


Now you can use your senses and some reasoning to come to the same conclusion, but to this woman, she just got a hunch/impression of what was and she couldn't even notice what details gave her that impression. All she can see is the image given to her by her intuition.


And FWIW here is Jung's goto example of an over-developed Ni-dom:



> People with an overdevelopment of intuition which leads them to scorn objective reality, and so finally to a conflict such as I have described above, have usually characteristic dreams. I once had as a patient a girl of the most extraordinary intuitive powers, and she had pushed the thing to such a point that her own body even was unreal to her. Once I asked her half jokingly if she had never noticed that she had a body, and she answered quite seriously that she had not--she bathed herself under a sheet! When she came to me she had ceased even to hear her steps when she walked--she was just floating through the world. Her first dream was that she was sitting on top of a balloon, not even in a balloon, if you please, but on top of one that was high up in the air, and she was leaning over peeping down at me. I had a gun and was shooting at the balloon which I finally brought down. Before she came to me she had been living in a house where she had been impressed with the charming girls. It was a brothel and she had been quite unaware of the fact. This shock brought her to analysis.
> 
> I cannot bring such a case down to a sense of reality through sensation directly, for to the intuitive, facts are mere air; so then, since thinking is her auxiliary function, I begin to reason with her in a very simple way till she becomes willing to strip from the fact the atmosphere she has projected upon it. Suppose I say to her, "Here is a green monkey." Immediately she will say, "No, it is red." Then I say, "A thousand people say this monkey is green, and if you make it red, it is only of your own imagination." The next step is to get her to the point where her feeling and thinking conflict. An intuitive does with her feelings very much the same thing she does with her thoughts; that is, if she gets a negative intuition about a person, then the person seems all evil, and what he really is matters not at all. But little by little such a patient begins to ask what the object is like after all, and to have the desire to experience the object directly. Then she is able to give sensation its proper value, and she stops looking at the object from around a corner; in a word, she is ready to sacrifice her overpowering desire to master by intuition.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Hobbes said that all imagination is "senses in decay". 

 "When a body is once in motion, it moveth, unless something else hinder it, eternally; and whatsoever hindereth it cannot in an instant, but in time and by degrees, quite extinguish it; and, as we see in the water though the wind cease the waves give not over rolling for a long time after: so also it happeneth in that motion which is made in the internal parts of a man, then, when he sees, dreams, etc. For, after the object is removed, or the eye shut, we still retain an image of the thing seen, though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it the Latins call ‘imagination,’ from the image made in seeing; and apply the same, though improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks call it ‘fancy,’ which signifies ‘appearance,’ and is as proper to one sense as to another. ‘Imagination,’ therefore, is nothing but ‘decaying sense,’ and is found in men, and many other living creatures, as well sleeping as waking."

and this:

"The Sun, entering the eyes as sight, becomes the power of outer vision, in contrast to the Moon which becomes the power of inner vision. The Moon, illuminating the night, then becomes the light in the darkness which we call intuition, a perception beyond the senses, or perhaps perception where the information of the senses is largely unconscious, a seeing in the dark."


-The Moon: Myth and Image


The Hobbes analogy. Imagine it like your body's metabolism. It takes in food or sensation. Breaks it down and uses it for its own purposes. The action of throwing a ball or something is the result of "food in decay". Sensation is the foundation of imagination.

"Though I may not, like them, be able to quote other authors, I shall rely on that which is much greater and more worthy— on experience, the mistress of their Masters.

My works are the issue of pure and simple experience, who is the one true mistress. "

-Da Vinci


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I thought intuition was also, a difference in perspective or at least seeing the big picture...first? and also noticing patterns all of the time.

I think that's basically what it is, it's all the patterns that we notice and information we pick up without reralizing it. I don't know if that makes everyone more head in the clouds or not though, and maybe delayed perception when it comes to immediate events? I know this has always been an issue with me, and many people immediately assume I am confused or not very intelligent. 

The confused thing is really annoying. I have noticed that if you do not act really alert and fully in the moment and ready to take charge at a moments notice! then people will think there's something wrong with you. 

*ahem* not that I find offense to that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

And can you see how Hobbes influenced Newton? Bodies at rest and in motion. All that stuff. A clockwork universe. Everything is just springs and pulleys. 

Hegel actually said that. Newton is Hobbes's philosophy. Actually he said that about Locke. I think Hobbes fits too. "English philosophy". Newton's science is English philosophy.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Hobbes said that all imagination is "senses in decay".
> 
> "When a body is once in motion, it moveth, unless something else hinder it, eternally; and whatsoever hindereth it cannot in an instant, but in time and by degrees, quite extinguish it; and, as we see in the water though the wind cease the waves give not over rolling for a long time after: so also it happeneth in that motion which is made in the internal parts of a man, then, when he sees, dreams, etc. For, after the object is removed, or the eye shut, we still retain an image of the thing seen, though more obscure than when we see it. And this is it the Latins call ‘imagination,’ from the image made in seeing; and apply the same, though improperly, to all the other senses. But the Greeks call it ‘fancy,’ which signifies ‘appearance,’ and is as proper to one sense as to another. ‘Imagination,’ therefore, is nothing but ‘decaying sense,’ and is found in men, and many other living creatures, as well sleeping as waking."


