Intuitions

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Intuitions

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:13 am

The intuitions that we have aren’t ideas at all.

The intuitions we have aren’t ideas as such. They are only the conscious results of the unconscious assessments produced by our brain on whatever conscious ideas we’re having on the moment. And we will have intuitions only about what we have in mind on the moment, including what we perceive and also in particular the ideas we care to think about, as if indeed to submit these ideas to our unconscious brain for assessment.

If we don’t trust our intuitions, we won’t take advantage of this assessment and we become dependent on the collective wisdom and ideas received from other people, and therefore more likely subject to manipulation. Think for yourself means just that. Think up ideas to see what your intuition is about them. Give time to the process. Sometimes it will be almost instantaneous, other time it may take months and why not years. The result will depend on what you’ve learnt before and what you care to spend time learning now.

Another aspect which seems particularly relevant to many of this forum’s posters, there’s a different between an inchoate ideas and articulated ideas. The more articulated the better. Consciously analysing an idea will be in effect asking for an intuitive assessment. Articulating an idea will help you analyse the idea. The more you analyse it, the more likely your intuition will be triggered to tell you there’s something wrong.

Within reason. Don’t stop living your life to do it. But it seems to me, it would be a good thing if more people did it, for themselves, because individuals are the creative force of humanity and we really need new ideas all the time, and ultimately, individuals can’t keep the good ideas for themselves and they become public and can be taken up by other people and developed.

Well, sometimes. Less ideology and more logic would help. The Sun does move in the sky. This is a fact. What most people call the Sun is something that moves in the sky. We can all look up and see it for ourselves. So, the truth is most likely that the Sun moves in the sky. Then again, why? Well, it may be because the Sun is orbiting the Earth… Sounds a good idea but we can’t actually verify it from our vantage point given our limited perception powers. Still, it was a logical possibility. Yet, another logical possibility is that it is the Earth rotating on itself. It would produce the same result, i.e. the Sun moves in the sky. This is the example we should keep in mind. Your ideology may sound fine to you from your vantage point, but, there are other logical possibilities and different people will see these other possibilities whereas you don’t. So, please show a little respect for other people’s ideas. Most of them are perfectly respectable and you would benefit paying a bit more attention to them. And you can perfectly insult people at the same time if you feel like it. Within reason.

The production of new ideas is probably the difficult bit for us human and indeed for any cognitive system. It’s a question of too many combinations. For even a very simple problem, there may be initially millions of logical possibilities and working out what are the ones that are interesting has to be a massive task. So, the more people who do it and do it efficiently, and share their ideas, the better. That’s how humanity works anyway. We discuss ideas with our family, then perhaps with our friend, and from one to the other, some ideas will bubble up to produce the good stuff: The Earth does rotates on itself, and therefore, well, possibly the Sun doesn’t move after all even if it does move in the sky. It’s all relative, anyway.
EB

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Intuitions

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:31 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:13 am
The intuitions that we have aren’t ideas at all.
Yes they are because the claim that there is a 'we' that can have an 'idea' is also an idea.

.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Intuitions

Post by Speakpigeon » Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:31 am
the claim that there is a 'we' that can have an 'idea' is also an idea.
Prove it.
EB

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Intuitions

Post by Dontaskme » Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm

Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:31 am
the claim that there is a 'we' that can have an 'idea' is also an idea.
Prove it.
EB
Disprove it.

Who, what, how, or where is this ''we'' that can have an 'idea' ?

.

User avatar
Speakpigeon
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

Re: Intuitions

Post by Speakpigeon » Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:34 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:31 am
the claim that there is a 'we' that can have an 'idea' is also an idea.
Prove it.
Disprove it.
Good, so you can't prove your claim. Just what I thought.
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Who, what, how, or where is this ''we'' that can have an 'idea' ?
I don't need to convince you of what I know but I did told you already. Read Descartes.
EB

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Intuitions

Post by Dontaskme » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:32 am

Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:34 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm

Prove it.
Disprove it.
Good, so you can't prove your claim. Just what I thought.
No, there is no prover or disprover here, except the conceptual 'idea' in Awareness. Awareness cannot prove or disprove it's existence, the awareness would have to be outside of it's own awareness to do that. Awareness cannot experience it's own absence or presence..neither can it be inside or outside of itself...It's one unitary whole undivided seamless existence directly manifesting right nowhere...totally without concept and yet knows every concept when they arise in it...the relative world of duality is already within the absolute non-dual awareness. Non-dual awareness is an absolute loner it has no relatives..all relatives are fictional thoughts within it.

