Does anyone want to receive Spiritual Enlightenment?

[Beefbisquit]

[video=youtube_share;5YPiVSdh-RY]http://youtu.be/5YPiVSdh-RY[/video]

I believe people can have a certain sensation, sometimes, when someone actually is staring at them from behind. I also believe that people can have that same sensation when no one is starting at them from behind. I don't believe there is any causation between someone actually staring at you from behind, and the feeling. It seems like another selection bias, where people remember the hits, and forget the misses. This translates into people saying they 'feel ghosts' behind them when they get the feeling and no one is there. They remember
when the had the feeling and mistakenly attribute the feeling with someone staring at them, instead of realizing the feeling was a fluke and there's no one behind them. The feeling was essentially false.

I see/read people falsely mistaking correlation and causation all the time.

Great video, Heis.

 

[New Age United]

It's not intuition, it's called peer-reviewed science. There's no requirement for use of intuition here, just careful observation and experimentation.

Our intuition tells us that the earth is flat, and the stars revolve around us; it took careful observation and lots of time to map the paths of celestial bodies to determine we are not flat, and the stars do not revolve around us. No intuition required, much like experimentation with the eyes.

We are lost in translation, direct perception of the Truth, careful observation, using memory and logic to come up with the correct answer to a practical question, yes the rational mind is a necessity in this process. "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant" Einstein

 

[New Age United]

The scientific view of intuition is much like its view of anecdotal evidence. It can be an indication of where to begin study, or in the complete absence of direction, can offer a hint of where a theory could go. It can be useful in the beginning of the scientific method which is why the steps which filter out things like intuition and anecdotal evidence come later in the process. The problem is that intuition is highly prone to error and different perspectives can produce intuitive answers which contradict each other. Intuition can be very hard to resist and often times in science finding accurate answers means embracing counter-intuitive thinking. Intuition is not instinct or insight, and has about as much value to science as a paperweight or bookmark.

That was a back and forth read, it is absolutely vital to the entire scientific method, and counter-intuitives are an absolutely vital part of finding the Intuitive. Intuition is not insight, it has as much value to science as a paperweight? But I actually do like the bookmark comment, that actually is a good observation.

 

[New Age United]

I said very similar things earlier in this thread. Prepared to be ignored.

I chuckle when I read that he thinks general relativity is intuitive. It is IMO decidedly NOT intuitive, which is why it took someone with the genius of Einstein to break through. Even knowing all I do about relativity, it still is highly non-intuitive. Who would have thought that just by moving through space, we are also changing the speed of our personal clocks? NAU might believe it is intuitive to him NOW, but I would suspect had he not first gone through the process of LEARNING, that it would not be so intuitive. How about the fact that gravitation is really just a pseudo-force, much like centrifugal force, and not a primary force of nature? Black holes, a direct consequence of relativity, is so non-intuitive that many scientists doubted they could actually exist in nature until one was found. And now we find out that the entire universe is filled with them and virtually every galaxy has one at its center. Now if he can still say this is all intuitive, I will just say bullshit and put him on ignore.

Again, the counter-intuitive is a necessity, especially in Relativity, yes it took someone with Einstein Intuition to break through and find the Intuitives, what is not intuitive must be made intuitive, yes LEARNING is absolutely vital, you can not make sense of things without learning, I am not saying that the rational mind is not necessary. Now that we have found black holes they make a lot of sense don't they, they fulfill a great purpose in the order of things, as Physics progresses they are becoming more and more Intuitive. Say bullshit and hit that ignore button lol!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously bud you're opinions are welcome here, I think I have learned more on this thread then anyone, and maybe I am wrong, but I have a very good understanding of Relativity, and I know damn well that I would not have such a good understanding without Intuition, it is very very simple it really is, and if you do not think so you are way overthinking it, in my opinion.

 

[New Age United]

[video=youtube_share;5YPiVSdh-RY]http://youtu.be/5YPiVSdh-RY[/video]

This would be that "instinctive" definition of Intuition.

 

[New Age United]

(other than biological diversity and mental retardation) Isn't who we are merely the sum of the free choices we make? We have gathered insight from everyone who we have ever been in contact with our entire lives from birth until the present time. We are a collection of the free choices we decide in retrospect to how other human animals act, what we have either been taught or deem ourselves which is right, and wrong... what we want to keep, or throw away... the ideas and behaviors that we barrow from others, or decide that we don't want a part of. Yet still, a substantial part of what makes us, us.. is how we were raised, the environment we grew up in and the society we were thrown into. The older we grow, the ideas and behaviors we choose to like most tend to stick with us, as the ideas and behaviors we don't like tend to fade away or get pushed aside. This will continue to happen until the day we die, as we continue to make ourselves every moment of every day.

