Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_Maksutov]

Intuition is a very slippery concept. I suspect that it's preconscious cognition. Nothing mystical about it. Studying intuition might be worthwhile--it can be tested, after all--but its proponents usually don't want to do that. It can't be relied on and is rather dependent on anecdotes from religion and folklore for its reputation.

[_mikwut]

Hello Mak,

Thank you for your contribution. I find that it adds nothing to the thread, however. We are quite capable of discussion without you inserting yourself as some kind of proposed facilitator.

Of course your quite capable. My intent was not to act as facilitator or to patronize. I apologize sincerely if it came across that way. Just an alternative perspective in dialogue and discussion. Odd you purport uncertainty as a principle but don't find contribution from alternative points of view except a strictly binary certain rejection of Ed's. I wonder why that should find you uncomfortable at all?

Intuition is a very slippery concept.

So is uncertainty. (Huh, maybe a contribution made nonetheless)

I suspect that it's preconscious cognition. Nothing mystical about it.

Truth and reality should be the target, not an assumptive rejection of anything possibly mystical in a predefined way. Your statement pre-defines mystical and uses it as a qualifier of anything you reject. To a lot of people, like me, cognition itself is mystical. Reality and being are mystical.

There are certainly examples that would qualify as preconscious cognition such as our abilities to drive nearly unaware or be aware of certain dangers we can't articulate - I am reminded of a book by Norman Mclean Young Men and Fire where a forest firefighter within a group gets engulfed and surrounded by a raging fire and counter intuitively, and seemingly without mindful attention, lights a match and a small fire in front of him before he is engulfed by the wave of flames approaching him - and the fire skips over him. Obviously something from his training just intuitively stepped in. Not so simple when talking about language, meaning, perceptions of the divine. Ed offered that practice and skill within his metaphysical position has concretized some of his beliefs. This is perfectly consistent with expertise and intuition. It only leaves the basic or primary intuition to judge, which as I mentioned we can't empirically test.

It can't be relied on and is rather dependent on anecdotes from religion and folklore for its reputation.

It can't not be relied on. You and I create our heuristics of reality and the world around us every waking moment relying on it. Take for example your Warfare between Science and Religion your placing in the forum. Has it not dawned on you the irony of your skeptical position (which I wholeheartedly agree with) towards bomgeography respecting his reliance on the very outdated and scientifically dispensed with even falsified ideas he utilizes for apologetics. But, for you to even present the almost cartoonish "conflict thesis" that White utilizes as even possible history when its simplicity has been thoroughly debunked by complex modern historians? Your heuristic of religion and metaphysics has been burned (mine has too i am former Mormon) and that fits nicely (intuitively) with your heuristic and model of the world. But it is just as false.

It can't be relied on and is rather dependent on anecdotes from religion and folklore for its reputation.

Science does not study it in such a narrow way.

mikwut

[_mikwut]

Hi Themis I hope your well,

My arguments and questions have always revolved around reliability. Certainty is a recent discussion in which many religious people like Ed like to assert certainty. This is a trait found in many religions, especially LDS. Intuition is the interpretive stage of our experiences as we add meaning to them. My questions have always been about reliability here, and I have not made any kind of argument, in regards to certainty, saying things like our spiritual experiences are not from a divine source. It is about how one thinks they know they are from a divine source and how one knows they got the right interpretation, or intuition if you like. I was not asking for any proof or scientific evidence to support Ed's assertions about his subjective spiritual experiences. Just to articulate how he thinks he knows his interpretations are true/accurate.

I could certainly be persuaded I am wrong. But you might consider how you come across. When Ed attempts to graciously make the separation from empirical judgments to purely personal, subjective intuitive positions you press the gas peddle even harder in attempt to make the impression that you have falsified that by falsifying certain theological ideas. You haven't.

mikwut

[_Themis]

I could certainly be persuaded I am wrong. But you might consider how you come across. When Ed attempts to graciously make the separation from empirical judgments to purely personal, subjective intuitive positions you press the gas peddle even harder in attempt to make the impression that you have falsified that by falsifying certain theological ideas. You haven't.

mikwut

I suspect Ed does not understand what I am getting at. My questions are not about falsifying certain beliefs about the subjective spiritual experience and it's interpretations/meaning we attach to it, or to give the impression that I have. It's to ask one to articulate why they think their interpretations are right, especially if one thinks they are certain.

[_Themis]

There are certainly examples that would qualify as preconscious cognition such as our abilities to drive nearly unaware or be aware of certain dangers we can't articulate - I am reminded of a book by Norman Mclean Young Men and Fire where a forest firefighter within a group gets engulfed and surrounded by a raging fire and counter intuitively, and seemingly without mindful attention, lights a match and a small fire in front of him before he is engulfed by the wave of flames approaching him - and the fire skips over him. Obviously something from his training just intuitively stepped in. Not so simple when talking about language, meaning, perceptions of the divine. Ed offered that practice and skill within his metaphysical position has concretized some of his beliefs. This is perfectly consistent with expertise and intuition. It only leaves the basic or primary intuition to judge, which as I mentioned we can't empirically test.

That's what we call self delusion. We cannot filter out natural causes to everything we experience, and no one has a well defined divine/supernatural cause. The problem I see is self delusion and certainty about things we cannot even begin to be certain about. It's easy to see just by asking one to articulate the issue if they can.

