Another thread about intuition

Lol… No I don’t believe that, you are correct…

What precisely can be developed at a high level and by what method? It’s not so much that I can’t “stomach” it, but rather that I cannot comprehend the concept you are describing or by what method you “get good at it” - these are very straightforward questions to answer one would expect?

Well it wouldcertainly enable them to do so, yes.

It’s what you could do with it, by imparting some magical properties to the process. The first issue I have is that I struggle to see how you can intuitively “know” something in the first place, surely it amounts to an educated guess or similar at best: By what process are you “knowing” anything? Can you give me some kind of example of something you feel you intuitively “know” so we can get on the same page?
Intuition is only really a useful tool to find knowledge, if it is informed by something surely? For example DIrvine may intuitively “know” (wrong word) the best way forward with a particular technical issue because it is informed by something. I couldn’t possibly “intuitively know” the best way forward because I’m not informed enough. How is intuition a skill that can be honed in the way that you magically explain it? :smiley:

True, in a way, but I’d put this down to the things I mock being incomprehensible or the reasoning is flawed in some way.

Yes, I do…and I claim it too - and have yet to hear a coherent reply to the simple couple of questions - sounds like wizardry to me… :smiley:


As a stand-alone sentence, this sentence doesn’t make any sense. Even with reading the previous post by @Al_Kafir, I still don’t see what you are getting at. I assume that it relates to previous dialogues between you two that I am not familiar with - but what are trying to say exactly? What is fundamental?


1 Like

Yes, it relates to previous conversations, but the central question outlined here pretty much covers the nub of the issue. I don’t know exactly but believe @happybeing’s position may be related to Mysticism or similar - I’m not saying it is, just how it seems to me…it’s unclear. :smiley:

4 of 17 posts with any useful content. Can we cut some of the bickering out before the signal to noise ratio gets unbearable, please?

1 Like

What bickering? Just because a conversation doesn’t interest you, don’t accuse others of bickering. we may have veered a bit off-topic, but hardly a crime.
This doesn’t seem any different from any other argument/debate …
If you are accusing me of bickering, then at least explain yourself and point to where I bicker as opposed to argue?
I don’t think your post was particularly useful either tbh :smiley:

1 Like

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

Albert Einstein

“There is no logical way
to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of
intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the

Albert Einstein

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift
and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society
that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

Albert Einstein

1 Like

Lol …here we go again :smiley:

OK you seem to make the same mistake HappyBeing does “Intuition” is a completely different thing/idea to "Intuitive knowing " One concept is understood and the other is magic. Even if you had managed to fool others into this conflation and then dishonestly then use an Einstein quote to back up your wizardry there would still be the issue that it is an argument from authority.
So how many logical fails was that? :smiley:
I think we’vegot the idea of the mindmap now too thanks…

You know what my intuition says? That this is not only an argumentum from authority, but also a fake Einstein quote…

To not remain entirely OT, I recommend the community to use a tool such as

It´s good, I used it professionally and it keeps you from refreshing by uploading JPEGs

1 Like

@philip_rhoades as you guessed, there’s history. I don’t want to re-open it, just letting @al_kafir know that I see him mocking and regard it as disrespectful and flawed. This was one of those discussions that went on and on without generating any light, and I don’t have time for that.

The point about fundamental is that once we learn a cognitive process, I think it becomes indistinguishable from intuition. We just have one thought and another follows and the process becomes invisible to us. We learned that this works, so we continue, and only if it stops working will we review the process and look for ways to improve it - for example, we encounter new situations where it doesn’t do as well as we expect. Or indeed, if we discover in some way that there’s an alternative that works even better than what we’ve been doing.

Rational thought is not something we’re born with. We learn it, we identify with it, we apply it everywhere - without considering the automatic nature of the process once it is second nature. We had to learn it, so it is based on our experience. It works! Yet we operate it in exactly the same manner as intuition. Intuition is a logical extension of rational thought - at a higher level - but I’m suggesting intuition also underlies rational thought (or at least something that looks to me indistinguishable from intuition).

I don’t think I can imagine an experiment to distinguish reliable intuition from the cognitive steps involved in rational thought - the only difference is one can be rationalised - but whenever I’ve looked into rationalisation, I find that there are many alternatives. Its just that we settle with one that we like (because it fits into our self or world view). So I’m not convinced by rationalisation - its an after the fact process. We make a story to explain something. We can do exactly the same with intuition, or we can just say it was an intuition.

So I think that when intuition is working reliably it is indistinguishable from each step in a rational process. We follow blindly - like driving a car we don’t have to think about what to do - we just know. I don’t see the difference between that and a highly functioning intuition.

