Intuition

[Sip]

Intuition is simply an expression of the cosmic mind in man through the attunement of the inner self with the universal cosmic mind. The mind itself has potential faculties that can enable it to hear, see, feel, taste, and smell without depending upon the sense of the faculties of the physical body. These higher faculties also transmit certain impressions. These impressions are different from our physical senses. These impressions are very much subtle and the average person ignroes them, because they are often vague, and indefinite as compared to the distinct and familiar impressions transmitted by the physical senses. Intuition is knowledge transmitted to our mind and not limited nor affected by the physical senses. Not only do time and space not limit intuition, but neither do any other physical measurements. Therefore it is obvious that intuition opens up a vast new fountain of knowledge.

Anonymouse, for a person who makes strong claims against topics like evolution and the scientific method, it is fascinting to see how you can pull a complete 180 and talk of the "cosmic mind" and "the transmission" of certain impressions through non physical means and then present a thesis as to how obvious it is how these things "open up vast new fountains of knowledge".

You make it sound like these hypotheses are backed up by mountains of facts

I don't question that our minds have the ability to formulate answers to questions they have never seen before. That is probably the single most significant factor that differentiates us as thinking beings from machines and objects. But to make the leap and conclude that this is the product of some cosmic transmission or a higher mind at play is streching things a bit too far in my opinion.

We observe, we learn, we build knowledge, we develop certain skills ... then we utilize ALL these as well as our deductive, creative, imaginative, and inventive abilities to go beyond strictly what we have learned to arrive at "new" knowledge.

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse, for a person who makes strong claims against topics like evolution and the scientific method, it is fascinting to see how you can pull a complete 180 and talk of the "cosmic mind" and "the transmission" of certain impressions through non physical means and then present a thesis as to how obvious it is how these things "open up vast new fountains of knowledge".

You make it sound like these hypotheses are backed up by mountains of facts

I don't question that our minds have the ability to formulate answers to questions they have never seen before. That is probably the single most significant factor that differentiates us as thinking beings from machines and objects. But to make the leap and conclude that this is the product of some cosmic transmission or a higher mind at play is streching things a bit too far in my opinion.

We observe, we learn, we build knowledge, we develop certain skills ... then we utilize ALL these as well as our deductive, creative, imaginative, and inventive abilities to go beyond strictly what we have learned to arrive at "new" knowledge.

It's all about beliefs.

[Anonymouse]

This reminds me, why do people limit everything to thinking? What about intuition which is unthinking?

[Sip]

This reminds me, why do people limit everything to thinking? What about intuition which is unthinking?

I call that instinct.

[loseyourname]

Anonymouse, for a person who makes strong claims against topics like evolution and the scientific method, it is fascinting to see how you can pull a complete 180 and talk of the "cosmic mind" and "the transmission" of certain impressions through non physical means and then present a thesis as to how obvious it is how these things "open up vast new fountains of knowledge".

You're forgetting that his standard of evidence is a lot lower for his own pet hypotheses. The fact that human embryos have gills at one point, even though they serve no function, is not evidence for evolution. However, if some people can sometimes tell who is calling them before they pick up the phone, this must mean that they are tapping into some universal source of knowledge.

[hyebruin]

understanding intuition is not something attained through intelligence, and trying to 'prove' its existence to those holding mechanistic views on reality is a pure waste of time and energy!

[Anonymouse]

You're forgetting that his standard of evidence is a lot lower for his own pet hypotheses. The fact that human embryos have gills at one point, even though they serve no function, is not evidence for evolution. However, if some people can sometimes tell who is calling them before they pick up the phone, this must mean that they are tapping into some universal source of knowledge.

I see I have damaged your psyche so much in that evolution thread that you need to make constant references to it. I know you are the least intuitive person so I don't expect much of a contribution from you in this thread, but if you wanna whine about evolution go to the proper thread. Second of all, gill marks don't mean anything really.

[sleuth]

This reminds me, why do people limit everything to thinking? What about intuition which is unthinking?

Intuition is thought that comes from our subconscience.
Insticnt is an action,not thought. you ACT on instinct,you dont THINK on instinct.
Only because we derive intuition from our subconscience,it doesnt mean its not a THINKING.
Instinct is a kind of body knowing that is very action-oriented. It's a knowing how to move, react, and do without thinking about it or pondering why you need to act that way.
Intuition seems to me to be something that just "comes to you", in the form of a discovery or realization. It has much more of an awareness to it than instinct.

Instinct is a some sort of behaviour ....intuition is inner voice ,that helps u discover and realize...

[Sip]

Interesting way of looking at it.

[Anonymouse]

The great trouble for centuries has been that man, in his infinite skepticism, does nto listen to his inner self and finds no time for silent concentration and attunement.