i don't conflate it, i just don't believe it exists.
you still don't seem to be getting my point. worse yet, you make no logical deductions as to why i am wrong.
i would compare intuitive people against non-intuitive people somewhat like this (an analysis of how (sensory, by the five senses) data is processed in the mind.):
non intuitive:
sensory data -> (functions: T, F, any undiscovered functions) -> memory -> intuition
intuitive:
sensory data -> intuition -> (functions) -> memory
for non intuitive persons, the data is immediately taken up by other functions, where a semantic* will be created with a reference to the data. data deemed unnecessary by either functions will be discarded. The data is then processed further to memory, where it is stored. if for some reason memory wants to erase the given data from memory, it is first delivered to the intuition, which will remember the data subconsciously.
for intuitive persons, data is first processed through intuition, which then selects how data is represented to other functions. by emphasizing key points for a function to associate with. in this way, functions much faster and easier understand how data operates, at the expense of leaving out some data (necessary or unnecessary). the data is then moved to memory for storage. the full data also persists subconsciously in intuition, in contrast to a non intuitive person whose intuition only stores how the data is interpreted by other functions.
intuition in this sense can be considered a catalyst for understanding, since it picks up firstly and entirely what is going on. this may explain why intuitive people do not start at the same level as non intuitive people for understand basic everyday lives; how there is a certain naivety among certain intuits. thus, non intuits start at a higher base of understanding, but intuits learn faster and may eventually exceed the understanding of non intuits; and in the process, create a new base of understanding.
but i digress. i have enough of this to write my own theory, which i aim to do as soon as i get enough merit to do so.
my point here is that, as you can see from the model, is no sensing function. there is sensory perception, which as a tool is used by either functions directly or the intuition buffer. in my head, this constitutes enough proof that a sensory function does not exist.
footnote:
* by semantic i mean the "meaning" of the object; how the given function remembers what the object is.