The I of uncreated awareness doesn't need to think to be what it is...The I of awareness is only aware of thought, when thought arises in it, awareness is not the thought, nor is it dependant on thought to be. Ironically, thought is wholly dependant on awareness, for there is no awareness of thought unless awareness is already present prior to the thought that is being awared....here it is seen quite clearly that awareness is not transient, whereas thoughts are...so any thought that does arise aka an 'IDEA'' must be a fictional secondary reality overlayed upon non-dual awareness that's already here and can never not be here. A ''thought'' is known by awareness itself, not as itself but as the dream realm of separation aka duality already occuring within non-dual awareness the only existence there is..there is no separate thinker or knower existing outside of non-dual awareness.

There is only non-dual awareness, direct experience one without a second now, no proof necessary, no thing to prove or disprove this immediate direct expeirience.

A thought artificially creates a thinker. The thinker doesn't create the thought, there is awareness of thought not a thinker of thought...because there is no thinker separate from the thought.

Both thinker and thought are one in the same instant, artificially creating the sense of separation, aka a thinker and the thought the thinker is thinking. But this is not what's actually happening, No, both thinker and thought are self-creating as one unitary action instantaneously, there is no thinker separate from the thought and no thought separate from the thinker...but all this is mental activity already occurring within non-dual awareness that pervades all mental activity ...awareness that is neither the thinker or the thought...but knows every thought as and when it arises.

A 'thought' is a fictional creation, it's a known concept of no known I awareness ..call this an oxymoron but reality doesn't need to be rational to be what it is.. in fact it's far from being rational, it's totally irrational for the mind of artificial duality...simply because any relative thought about the absolute is absurd.

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Who, what, how, or where is this ''we'' that can have an 'idea' ?
Speakpigeon wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 5:34 pm
I don't need to convince you of what I know but I did told you already. Read Descartes.
EB
The primordial unknown I has no knowledge of itself except as ''thought'' which is a fictional supposition artifically overlayed upon not-knowing I.
Descartes is an idea, a fictional character, a ''thought'' aka a fictional mental character believed to be real, Descartes is nothing more than a transient idea.

.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Intuitions

Post by commonsense » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:49 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:31 am
the claim that there is a 'we' that can have an 'idea' is also an idea.
Prove it.
EB
Disprove it.
Negatives, such as the assertion that the claim that there is a we that can have an idea is also an idea is a false claim, cannot be disproved. Assertions have to be made in the positive so that they can be demonstrated either true or false. The onus here is to prove rather than to disprove.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Intuitions

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:29 am

commonsense wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:49 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm
Speakpigeon wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 3:12 pm

Prove it.
EB
Disprove it.
Negatives, such as the assertion that the claim that there is a we that can have an idea is also an idea is a false claim, cannot be disproved. Assertions have to be made in the positive so that they can be demonstrated either true or false. The onus here is to prove rather than to disprove.
Negatives and Positives are in the realm of opposites aka duality, the dream of separation...there is no such reality, no proof nor disproof necessary, for that would require a prover...which can only exist as an idea..a dream character...it would be like trying to prove or disprove the characters in a nightly dream existed...where do all the characters in a nightly dream go? where did they come from? where exactly do they actually exist?

.

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Intuitions

Post by commonsense » Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:33 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:29 am
commonsense wrote:
Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:49 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:00 pm


Disprove it.
Negatives, such as the assertion that the claim that there is a we that can have an idea is also an idea is a false claim, cannot be disproved. Assertions have to be made in the positive so that they can be demonstrated either true or false. The onus here is to prove rather than to disprove.
Negatives and Positives are in the realm of opposites aka duality, the dream of separation...there is no such reality, no proof nor disproof necessary, for that would require a prover...which can only exist as an idea..a dream character...it would be like trying to prove or disprove the characters in a nightly dream existed...where do all the characters in a nightly dream go? where did they come from? where exactly do they actually exist?

.
What did you mean when you challenged EB to disprove that which was your duty to prove?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6122
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Intuitions

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:43 pm

commonsense wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:33 pm

What did you mean when you challenged EB to disprove that which was your duty to prove?

To ask for proof is to assume there is a prover...if there is a prover then it logically follows there is a disprover.

So then EB doesn't need to ask me for proof.

.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests