Here’s an interesting perspective on intuition

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

I’ve learned never to argue with you about anything if I am not arguing you will argue with me. 

Lol

[Salvijus]

After more thought I realized the example with animals is not a very good one. I'll have to think of something else. 

Edited yesterday at 07:43 AM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

25 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

to know something with perfect certainty and resonance of the heart while relying on no past data at all

This is a fantasy.

Your mind does not work like that.

You are describing a non-existent unicorn, not the actual workings of mind.

This is what I criticize New Agers for. You are not a magical unicorn. Your mind is subject to real epistemic limits.

Edited yesterday at 07:45 AM by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a fantasy.

Your mind does not work like that.

You are descriving a non-existent unicorn, not the actual workings of mind.

The musical example I gave is one example where you can know something without mental analysis. So it's not a fantasy. This form of knowledge is possible in other areas of life aswell. By feeling the resonance of what is love and what is not love. 

Edited yesterday at 07:46 AM by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

Let's take one example where sadhguru says or some other yogi he can look at the food and know exactly if it's good for his body or not. Now this type of knowledge is not mental analysis. It's energetic resonance. It's intuition. Ta-da.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The musical example I gave is one example where you can know something without mental analysis. So it's not a fantasy. This form of knowledge is possible in other areas of life aswell. By feeling the resonance of what is love and what is not love. 

Musical talent cannot be compared to cognitive conceptual content. These are different matters.

All of your cognitive conceptual content is fallible.

[Thought Art]

@Salvijus Yeah, but that’s not true either. We hear all kinds of music in western harmony. You have a memory and pattern recognition of the intervals in music and when something it out of key you hear it sounding bad. It’s auditory processing, pattern recognition. 
 

A key that is out of tune, is out of tune. It’s not really something we use intuition for because we can actually hear it. 
 

Musical harmony is essentially math. 
 

Also, music evokes feelings and emotions and out of tune note evokes a discordant feeling which you feel directly. Not, “hmm, I have an intuition about a note”.

Intuition can help guide the recognition but, it’s not first order of the cognitive process. I think intuition is a word that can describe it. 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:58 AM by Thought Art

[Natasha Tori Maru]

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a fantasy.

Your mind does not work like that.

You are describing a non-existent unicorn, not the actual workings of mind.

This is what I criticize New Agers for. You are not a magical unicorn. Your mind is subject to real epistemic limits.

Yeah, but you can say this is dogma also.

I think this is going no where 

No one knows how the mind works

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Musical talent cannot be compared to cognitive conceptual content. These are different matters.

All of your cognitive conceptual content is fallible.

It was simply an example that it's possible to know something without the use of mental analysis but on the basis of resonance alone. The heart/conciousness is another such instrument. 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:57 AM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

Just now, Salvijus said:

It was simply an example that it's possible to know something without the use of mental analysis. 

You can know to take a crap without mental analysis because it is not a conceptual matter.

And even there, you can fool yourself.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yeah, but you can say this is dogma also.

I think this is going no where 

No one knows how the mind works

You can know that New Agers are engaging in fantasy and have low epistemic rigor.

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

You can know to take a crap without mental analysis because it is not a conceptual matter.

And even there, you can fool yourself.

Exactly. So it's possible to know something without the use of mental analysis. So it's not a fantasy. And there is a particular instrument, the heart resonance of consciousness, the frequency of love inside that is like a compass to tell you what is true and what is false. And it needs no mental faculty. That's intuition. 

Edited yesterday at 08:00 AM by Salvijus

[Thought Art]

I’d say intuition is an aspect of hearing an out of tune note but that intuition is built on, say hearing western harmony your whole life. 
 

The idea of just intuiting things about epistemology, or truth, or etc without ever having previous experience though? Just trusting the heart?  I think that is fantasy. 
 

If I just trust what feels good (though I think there is some truth to this) 
 

Even a deep awakening that is profound and true is  often misunderstood by people.

Edited yesterday at 08:02 AM by Thought Art

[Leo Gura]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Exactly. So it's possible to know something without the use of mental analysis.

That's called perception.

Quote

And there is a particular instrument, the heart resonance of consciousness, the frequency of love inside that is like a compass to tell you what is true and what is false.

No. Not for conceptual content.

All conceptual content is subject to self-deception.

Even perception can trick you.

Edited yesterday at 08:05 AM by Leo Gura

[gambler]

5 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

And it needs no mental faculty. That's intuition. 

It does need a mental faculty. Why can’t someone with Down’s Syndrome intuit not to mistaken dog poo with chocolate before eating it off the streets? 

Edited yesterday at 08:05 AM by gambler

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's called perception.

Perception is called conciousness. 

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No. Not for conceptual content.

Word is spirit. Even what you say has a frequency. It will reverberate with truth or falsehood. And the heart can tell the difference

 

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, gambler said:

It does need a mental faculty. Why can’t someone with Down’s Syndrome intuit not to mistaken dog poo with chocolate before eating it off the streets? 

Well to answer your previous post about fish. Many animals function not on the basis of mental analysis like humans. They navigate in life by energetic resonance. So that's intuition. Idk if that answers your argument. 

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

I’d say intuition is an aspect of hearing an out of tune note but that intuition is built on, say hearing western harmony your whole life. 
 

The idea of just intuiting things about epistemology, or truth, or etc without ever having previous experience though? Just trusting the heart?  I think that is fantasy. 
 

If I just trust what feels good (though I think there is some truth to this) 
 

Even a deep awakening that is profound and true is  often misunderstood by people.

You're complicating it too much. 

There are dissonant sounds and harmonious sounds. There is something inside of us that knows the difference without the use of mental analysis. That's energetic resonance. Now imagine there is an instrument, an energetic compass that tells you what is love and what is not love. That's intuition. 

Edited yesterday at 08:17 AM by Salvijus

[Leo Gura]

@Salvijus 

Bro, Do you really think that God cannot fool you?

Then you don't know God.

Edited yesterday at 08:44 AM by Leo Gura

[Salvijus]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Salvijus 

Bro, Do you really think that God cannot fool you?

You don't know God.

Yes. I don’t believe love can be wrong. Because love is God and truth and infinite intelligence and wisdom. 

Edited yesterday at 08:51 AM by Salvijus