RE: Hi, I'm the Godhead
July 5, 2010 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: July 5, 2010 at 9:48 pm by theVOID.)
[quote='Purple Rabbit' pid='78340' dateline='1278355567']
[quote='theVOID' pid='78314' dateline='1278334537']
No, feelings are entirely unrelated to the truth of a proposition, they come after the fact. Intuition is useful only in dealing with familiar environments, however when contemplating the nature of reality, using intuition is completely asinine.
[/quote]
So the proposition, "I love this person" is totally unrelated to feelings?
Sure, I suppose you use a calculator on that one.
[/quote]
Hey genius, If you'd read the rest of the post you'd see i covered that. In fact i've covered that in about 3 posts so far in this thread, but don't that get in the way of your little objection.
[quote='Godhead' pid='78370' dateline='1278363469']
Responding indirectly? Aww...
[quote]
That's a good example. I think it's generally a very western view to consider emotions and intuition as being insignificant when in fact they're far from it.[/quote]
They're only good in emotional issues, your feelings can only ever tell you how you 'feel' about an issue. You are yet to even attempt to demonstrate why your feelings about a proposition are necessarily linked to the truth of that proposition. Like I have said several times already, when assessing the truth of a proposition, your feelings are only relevant in a very very narrow section of all propositions, the ones that are emotional propositions.
[quote]
Humans have the capacity for reason and logic and observation of the material, but we also have the capacity to make sense of things by intuition. It's like they say, when you know, you know.[/quote]
But you don't actually 'know' in this situation, you have taken an emotionally driven guess at the answer. Just because you are certain that you know something is absolutely no guarantee that you were correct.
[quote]
I don't know if the general view here is that there's no such thing as left brain and right brain thinking, but regardless, I'm going to use the terms and you can take them figuratively if you like but an important point need to be made and those terms are useful in making them. With left brain thinking, the emphasis is on confirmation through external observation, whereas in right brain thinking, the emphasis is on intuitively / subconsciously knowing more than you consciously know.[/quote]
And you get from this to 'my feelings tell me that god is a conscious universe we are all part of so i am going to believe it as fact' how?
[quote]
This is why, if you're good at it (like I said before it's like a muscle or a skill, it needs developing) you can pose a question or dilemma or challenge to yourself before going to sleep and wake up with the answer.[/quote]
Yeah with brainteasers especially, sleeping on it, or focusing on something else, can give your brain a chance to mull over the problem using different processes - however in the case of a brain teaser you already have every single iota of information required to solve the problem, in the case of your assertion that 'we are the universe/god' you don't have squat in terms of information, regardless of what your feelings tell you.
[quote]
Artists, scientists, many different types of people have done and still do this. It works because the subconscious mind and one's intuition is there to soak up everything you experience and it is able to form answers at speeds which are much faster than conventional "working it out".[/quote]
That is only relevant if you already know the information required for solving the problem, in the case of knowing the nature of existence you haven't got this information, all you have is a comfortable guess that you have irrationally clung to.
You missed the part "much faster than conventional "working it out" * but with absolutely no guarantee of accuracy*".
[quote]
We actually do know, instinctively and intuitively, a lot more than the conscious / right brain is able to process.[/quote]
Because it has already been experienced.
And once again, intuition is not necessarily accurate. In fact when it comes to the real mechanism behind reality it is found that intuition fails consistently, until the new framework is absorbed and can be called upon 'intuitively'.
Point being: You need the information FIRST.
[quote]
Another way of looking at it is comparing someone who paints by numbers and just filling in the gaps where the diagram tells them to paint which colour, and an artist who already has the full picture and then creates it from scratch. The end result is a much better picture, which takes into account much more than the painted-by-numbers picture does, which only deals in one "dimension", namely what colour goes where, and there's not a lot of actual creativity going on. The artist however is also thinking about perspective, light and shade, form, etc etc all simultaneously.[/quote]
You left out another massive portion of this analogy (as usual) and that is the fact that the artist has trained in and become familiar with the information and techniques that allow him to paint intuitively. You get two non-artists, ask one to paint by intuition and one to paint by numbers and i'd pretty much guarantee that the paint-by-numbers canvas will look better every time. (See what i did there, I used intuition!... but it was based on existing information)
[quote]
That's what the right brain / intuition does. The traditional western mind-centred approach is very limited and rigid and in many cases doesn't really 'get it".
Of course, the eastern way is soooo much better, i mean it's not like entire continents are moving towards westernisation in order to improve their lives, education and productivity.... Oh wait...
[quote]
But it's good at what it does, however when it deals in areas which it's not good at dealing with (at least not without the guidance of the right brain approach) it always fails. So the best approach is a collaboration between both sides, rather than one side trying to do something it simply can't.
