Intuition .. a non entity?

Intuition - " thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection " - Quoted from the nobel prize lecture of Daniel Kahneman in 2002.

I doubt anyone would be having problem with the above definition for intuition. Even I dont have. It is a fact that I have experienced such rush of preferences and thoughts in the face of any stimuli ( the stimuli could be a purchase decision, asked to make opinion on someone, school selection for kids etc). And I also assume that all human beings have experienced such a rush of thoughts and preferences, albeit with differences in content of such thoughts. It can thus be considered as a universal entity. If it is so, then what is the relevance of the title which suggests intuition tto be a non entity. I will try to explain it here.

The problem as I see is the effeorts at distinguishing between intuition and reasoning as exemplified by Stanovich and West (2000) who labelled the distinction as labeled System 1 and System 2. The operations of System 1 are characterised as fast, automatic, effortless, associative, and difficult to control or modify while the operations of System 2 are slower, serial, effortful, and deliberately controlled. Now this is accepted in the ider academic world in some form or other. I question this distinction. My proposition here is that intuition is reasoning by all means, that is sound, calculated and controlled. Only that intuition presents itself as effortless and less controlled.
The reasoning for my proposition is based on the understanding of hierarchy of assumptions built into each one of us, human beings. Labelled differently as implicit and explicit assumptions, cultural assumptions, prejudices, ideology, aesthetics and finally philosophy. Philosophy, according to me is a property of human beings, present in all either in implicit or explicit terms, discovered by the individual or injected in by environment. It is the final layer for all practical purposes at least as of now an at least according to current academic knowledge. ( No wonder philosophy was considered to be mother of all subjects ). Given this fact, which can be verified ( I am not attempting now how to do it), intuition is just a reflection of his or her philosophy.

what is the implication of this ? What is the relevance for this ? How can I use it for predictive purposes ? How can I substantiate intuition as sound reasoning. Well, I have a rough sketch now. People can be tested to thier response for a stimulus (questions, problems, choice preference etc) in intuitive format and more exacting reasoning format. The different formats can be designed in terms of 1. the time given for responding 2. the reasoning for the choice of response etc. Compare the responses for the same stimulus. My guess is it would be the same. I dare to say, even with additional irrelevant information, the responses would be the same. The reasoning for the choice may differ as I expect more politically correct reasoning given for the latter.
My conclusion in pure theoretical grounds. There is nothing called as intuition in opposition to reasoning. There is only fast response and slower response.