From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 22:31:30 MDT
Gordon Worley wrote:
>
> First, Ben, this is just a diction issue, but intuition, unless used in
> some technical sense, is a misleading word. The only reason a thought
> is an `intuition' is because your brain thought it up and only told you
> the answer, not the process involved in reaching the answer. Since we
> know that the only black box aspect of `intuitions' is that you don't
> have accesses to the specifics of how you reached an answer (though your
> interpreter will be happy to rationalize a reason for you), it's more
> accurate to say that this is simply what you think. Intuition
> constantly sounds to me like you're claiming you were divinely inspired
> in your thoughts (which may be possible if science isn't right, but
> AFAIK such a possibility is not readily within your world view).
Hmmm. Actually, science could be perfectly right and there
could still be intuition that was not from merely subconscious
processing within the brain. One way this could be true is if
(short form) we are in fact within a VR/sim and in certain modes
we either have a flash of access to or get bleed over from the
underlying computational matrix. This could also explain some
mystical inspired states.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:40 MDT