We act, pretend, or make believe we are ourselves to give us a sense of uniqueness, of identity. But in essence all this really is, is an attempt to make ourselves. All of us do it.

I understand that there are some aspects about ourselves that we cannot change because of the way our brains have grown, and our genetic inheritance, but those can only go so far in an existence where our free choices do have the ability dictate who we are more powerfully than a biological difference... and yet who we are is still all tied into who we act like we are, who we pretend to be, or who we make ourselves believe we are.

All my opinion of course.

I respect your opinion completely and I can see how that is Intuitive to you, always trust your own Intuition before anyone else that is exactly the point here, you may have an insight that I do not have and therefore you are correct and I am wrong. I do not actually believe in free will, in my opinion even the control we have over our environment is only the effect of a previous cause and therefore is actually an illusion, the illusion of free will, but that is strictly my opinion and I am not suggesting you take on this perspective, this is where the relative to the observer comes in, your opinion is completely Intuitive, but so is mine, perhaps elements from both could be applied.

In my opinion it is not that we are acting, pretending or making believe we are ourselves, but I do understand what you are saying, and we all do this from time to time, for instance if you do not like your job you must act as if you do in order to keep your job, if you do not like a certain person you may act as if you do in order to avoid confrontation, but we are who we are, and trying to be someone you are not, trying to live up to an idea of who you want to be is not authentically you, you may be able to do this from time to time but trying to do this repeatedly would become very tiring, that is not to say that we can not evolve as conscious human beings and better our selves through self observation and as you say free choice.

 

[Heisenberg]

That was a back and forth read, it is absolutely vital to the entire scientific method,

Intuition has limited value at the very beginning of the scientific method, but as you approach the truth, that value becomes negative. This has been the case in all of scientific discovery. Suggestions that it is vital to the entire method are actually suggestions that you do not understand the method or the philosophy behind it. You should learn to recognize the times when you are redefining the world to fit within your framework. Intuition is simply what we are inclined to do or think without analysis.

and counter-intuitives are an absolutely vital part of finding the Intuitive.

You are shifting qualities here. You are using "intuitive" to mean one thing at the beginning of the sentence, and something completely different at the end. It looks like you are trying to say 'thinking outside the box is vital to finding truth', but it comes across as a contradiction, 'non-inclinations are vital to finding the inclination', and the only way to make sense of it is by a contortion of logic, namely equivocation.

Intuition is not insight, it has as much value to science as a paperweight? But I actually do like the bookmark comment, that actually is a good observation.

Instinct is very similar to intuition, while insight is completely different. Instinct is about a primal urge, such as sex drive or the desire to pair-bond. It does not depend at all on prior experience. Instinct can drive intuition, but intuition can also extend to things that aren't instinctual, like having a 'green thumb' at farming. Intuition can also be achieved by practice. Some Asian children learn to manipulate an abacus so proficiently as to not need a physical one in front of them, which allows them to intuitively perform some math operations in the same way that your brain understands words or recognizes numbers without conscious effort. Logic can also become intuitive if practiced enough.

Insight is fleeting and can't be practiced. It is not helped by instinct because insight involves seeing a problem in a way that you never have before, in a way that is not inspired by your current methods of thinking. Instinct and intuition are based on prior narrative and genetic information, while insight is when you gain perspective without those things. Insight is not about the solution becoming obvious through subconscious processes, it's about realizing a non-obvious solution through subconscious process. The best way to encourage insight is to have new experiences; expose the brain to thrills and stimuli it has never known before. You don't actually have to learn or practice anything, just inspire the mind to think bigger, to think outside of and beyond things like intuition.

 

[Heisenberg]

Seriously bud you're opinions are welcome here, I think I have learned more on this thread then anyone, and maybe I am wrong, but I have a very good understanding of Relativity, and I know damn well that I would not have such a good understanding without Intuition, it is very very simple it really is, and if you do not think so you are way overthinking it, in my opinion.

So simple even Einstein could figure it out, and he over thought it for decades and left it unfinished because, well, anyone could just come along and unify it later.

So what does your intuition tell you about string theory vs loop quantum gravity? And don't over think it!

 

[New Age United]

So simple even Einstein could figure it out, and he over thought it for decades and left it unfinished because, well, anyone could just come along and unify it later.

So what does your intuition tell you about string theory vs loop quantum gravity? And don't over think it!

Heisenberg I respect that you are very well educated person, I had to educate my self, and I am grateful for that bc I have a very simple view of things, and I will always keep it that way. I respect that you have a much different understanding of Intuition and that you may see many flaws in my understanding. I do not even want to bother with string theory or loop quantum gravity, "do not fill your head with things that you can look up", and I will not give an opinion on something I am completely ignorant of. My field is Enlightenment, I only know as much about Physics as is practical to me. Of course Einstein couldn't figure it out and over thought it for decades, this was completely original, he had to make sense of that which did not make sense, and there is only so much time in the day, if Hawkings had the time he could complete the book of Physics, but he does not have that time no one does.

This is my understanding of Intuition, and this may seem completely far-fetched from yours. It is your Intuition that recognizes the counter-intuitive, it is your Intuition that Knows to go beyond the Paradox and seek the Truth, and it always Knows when it has arrived at the Truth. It is a natural process that takes place all of the time, it is literally how your mind works. You, the "observer", the "insightful one", the "witness", the "Knower", you are the Intuitive Mind, the process of your thinking is the rational mind, "the thinker", the faithful servant. Yes of course insight is fleeting, all things are fleeting except for Awareness, you are Still, Unwavering, you are the medium that allows the Thinker to exist.

I do respect that you may want to ignore this completely, that is fine I have no interest in convincing you of things, but I will keep this understanding bc it serves me quite well.

"out of clutter find simplicity"
"Truth is always to be found in simplicity and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things"

If your understanding of Intuition is practical to you then just keep it that way, there is no need for you to addopt this perspective, you are very intelligent and you function just fine without it.

 

[eye exaggerate]

...gents, I think we're trying to apply intuition to math - or math to intuition? The intuition happens before the math and after math has been used intuition is used yet again to advance math until intuition is used once more to...

 

[eye exaggerate]

...the proof is in the grey pudding

 

[New Age United]

...gents, I think we're trying to apply intuition to math - or math to intuition? The intuition happens before the math and after math has been used intuition is used yet again to advance math until intuition is used once more to...

The bookmark, exactly, but it takes place sub-consciously everyday, once the process has been learned it becomes natural.

I will let go of Intuition now, if I mention it again it is simply out of habit. I will get into the Ego next, the Thinker. If anybody is interested, and I really do appreciate your opinions people like I said I have learned a bunch from this, I am always learning.

 

[Heisenberg]

Heisenberg I respect that you are very well educated person, I had to educate my self, and I am grateful for that bc I have a very simple view of things, and I will always keep it that way. I respect that you have a much different understanding of Intuition and that you may see many flaws in my understanding. I do not even want to bother with string theory or loop quantum gravity, "do not fill your head with things that you can look up", and I will not give an opinion on something I am completely ignorant of. My field is Enlightenment, I only know as much about Physics as is practical to me. Of course Einstein couldn't figure it out and over thought it for decades, this was completely original, he had to make sense of that which did not make sense, and there is only so much time in the day, if Hawkings had the time he could complete the book of Physics, but he does not have that time no one does.

I am not traditionally educated. I have a high school GED. I am an autodidact. To the bolded: You seem to be confusing genuine ignorance with willful ignorance. Not having a formal education is no excuse for only exposing yourself to that knowledge which is advantageous to your preconceived ideas. A few posts ago you claimed you understood relativity just fine and considered it simple, now you say here that you have only learned what you wanted, and it's natural to spend a lifetime studying it without understanding it. Something is wrong if you can contradict yourself so easily in the span of two posts. You need to work on either your thinking skills, or your communication skills, because you appear to be saying random things without consistency, aka talking out of your ass.

This is my understanding of Intuition, and this may seem completely far-fetched from yours. It is your Intuition that recognizes the counter-intuitive, it is your Intuition that Knows to go beyond the Paradox and seek the Truth, and it always Knows when it has arrived at the Truth.

But as pointed out, intuition doesn't know when it has arrived at truth. Intuition tells us the earth is flat and it stops there. Watching the sun rise and set everyday, the intuitive mind tells us that it revolves around us. Intuition is happy to never look beyond this "truth" until the addition of careful observation. Your definition of intuition fails to account for an obvious property of intuition, that it is often wrong. When previously confronted with this fact you performed cognitive acrobatics to get around it, similar to this below.

It is a natural process that takes place all of the time, it is literally how your mind works. You, the "observer", the "insightful one", the "witness", the "Knower", you are the Intuitive Mind, the process of your thinking is the rational mind, "the thinker", the faithful servant. Yes of course insight is fleeting, all things are fleeting except for Awareness, you are Still, Unwavering, you are the medium that allows the Thinker to exist.

Earlier you implied that intuition and insight were the same thing. Here you admit that intuition happens all the time, while insight is fleeting. You state this in a way that seems completely unaware that you just said something different a few minutes ago, which seems to be a theme with you.

I do respect that you may want to ignore this completely, that is fine I have no interest in convincing you of things, but I will keep this understanding bc it serves me quite well.

I see you use this disclaimer often. The idea that if your arguments, which you took the time to share, aren't good enough then that's fine. If you are satisfied with faulty arguments and misconception then why should anyone else listen to you? How do you expect to teach other people stuff when everything you know is tailored to you? When you decide to keep understandings because they serve you quite well, you also decide to give up any value those understandings can have to other people.

If your understanding of Intuition is practical to you then just keep it that way, there is no need for you to addopt this perspective, you are very intelligent and you function just fine without it.

So the wisdom you want to share with others is only valuable to those who are not intelligent? You seem to be suggesting that fantasy is fine for those dumb enough to find comfort in it.

 

[Beefbisquit]

in·tu·i·tion

/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/

Noun The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

How does your definition of intuition fit these already established definitions AND explain everything you've said? That's what you need to do, not just tell us a new definition of intuition (that we have no evidence for).

You need to show how you can explain everything, and I mean everything, about how intuition fits into psychology, neuroscience, etc. AS WELL AS how it explains everything you've described to us as well. That's what a new theory has to do, it needs to account for everything the old theory accounted for, as well as filling in all the gaps that it claims it's addressed.

 

[eye exaggerate]

in·tu·i·tion

/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/

Noun The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

How does your definition of intuition fit these already established definitions AND explain everything you've said? That's what you need to do, not just tell us a new definition of intuition (that we have no evidence for).

You need to show how you can explain everything, and I mean everything, about how intuition fits into psychology, neuroscience, etc. AS WELL AS how it explains everything you've described to us as well. That's what a new theory has to do, it needs to account for everything the old theory accounted for, as well as filling in all the gaps that it claims it's addressed.

...I know this post is for nau, but I feel the need to respond. In neuroscience intuition is unconscious decision making. As an evolutionary lot, we can recall long lost memory through intuition and NOT get eaten by something and live to propagate another day Who takes the time to calculate the need for either fight or flight? (f.e.)

...insofar as how psych fits in, even the mention of the word unconscious is enough to see where is has its place.

...so, in the evolutionary sense, who would have advanced without intuition being the basis for nearly every decision - albeit unconscious?

 

[Beefbisquit]

My psychology Professor gave me this anecdote....

The person at the watering hole that runs as soon as the long grass moves, goes thirsty.
The person at the watering hole that ignores the long grass move, is lion food.
The person at the watering hole who sees the grass move but carefully decides whether or not it's the wind or a lion, usually drinks and lives.

 

[eye exaggerate]

My psychology Professor gave me this anecdote....

The person at the watering hole that runs as soon as the long grass moves, goes thirsty.
The person at the watering hole that ignores the long grass move, is lion food.
The person at the watering hole who sees the grass move but carefully decides whether or not it's the wind or a lion, usually drinks and lives.

...heheh, nice.

...question: how did he (watering hole person) gain that knowledge? To carefully decide one must have the building blocks to base a decision on.

*sips some water after smoking some of the grass*

 

[Beefbisquit]

Could be from watching others, it could be that he went thirsty a few days in a row and decided to risk it a bit more the next time. Maybe he did wait too long, but his 'friend' who also waited too long got eaten instead.

Doesn't really matter; the only way to gain knowledge is from experience, be it your own, or someone else's.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Could be from watching others, it could be that he went thirsty a few days in a row and decided to risk it a bit more the next time. Maybe he did wait too long, but his 'friend' who also waited too long got eaten instead.

Doesn't really matter; the only way to gain knowledge is from experience, be it your own, or someone else's.

...that's it right there for me. I just happen to think that some of that knowledge comes from within - from experiences long stored (stowed?) away in the collective memory of the peppol

 

[Beefbisquit]

...that's it right there for me. I just happen to think that some of that knowledge comes from within - from experiences long stored (stowed?) away in the collective memory of the peppol

Should have stated 'demonstrable' experiences.

E.g. Saying you've been to the astral plane, but not being able to prove it with any information that couldn't have been gathered elsewhere, doesn't count!