I spent time in a mental intuition once, but I had the feeling that I would finally get out.
Intuition, I see it when it occurs.
After seeing it, if I want to, I can explain it to you as a solution to a problem, or as a description of something that happened, but no one even had the feeling that it happened.
Impulse, I don’t even have time to see it that it has already happened.
I did not understand this, could you please deepen it?
For me an intuition is just an event, if we are talking about the same thing.
Maybe you want to relate to the intuitiveness, that it seems what you are describing.
I do not know about subconscious insight, but as far as I know it could be a kind of intelligence yet to be entirely discovered...
Although English is not my first language, your conclusion is very correct for me.
After rereading my last sentence I see how it may be construed in a different manner than intended. I might have left it as 'intuition is not an event'.
I think this describes it well.
Anyway, I finally understood this is a linguistic "glitch".
In Italian there are 3 words: intuito, intuizione e intuitività.
They have different meanings even if similar, but in English they have 2 translation only: intuition, intuition, intuitiveness or intuitivity.
In Italian "intuito" (the intuition, not an intuition) is the gift, or "La capacità di avvertire, comprendere e valutare con prontezza un fatto o una situazione" that's "The ability to feel, understand and evaluate a fact or a situation".
I agree it is not quantifiable.
"Intuizione" (intuition) is the single event that occurs like an involuntary sudden flash/lightening.
However, in Italian in some cases its meaning is exchanged with the first one.
In Italian there are 3 words: intuito, intuizione e intuitività.
They have different meanings even if similar, but in English they have 2 translation only: intuition, intuition, intuitiveness or intuitivity.
In Italian "intuito" (the intuition, not an intuition) is the gift, or "La capacità di avvertire, comprendere e valutare con prontezza un fatto o una situazione" that's "The ability to feel, understand and evaluate a fact or a situation".
I agree it is not quantifiable.
"Intuizione" (intuition) is the single event that occurs like an involuntary sudden flash/lightening.
However, in Italian in some cases its meaning is exchanged with the first one.
Last edited:
Determination (obsessiveness, stubornness) is the driving force (odd 30 years) but does not open the door. Intuition can hold a false flag. My breakthrough was like that hexagon chemical carbon snake dream (I'd say: search!). As if the brain twists and delivers, with all the discomfort. Then: revelation. Any semi's can operate as a triode. Baffling.
I would love to disagree with you on this. I cannot.
The most important thing an engineer can have is experience in making things.
My acquisition of many tools and systems has helped me discuss work related problems with mechanical engineers and technicians. It is amazing how well the connect is.
John
My boss hired me, I was significantly above him in "stuff". However, he "plowed the road" so that I could make a difference. While I think he held me back in terms of promotion and salary, I have no complaints.
John
Many engineering disciplines taught here at college and university have been co-op for some time. You must work in a related field for a prescribed amount of time before you can graduate.
jeff
For this I like Greek mythology.
In apotheosis people could become something special. Just read about it. It's all there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apotheosis
And also today apotheosis happens!
No joke!!
Former Real Madrid and Hungary star Ferenc Puskás stated: "The greatest player in history was Di Stéfano. I refuse to classify Pelé as a player. He was above that."[31] Just Fontaine, French striker and the leading scorer at the 1958 World Cup said "When I saw Pelé play, it made me feel I should hang up my boots."[31] England's 1966 FIFA World Cup-winning captain Bobby Moore commented: "Pelé was the most complete player I've ever seen, he had everything. Two good feet. Magic in the air. Quick. Powerful. Could beat people with skill. Could outrun people. Only five feet and eight inches tall, yet he seemed a giant of an athlete on the pitch. Perfect balance and impossible vision. He was the greatest because he could do anything and everything on a football pitch. I remember João Saldanha the coach being asked by a Brazilian journalist who was the best goalkeeper in his squad. He said Pelé. The man could play in any position".[100] Former Manchester United striker and member of England's 1966 FIFA World Cup-winning team Sir Bobby Charlton stated, "I sometimes feel as though football was invented for this magical player."[31] During the 1970 World Cup, when Manchester United defender Paddy Crerand (who was part of the ITV panel) was asked, "How do you spell Pelé?", he replied, "Easy: G-O-D."[31]
No joke!!