Interesting, because that's essentially what I said in my first post above...


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Peter said:


> To solve your confusion, you need to learn about these concepts of abstract and concrete thinking.


teach me then, oh enlightened master


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

This is going nowhere.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Meteoric Shadows said:


> I don't know if that makes everyone more head in the clouds or not though,
> 
> The confused thing is really annoying. I have noticed that if you do not act really alert and fully in the moment and ready to take charge at a moments notice! then people will think there's something wrong with you.
> .


no, that's passive perception

jung on phantasy:

"...We must differentiate between *active and passive phantasy. Active phantasies are called forth by intuition*, i.e. by an attitude directed to the perception of unconscious contents in which the libido immediately invests all the elements emerging from the unconscious, and, by means of association with parallel material, brings them to definition and plastic form. Passive phantasies without any antecedent or accompanying intuitive attitude appear from the outset in plastic form in the presence of a wholly passive attitude on the part of the cognizing subject Such phantasies belong to the category of psychic "automatismes" (Janet). ..."


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

PaladinX said:


> No. It will never become conscious enough, because it _is_ perception via the unconscious. Or rather, it's the conscious perception of unconscious contents.


you're saying there isn't a next stage on evolution?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> This is going nowhere.


You are released. Wait, just a present of Jung about intuition before you go:

"Concrete and abstract forms of intuition may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose."

proving intuition is not "abstract" and sensing is "concrete" like many people claim


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Felipe said:


> You are released. Wait, just a present of Jung about intuition before you go:
> 
> "Concrete and abstract forms of intuition may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on the part of sensation. Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose."
> 
> proving intuition is not "abstract" and sensing is "concrete" like many people claim


Thanks. 

I still haven't figured out why you target me, as if I made any claims on this thread whatsoever. I only presented questions, most of which were left unanswered. (Though, thanks for being considerate, @PaladinX)

Back to what Jung described -- I'd imagine this is the difference between all internal and external functions. External functions are more concrete, visceral and reactive, whereas internal functions are more abstract and intangible. Concrete/abstract merely being the attitude of the function, or its focus. I don't think intuition can be understood simply as being "abstract", since intuitive connections can often be of a more concrete nature or consern conrete objects/phenomenas - likewise I'd find it incredibly difficult to describe impressionistic painting as "concrete" simply because it was perceived and produced by sensations.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Felipe said:


> you're saying there isn't a next stage on evolution?


No, that is not what I'm saying.

Are you saying that the perception of the unconscious will evolve into perception of conscious contents? And if so, what function will perceive the unconscious if one can only perceive conscious contents?


----------



## soop (Aug 6, 2016)

Intuition is what I used before I learned how things worked.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Division is really just addition.


----------



## Amy (Jan 15, 2015)

Tbh I don't understand it too. Both intuition and sensation are processed in the brain, so... basically the only difference between them is the name.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

That seems so astrology-esque and metaphysical new-agist though, doesn't it?


~"oh intution; it's simply this oh so dreamy and abstract and unknowable way of viewing the world. Abstact. ABSTRACT things. Dream journal, astral projection, soul mates, spirituality (but not religion, HELL NO!) energy, charka, cleansing, dance RaVEs, granola hippies. "


It might as well just be like N~"You are a Intuitive; you are a soul power hippie child in the sun/moon star system. You are not a Tom Cruise/Xenu decedent solar Nova. You are a gentle and kind Granola Hippie. You love Nature and hiking and beige, hemp clothing"


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Felipe said:


> teach me then, oh enlightened master


I gave you a link and showed you the way. Any enlightened master knows that you will only learn if you enter the path and go for it yourself. I can only show you the way, I can not walk the path for you.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Karla said:


> Tbh I don't understand it too. Both intuition and sensation are processed in the brain, so... basically the only difference between them is the name.


Apples are fruit, and bananas are fruit,.. so the only difference between them is the name?

iNtuition sees connections between facts. It does this so much that it often can't remember all the facts. It does remember the connections very well though. Sensation is very keen on facts, but only accepts connections when they are presented as facts. It's not interested in finding relations between facts. It is however very good at remembering all the facts. (especially Si)

Você é de Fortaleza?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Peter said:


> I gave you a link and showed you the way. Any enlightened master knows that you will only learn if you enter the path and go for it yourself. I can only show you the way, I can not walk the path for you.


Thanks, peter (pan). You might wanna read my last reply to dogsoup though where I answer your 'abstraction' argument. On second thought, nah, don't read it.


----------

