Insights from intuition and deep observation are not exhausted and are as good as AI

Insights from intuition and deep observation are not exhausted
and are as good as AI

Freud — first and foremost it was him — without scientific methods, but by means of his intuition and observation of people came to the ultimate reasoning, which even now is referred to by major and even great specialists as ‘a coherent and intellectually satisfying view of the psyche’.

01

Let's start at the end and try to answer if objective scientific research can bring new material. Undoubtedly, that is what we are witnessing now. However, this new material being so abundant, it is highly unlikely that anyone will bring something new to the table using it. The big question is whether this new material can be processed at all. And whether it should be.

04

Insights from intuition and deep observation can outpace objective scientific research, psychoanalysis being one of the proofs to this statement. A whole ‘scienceless’ science has been developed and they haven't succeeded in destroying it in 100 years. It has not been wiped out, it is part of the process despite having no objective scientific research or scientific methods.

06

02

Apparently, here is where that very quantum leap of thinking, ‘transition to understanding’ took place, which can't be explained by scientific methods yet. However, the lack of scientific methods has not become a problem in this case. Let us suppose that this very leap was enabled by what psychoanalysis could be built on, namely on intuition, observation and reasoning, that is, on some kind of thinking process.

According to scientists, the insight and intuition of psychology, psychoanalysis and deep observation can outpace objective scientific research. Yet objective scientific research brings a great deal of new material and opens up new possibilities.

03

The method of psychoanalysis, based on free associations and interpretations, could have exhausted its power, but is it the case for other human activities that are close to cognitive science? Are associations, interpretations, the intuition of deep observation definitely dead? Are they worse than wrangling big data by so-called artificial intelligence?

08

AI-scholars believe that AI models are ‘overtaking the human brain.’Scientists don't know how to ‘study it some more.’ But brain evolution, which has been going on for millions of years, brain development — both organically/biologically and in terms of the complex phenomena and processes called psyche — has not exhausted itself.

09

The same can be said about observing the manifestations of thinking: they are far from being over and outdated. Such observations may thrust forward the study of brain, mind, thinking, consciousness and even lead to the discovery of a new computability based on the laws of thinking and brain work.

10

05

A lot can be written based on experimental results. This is what they do: thousands of scientific articles are published every day. What is a little more difficult is to use the results to draw a conclusion that would lead to some theories. It is also highly questionable whether endless experiments open up new possibilities or scatter them instead.

07

This raises a serious question: is it only possible in psychoanalysis? This seems unlikely. Observations of brain manifestations, such as, for example, thinking, will probably help to understand and, most importantly, to formulate a series of laws.