[/quote]
And after all that you have still avoided demonstrating how your feelings are necessarily related to the truth of the proposition you are evaluating. I call that an epic failure.
[quote='theVOID' pid='78314' dateline='1278334537']
No, feelings are entirely unrelated to the truth of a proposition, they come after the fact. Intuition is useful only in dealing with familiar environments, however when contemplating the nature of reality, using intuition is completely asinine.
[/quote]
So the proposition, "I love this person" is totally unrelated to feelings?
Sure, I suppose you use a calculator on that one.
[/quote]
Hey genius, If you'd read the rest of the post you'd see i covered that. In fact i've covered that in about 3 posts so far in this thread, but don't that get in the way of your little objection.
[quote='Godhead' pid='78370' dateline='1278363469']
Responding indirectly? Aww...
[quote]
That's a good example. I think it's generally a very western view to consider emotions and intuition as being insignificant when in fact they're far from it.[/quote]
They're only good in emotional issues, your feelings can only ever tell you how you 'feel' about an issue. You are yet to even attempt to demonstrate why your feelings about a proposition are necessarily linked to the truth of that proposition. Like I have said several times already, when assessing the truth of a proposition, your feelings are only relevant in a very very narrow section of all propositions, the ones that are emotional propositions.
[quote]
Humans have the capacity for reason and logic and observation of the material, but we also have the capacity to make sense of things by intuition. It's like they say, when you know, you know.[/quote]
But you don't actually 'know' in this situation, you have taken an emotionally driven guess at the answer. Just because you are certain that you know something is absolutely no guarantee that you were correct.
[quote]
I don't know if the general view here is that there's no such thing as left brain and right brain thinking, but regardless, I'm going to use the terms and you can take them figuratively if you like but an important point need to be made and those terms are useful in making them. With left brain thinking, the emphasis is on confirmation through external observation, whereas in right brain thinking, the emphasis is on intuitively / subconsciously knowing more than you consciously know.[/quote]
And you get from this to 'my feelings tell me that god is a conscious universe we are all part of so i am going to believe it as fact' how?
[quote]
This is why, if you're good at it (like I said before it's like a muscle or a skill, it needs developing) you can pose a question or dilemma or challenge to yourself before going to sleep and wake up with the answer.[/quote]
Yeah with brainteasers especially, sleeping on it, or focusing on something else, can give your brain a chance to mull over the problem using different processes - however in the case of a brain teaser you already have every single iota of information required to solve the problem, in the case of your assertion that 'we are the universe/god' you don't have squat in terms of information, regardless of what your feelings tell you.
[quote]
Artists, scientists, many different types of people have done and still do this. It works because the subconscious mind and one's intuition is there to soak up everything you experience and it is able to form answers at speeds which are much faster than conventional "working it out".[/quote]
That is only relevant if you already know the information required for solving the problem, in the case of knowing the nature of existence you haven't got this information, all you have is a comfortable guess that you have irrationally clung to.
You missed the part "much faster than conventional "working it out" * but with absolutely no guarantee of accuracy*".
[quote]
We actually do know, instinctively and intuitively, a lot more than the conscious / right brain is able to process.[/quote]
Because it has already been experienced.
And once again, intuition is not necessarily accurate. In fact when it comes to the real mechanism behind reality it is found that intuition fails consistently, until the new framework is absorbed and can be called upon 'intuitively'.
Point being: You need the information FIRST.
[quote]
Another way of looking at it is comparing someone who paints by numbers and just filling in the gaps where the diagram tells them to paint which colour, and an artist who already has the full picture and then creates it from scratch. The end result is a much better picture, which takes into account much more than the painted-by-numbers picture does, which only deals in one "dimension", namely what colour goes where, and there's not a lot of actual creativity going on. The artist however is also thinking about perspective, light and shade, form, etc etc all simultaneously.[/quote]
You left out another massive portion of this analogy (as usual) and that is the fact that the artist has trained in and become familiar with the information and techniques that allow him to paint intuitively. You get two non-artists, ask one to paint by intuition and one to paint by numbers and i'd pretty much guarantee that the paint-by-numbers canvas will look better every time. (See what i did there, I used intuition!... but it was based on existing information)
[quote]
That's what the right brain / intuition does. The traditional western mind-centred approach is very limited and rigid and in many cases doesn't really 'get it".
Of course, the eastern way is soooo much better, i mean it's not like entire continents are moving towards westernisation in order to improve their lives, education and productivity.... Oh wait...
[quote]
But it's good at what it does, however when it deals in areas which it's not good at dealing with (at least not without the guidance of the right brain approach) it always fails. So the best approach is a collaboration between both sides, rather than one side trying to do something it simply can't.
[/quote]
And after all that you have still avoided demonstrating how your feelings are necessarily related to the truth of the proposition you are evaluating. I call that an epic failure.
.