[_mikwut]

Hello Themis,

It isn't just a blanket self-delusion. Doctors practice diagnosis based on intuition from their expertise, sometimes the nuanced precision can find subtleties computerized diagnostics miss. Expertise allows for a reliability in intuition. It isn't certainty or perfect but it can be quite reliable. If the underlying intuition of a divine reality is reliable I see no reason why a similar pattern of intuition and expertise and skill would not exist. But as I said, it goes to the reliability of the sense itself. Now I personally tend to agree with you with respect to the narrow interpretations that we can through other faculties (moral, logical) nearly falsify that Ed is allowing biases to influence this sense, but he isn't inconsistent.

mikwut

[_Maksutov]

Hello Mak,

Thank you for your contribution. I find that it adds nothing to the thread, however. We are quite capable of discussion without you inserting yourself as some kind of proposed facilitator.

Of course your quite capable. My intent was not to act as facilitator or to patronize. I apologize sincerely if it came across that way. Just an alternative perspective in dialogue and discussion. Odd you purport uncertainty as a principle but don't find contribution from alternative points of view except a strictly binary certain rejection of Ed's. I wonder why that should find you uncomfortable at all?

Intuition is a very slippery concept.

So is uncertainty. (Huh, maybe a contribution made nonetheless)

I suspect that it's preconscious cognition. Nothing mystical about it.

Truth and reality should be the target, not an assumptive rejection of anything possibly mystical in a predefined way. Your statement pre-defines mystical and uses it as a qualifier of anything you reject. To a lot of people, like me, cognition itself is mystical. Reality and being are mystical.

There are certainly examples that would qualify as preconscious cognition such as our abilities to drive nearly unaware or be aware of certain dangers we can't articulate - I am reminded of a book by Norman Mclean Young Men and Fire where a forest firefighter within a group gets engulfed and surrounded by a raging fire and counter intuitively, and seemingly without mindful attention, lights a match and a small fire in front of him before he is engulfed by the wave of flames approaching him - and the fire skips over him. Obviously something from his training just intuitively stepped in. Not so simple when talking about language, meaning, perceptions of the divine. Ed offered that practice and skill within his metaphysical position has concretized some of his beliefs. This is perfectly consistent with expertise and intuition. It only leaves the basic or primary intuition to judge, which as I mentioned we can't empirically test.

It can't be relied on and is rather dependent on anecdotes from religion and folklore for its reputation.

It can't not be relied on. You and I create our heuristics of reality and the world around us every waking moment relying on it. Take for example your Warfare between Science and Religion your placing in the forum. Has it not dawned on you the irony of your skeptical position (which I wholeheartedly agree with) towards bomgeography respecting his reliance on the very outdated and scientifically dispensed with even falsified ideas he utilizes for apologetics. But, for you to even present the almost cartoonish "conflict thesis" that White utilizes as even possible history when its simplicity has been thoroughly debunked by complex modern historians? Your heuristic of religion and metaphysics has been burned (mine has too i am former Mormon) and that fits nicely (intuitively) with your heuristic and model of the world. But it is just as false.

It can't be relied on and is rather dependent on anecdotes from religion and folklore for its reputation.

Science does not study it in such a narrow way.

mikwut

Am I uncomfortable with your statements? No, I find them irrelevant and, yes, patronizing.

You can try to dress it up in some postmodern way but it comes down to people who want to believe finding and interpreting things in their environment in ways that are fantastic and UNRELIABLE. Your "intuition" is fine when nothing else is available. Humans and other organisms are able to deploy 'fuzzy logic' when there is insufficient data but it's still a means of analysis.

I have presented A. D. White's work out there because we are subjected daily to the posting of the Bible. White's work, while dated and biased, is still a significant perspective that should be understood when assessing the current position of science and religion. Don't make the mistake of assuming it's my view, only that I find it worthwhile, just as reading Toynbee, Spencer or Huntington is still worthwhile despite similar limitations.

If you have something actually substantive to say I would be willing to hear it. Otherwise, an intuitive condescending to a rationalist is your fait accompli. And, by the way, I reject it.

[Guest]

I could certainly be persuaded I am wrong. But you might consider how you come across. When Ed attempts to graciously make the separation from empirical judgments to purely personal, subjective intuitive positions you press the gas peddle even harder in attempt to make the impression that you have falsified that by falsifying certain theological ideas. You haven't.

mikwut

I suspect Ed does not understand what I am getting at. My questions are not about falsifying certain beliefs about the subjective spiritual experience and it's interpretations/meaning we attach to it, or to give the impression that I have. It's to ask one to articulate why they think their interpretations are right, especially if one thinks they are certain.

Oh, I totally get what you are saying. You just don't want to accept anything I have to say as an answer, because you think that the more you repeat yourself, that somehow that proves that my answer was inadequate. I have repeatedly said that through long experience, one comes to know with more solidity that certain intuition, call it thought, call it dreams, call it feelings, call it manifestations, whatever one's gift happens to be, whatever the manifestation happens to be, comes from the spirit. And that discernment comes only with that experience. You want people to boil down long experience and mental effort and subjective acceptance of intimate facts of the heart and mind into a recipe that is convincing to you. The more a radio is tuned, the better and clearer the reception. And through experience with the patterns and instructions that come via this channel that result in good and correct choices with obedience to it, the more clearer it becomes that it is indeed what it was claimed to be. I'm ok with the fact that you don't accept anything I said or continue to say as an answer, because my reality doesn't revolve around your acceptance. As I always have said, its a waste of time talking to a lot of you anyway, and your lucky I even pipe in to contribute at all to subject myself at all to a conversation, because I really, truly owe you nothing at all. So you can either be cordial and accept the answer as an answer, or you can just continue to go around the merry-go-round with your non-acceptance. Either way, I continue to not spend much time or effort answering, until finally when I'm utterly bored with the fact that you keep up with it, I entirely abandon the thread.

[_mikwut]

I'm disappointed Mak.

mikwut

[_Maksutov]

I'm disappointed Mak.

mikwut

You'll get over it. Nothing personal.