Music

New Age United

New Age United

Well-Known Member
A prime example would be this thread https://www.rollitup.org/t/does-anyone-see-truth.881646/
If you look when I get confused about the whole topic about the Sun and how days are longer then nights, I begin to try and find an intuitive and logical explanation, but when green_machine_two9er finally points out the truth to me it all becomes crystal clear, ie most intuitive, my presumption was completely wrong, my intuition was wrong, but when I found the truth it was even more intuitive than any of my thoughts.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Intuition is one of the amazing ways the human mind manages to quickly process huge amounts of information. Even the most simple-minded among us has a brain which is capable of brilliant calculations that are actually pretty damn good at being right about things much of the time. When we need to judge height to see if we can safely jump down from somewhere, we can make the calculation almost immediately. We know not only if it is safe, but how the impact will feel and how much we need to brace ourselves to compensate. Think about the immediate calculations we do every second while riding a bike. All of this seems intuitive - that is, it comes to us without analytical thought.

Even more amazing is that the brain does all this while using relatively little energy and processing power. To achieve this it's had to come up with many shortcuts. In psychology/neurology these shortcuts are generally labeled as heuristics, biases and fallacies. But, with each shortcut comes the possibility of error. The more complicated the subject, the more information the brain is required to contemplate, the more shortcuts it has to use, and the more errors it makes. Riding a bike is relatively simple when you compare it to understanding the fundamentals of something like astrophysics. To ride a bike we need only to navigate the laws of physics, not understand them. The same shortcuts which allows us to easily navigate those laws also hinder us when we try to get to the understanding part. Even though understanding them requires analytical thinking, the brain tries to impose all its usual tricks, and so also imposes error. To compensate for this we need to look for something outside of the mind. We need an objective process which is designed to avoid or circumvent all the intuitive tendencies the brain wants to impose. Because these things are built into the very architecture of our thinking and how we process reality, we cannot escape them. Going outside of ourselves is the only viable option of error correction.

The process I am talking about of course is science, which is applied to objective phenomenon, and its twin, critical thinking, which is applied to subjective phenomenon. While these methods are not perfect, they are the best tools we have for understanding reality. The one thing they depend on most is that the process must be more important than the answers. We put our trust in the process and accept whatever answers it brings us, even if they seem counter-intuitive, because we know intuition is part of that clunky system which is meant to help us navigate reality, but not understand it.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Intuition is one of the amazing ways the human mind manages to quickly process huge amounts of information. Even the most simple-minded among us has a brain which is capable of brilliant calculations that are actually pretty damn good at being right about things much of the time. When we need to judge height to see if we can safely jump down from somewhere, we can make the calculation almost immediately. We know not only if it is safe, but how the impact will feel and how much we need to brace ourselves to compensate. Think about the immediate calculations we do every second while riding a bike. All of this seems intuitive - that is, it comes to us without analytical thought.

Even more amazing is that the brain does all this while using relatively little energy and processing power. To achieve this it's had to come up with many shortcuts. In psychology/neurology these shortcuts are generally labeled as heuristics, biases and fallacies. But, with each shortcut comes the possibility of error. The more complicated the subject, the more information the brain is required to contemplate, the more shortcuts it has to use, and the more errors it makes. Riding a bike is relatively simple when you compare it to understanding the fundamentals of something like astrophysics. To ride a bike we need only to navigate the laws of physics, not understand them. The same shortcuts which allows us to easily navigate those laws also hinder us when we try to get to the understanding part. Even though understanding them requires analytical thinking, the brain tries to impose all its usual tricks, and so also imposes error. To compensate for this we need to look for something outside of the mind. We need an objective process which is designed to avoid or circumvent all the intuitive tendencies the brain wants to impose. Because these things are built into the very architecture of our thinking and how we process reality, we cannot escape them. Going outside of ourselves is the only viable option of error correction.

The process I am talking about of course is science, which is applied to objective phenomenon, and its twin, critical thinking, which is applied to subjective phenomenon. While these methods are not perfect, they are the best tools we have for understanding reality. The one thing they depend on most is that the process must be more important than the answers. We put our trust in the process and accept whatever answers it brings us, even if they seem counter-intuitive, because we know intuition is part of that clunky system which is meant to help us navigate reality, but not understand it.
Click to expand...
Beautifully put, +rep...
 
Matilde

Matilde

New Member
Can't imagine life without music. Constantly listening to relaxing music and also I need it when I smoke a bit.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Intuition is one of the amazing ways the human mind manages to quickly process huge amounts of information. Even the most simple-minded among us has a brain which is capable of brilliant calculations that are actually pretty damn good at being right about things much of the time. When we need to judge height to see if we can safely jump down from somewhere, we can make the calculation almost immediately. We know not only if it is safe, but how the impact will feel and how much we need to brace ourselves to compensate. Think about the immediate calculations we do every second while riding a bike. All of this seems intuitive - that is, it comes to us without analytical thought.

Even more amazing is that the brain does all this while using relatively little energy and processing power. To achieve this it's had to come up with many shortcuts. In psychology/neurology these shortcuts are generally labeled as heuristics, biases and fallacies. But, with each shortcut comes the possibility of error. The more complicated the subject, the more information the brain is required to contemplate, the more shortcuts it has to use, and the more errors it makes. Riding a bike is relatively simple when you compare it to understanding the fundamentals of something like astrophysics. To ride a bike we need only to navigate the laws of physics, not understand them. The same shortcuts which allows us to easily navigate those laws also hinder us when we try to get to the understanding part. Even though understanding them requires analytical thinking, the brain tries to impose all its usual tricks, and so also imposes error. To compensate for this we need to look for something outside of the mind. We need an objective process which is designed to avoid or circumvent all the intuitive tendencies the brain wants to impose. Because these things are built into the very architecture of our thinking and how we process reality, we cannot escape them. Going outside of ourselves is the only viable option of error correction.

The process I am talking about of course is science, which is applied to objective phenomenon, and its twin, critical thinking, which is applied to subjective phenomenon. While these methods are not perfect, they are the best tools we have for understanding reality. The one thing they depend on most is that the process must be more important than the answers. We put our trust in the process and accept whatever answers it brings us, even if they seem counter-intuitive, because we know intuition is part of that clunky system which is meant to help us navigate reality, but not understand it.
Click to expand...
Are thoughts things?

Further, the subjective is such an abstract ensemble that the fine point of critical thinking inherits its own subjectivity / = one-dimensional, impossible, feedback loop.

Nice post *tips hat*

bongsmilie

 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
Are thoughts things?

Further, the subjective is such an abstract ensemble that the fine point of critical thinking inherits its own subjectivity / = one-dimensional, impossible, feedback loop.

Nice post *tips hat*

bongsmilie

Click to expand...

Max Planck, Nobel Prize for Physics, and the inventor of Quantum Mechanics:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force ... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."

Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Prize for Physics:

"I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is deficient. It gives a lot of factual information, puts all our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously."

"The observing mind is not a physical system."

"Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else."

Max Born, Nobel Prize for Physics:

“There are metaphysical problems, which cannot be disposed of by declaring them meaningless. For, as I have repeatedly said, they are ‘beyond physics’ indeed and demand an act of faith. We have to accept this fact to be honest. There are two objectionable types of believers: those who believe the incredible and those who believe that ‘belief’ must be discarded and replaced by ‘the scientific method.’

Niels Bohr, Nobel Prize for Physics:

"I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure how that would apply to the quotes; and after having read from the link I realize (in a respectful way) that the Chopra angle has lost its edge. It seems to me too dismissive for the sake of efficiency, which brings me back to what I initially posted.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top