Former Real Madrid and Hungary star Ferenc Puskás stated: "The greatest player in history was Di Stéfano. I refuse to classify Pelé as a player. He was above that."[31] Just Fontaine, French striker and the leading scorer at the 1958 World Cup said "When I saw Pelé play, it made me feel I should hang up my boots."[31] England's 1966 FIFA World Cup-winning captain Bobby Moore commented: "Pelé was the most complete player I've ever seen, he had everything. Two good feet. Magic in the air. Quick. Powerful. Could beat people with skill. Could outrun people. Only five feet and eight inches tall, yet he seemed a giant of an athlete on the pitch. Perfect balance and impossible vision. He was the greatest because he could do anything and everything on a football pitch. I remember João Saldanha the coach being asked by a Brazilian journalist who was the best goalkeeper in his squad. He said Pelé. The man could play in any position".[100] Former Manchester United striker and member of England's 1966 FIFA World Cup-winning team Sir Bobby Charlton stated, "I sometimes feel as though football was invented for this magical player."[31] During the 1970 World Cup, when Manchester United defender Paddy Crerand (who was part of the ITV panel) was asked, "How do you spell Pelé?", he replied, "Easy: G-O-D."[31]
Okay. I get your perspective I guess.
After some review, it turns out there is evidence for my viewpoint as well. That said, maybe we should just agree to disagree on some things.
What I find more than anything here in the forum is that other members dislike what they consider to be 'bickering' more than they care about who wins or loses an argument. Already this thing has probably gone on too long for most readers of this thread.
Cal, if you would like to discuss in more detail I would be happy to do so by PM, or else willing to further take up further space in the thread. Your call.
Otherwise, I will be happy to leave off here.
This guy has no business being a college professor. He has no idea what constitutes a college education. Instead he has a very narrow minded idea of a what a college engineering degree should entail.
Okay. What does, and why?
Reason I ask is because I had some thoughts about that back when I was college. Didn't seem to me they had it quite right back then.
A college education, particularly in engineering, should teach you primarily how to address problems. Whether that it is in the field of electrical or mechanical or chemical or any other specific type of engineering is secondary to the main goal. And that goal is to teach a simple principle, but one that is not easily understood by many people.
The main thing that a good engineering education teaches you is to first define the problem you are trying to solve.
It has amazed me through many years of engineering, marketing and technical sales how few people really properly understand the need to do this. Or even know how to do it. I’ve found that most degreed engineers do it well, but many other people do not.
I recall many meetings during my technical sales days in the computer and data communication industries where the customer's management and other non-technical participants thought that they had answers without ever first defining the problem. And they were generally wrong about what was needed resulting in projects that never really got off the ground or worse yet ended up in complete failure.
Engineers approach things differently than most others. And that includes technicians who may have some knowledge of the subject but don't have the formal training in using an engineering approach.
Okay. Which course do they teach that in for you?
When I was in college they didn't teach that at all. If you couldn't figure it out yourself, you wouldn't pass the course. By that means college would filter through the people who could properly define problems, and filter out those students who couldn't.
Last edited:
No, it's not that simple. And it's not a matter of something being taught in a single course, whether that be Introduction to formal logic or some other subject.
In fact, in my engineering education I had no courses in formal logic. That's not what this is all about.
It is mindset that is achieve by an educational experience requiring you to think about carefully defining problems before attempting to solve them.
In fact, in my engineering education I had no courses in formal logic. That's not what this is all about.
It is mindset that is achieve by an educational experience requiring you to think about carefully defining problems before attempting to solve them.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.