@Al_kafir makes the distinction between intuition and intuitive knowing, which goes back to a conversation we had a long time ago. I don’t see a distinction at this time. He obviously regards intuitive knowing as mystical or magical. I know what magical thinking is, and I can usually tell the difference between someone using intuition to justify some magical proposition and someone who understands and uses intuition rationally. I don’t know what he means by mystical, other than that he likes to lump me into that because I include a spiritual outlook, which is probably the point of difference between us. I think that everything is just based on experience, and I’m not attached to the idea of an external reality that we can learn about. I can’t tell the difference between that and my inner experience. To me an external reality is an assumption, part of a belief system, and I’m open to looking directly into experience for my world view, and integrating scientific materialism as one perspective among many, rather as the building blocks from which everything else can be explained. This is not something I can explain, its something we explore and encounter ourselves, and come to know. I think that’s where things become magical or mystical to some. To me its more a letting go of knowing in the sense of beliefs, and knowing in the sense of intuition. It isn’t magical. I don’t know if its mystical - that has no meaning to me - to me its just where I am. Sometimes we listen to someone explain something and we go, woooah, this feels right. That’s intuitive knowing, but it is not truth, that we only find in our experience as we respond to the knowing.

@philip_rhoades I spent more time on this than I wanted, but thought it would be rude not to try answer your query. I really don’t want to re-open this so hope that explains enough of what I meant in that response to his mocking. @Al_kafir and I agreed to disagree and to leave these issues aside a long time ago, and while he may want to revisit them (he raised this) I don’t. :smile:

1 Like

Happy thinks his ideas are worthy of more respect than other ideas, clearly. It’s like a religious defence -" how dare you criticise/mock what I believe, have some respect "kind of thing. As with these kind of arguments, you never get a clear answer to simple questions. I treat all religions/ideas/thoughts etc the same - like I say,I don’t believe any ideas should be granted some special privilege of not being criticised. You heard me ask the 2 simple questions - I hope you glean more info than I managed to. :smiley:
There’s no point me saying anything further really because, like I say you end up with some faith based argument …as the “disrespectful” jibe gives clues to.

Mocking and criticism are different things, and valid criticism is necessarily respectful. To me, mocking is a form of bullying, and you certainly were not making point of criticism.

1 Like

Can you do me a favour and actually read the tone of your very first post and once you’ve done that if you don’t mind actually directing me to anywhere where I could be described as “mocking” as opposed to “criticising” in the first place before you start jumping to calling me a bully.

When and where?

Lol. …then why did you? I didn’t raise it at all…hardly…lol
Seriously, I was talking to Blindsite about his claims to have Conspiracy theory “facts”. I was going to say that I had an intuition he wouldn’t have them. As I was writing it, I thought I’d poke you and changed it to “intuitively know” - I hold my hands up… :smiley: I did clearly label it as such though “Dangles carrot in front of Happy” to invite you to argue - or not. That was my offence…if its an offence.
I can’t be blamed for clearly stating what I was doing can I? Happy had the choice to take the bait and argue or not - how am I responsible for that and how is it mocking nevermind bullying? :smiley:

Here you’ve answered your question to me. You obviously understand what I meant when I said you were mocking me, and you’ve identified what I am referring to when I said this IMO is not making a critical point.

Whether you agree or not is not important enough to me to continue with this.

John Lennon has a song called “intuition.”

Ken Wilber makes a distinction between what he calls relative and absolute truth. Calls science relative truth.

Saw a series a coulpe weeks ago with physcist Martin Rhees called “Are We Real.” ID people came with their cosmic anthropic principle tied to the 130 zeros behind the expansion constant to attack chance as key ingredient in life. Physcists countered with infinite parallel universes. But then evolution realized that wondered how we show we are simply part of some bit god’s universe. In such a situation no assertion of law need hold, chance, reason and logic become full of holes and there is room for insight and intuition. Also room for our own divinity and immortality as we might be the bit gods swimming in our own art. Alan Watts covered this notion and its basically orthodox Hinduism is I am not mistaken.

One thing though, the physcists were un prepared it seems (back in 2004) to allow for any intermingling of the universe(s.) I hope they’ve gotten over that.

Are we real is like: Chuang Tzu dreamed he was a butter fly. Upon rousing Chuang Tzu didn’t know whether he was Chuang Tzu or a butterfly dreaming he was Chuang Tzu.

Yes I do…that’s why I explained how I wasn’t

What’s not clear? You were clearly wrong to say I was mocking you, so by extension, any conclusions or accusations of bullying based on this initial false premise are also based on nothing… they are false :smiley: