Intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes

Fulton J Sheen once said “An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." .... I happen to believe intuition (for me) comes from my 'invisible support'.

How do atheists ‘know’ or ‘sense’ without using rational processes?

On what foundation do you believe in this "invisible support". Intuition can be explained by noticing patterns, developing awareness of the causes that perceive effects...

Intuition is a manifestation of unconscious mental processes, either those that are instinctive or those that we learn. These are not rational processes. They are indeed our "invisible support," if we choose to use Sheen's terminology.

Religion is also a manifestation of unconscious mental processes which arise from the same two sources. Religion could be deconstructed as formalized collective intuition.

How do atheists ‘know’ or ‘sense’ without using rational processes?

We don't.

I belive in intuition, it tells me God, as conventionally understood, is made up.

Intuition is probably closely related to empathy; neither one of which is much in the control of those who inadvertantly are blessed and cursed with it, especially depending on the degree.

On what foundation do you believe in this "invisible support". Intuition can be explained by noticing patterns, developing awareness of the causes that perceive effects...

Second try!... and briefer.

Not the board to share my spiritual views. But this quote might help:
Thomas Browne: 'To believe only possibilities is not faith, but mere philosophy.'

Intuition often kicks in during times of pressure and danger - when 'noticing patterns' is the last thing on most people's minds..

We don't.

Ah, a fulsome reply worth pondering

Intuition often kicks in during times of pressure and danger - when 'noticing patterns' is the last thing on most people's minds..
Our intuition in times like these often leads us to make disastrous decisions. Intuition is at it's best when we're able to carefully assess the facts in the light of past experience.

Intuition is a manifestation of unconscious mental processes, either those that are instinctive or those that we learn. These are not rational processes. They are indeed our "invisible support," if we choose to use Sheen's terminology.

Religion is also a manifestation of unconscious mental processes which arise from the same two sources. Religion could be deconstructed as formalized collective intuition.

Agreed... in part.

Cellular memories might also have an effect, although they do not explain predictive intuition (as opposed to the kind that provides answers, ideas and so forth).

Part of my reasoning is having been given a fair few 'duff cards' in my time. I even felt 'humanly' alone (many times), but never 'spiritually'. That in turn gave me whatever it was I needed.

You could say that was an 'instinctive' mental attitude. Possibly.

Must do some work now. Cheers Euphrosene

Our intuition in times like these often leads us to make disastrous decisions. Intuition is at it's best when we're able to carefully assess the facts in the light of past experience.

I'm with Wikipedia on this:

Intuition (knowledge) - understanding without apparent effort, quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences or empirical knowledge.

Intuition (gut feeling) - a spontaneous impulse to take an immediate, unplanned action, which in retrospect, proves to be the most beneficial action to take in order to positively influence an unknown future event or situation.

Catch you later.

Intuition (gut feeling) - a spontaneous impulse to take an immediate, unplanned action, which in retrospect, proves to be the most beneficial action to take in order to positively influence an unknown future event or situation.
Other definitions of intuition merely refer to the 'gut feeling' and make no reference to retrospective truth. I feel happy for you being so highly intuitive, and not a little jealous too. You are indeed blessed. Mere mortals like me so often get it wrong. Would you be willing to help me out with some horse racing results? Just as a little experiment.

Other definitions of intuition merely refer to the 'gut feeling' and make no reference to retrospective truth. I feel happy for you being so highly intuitive, and not a little jealous too. You are indeed blessed. Mere mortals like me so often get it wrong. Would you be willing to help me out with some horse racing results? Just as a little experiment.

Truth? Isn’t that subjective? As for being ‘highly intuitive’ – I wish.

Intuition for me can often be like that flame in She…. I probably do not spend as much time as I should in inner silence (best MO for intuition)

Tch! Re horse racing – can’t oblige. It’s not my scene. Besides, someone with a greater vested interest might have more impact on the horse’s or horses’ energy field than someone with his (her?) tongue firmly in cheek.

Euphrosene:

"Intuition often kicks in during times of pressure and danger - when 'noticing patterns' is the last thing on most people's minds.. "

Actually, this is the time when we are most accutely aware of such things. The human mind - as well as the mind of all creatures - is excellent at understanding cause-and-effect and the resultant patterns. In fact, some forms of mental illness so abuse this aspect of the intellect to the point where it sees patterns where it oughn't - John Nash, of "A Beautiful Mind" fame, had this type of paranoid schnizophrenia. It is in time of brief, split-minute decisions, that we have to basically resort to our natural capacities, honed over aeons, to conclude the right course of action and to follow it out. This means quickly perceiving cause and effect and immediately acting. In fact, this may even be related to why it is often the case that in sports the ball appears to move faster when one is attempting to strike it (as in baseball or cricket), save that intuition flows into the body so quickly and with so little conscious effort, it appears as if we weren't even the source. In fact, most people are so intuitionally based that they do not even analyze what is around them, hence the reason why philosophy is often so hard, as we are so prone to not question ourselves.

Euphrosene:

"Intuition often kicks in during times of pressure and danger - when 'noticing patterns' is the last thing on most people's minds.. "

Actually, this is the time when we are most accutely aware of such things. The human mind - as well as the mind of all creatures - is excellent at understanding cause-and-effect and the resultant patterns. In fact, some forms of mental illness so abuse this aspect of the intellect to the point where it sees patterns where it oughn't - John Nash, of "A Beautiful Mind" fame, had this type of paranoid schnizophrenia. It is in time of brief, split-minute decisions, that we have to basically resort to our natural capacities, honed over aeons, to conclude the right course of action and to follow it out. This means quickly perceiving cause and effect and immediately acting. In fact, this may even be related to why it is often the case that in sports the ball appears to move faster when one is attempting to strike it (as in baseball or cricket), save that intuition flows into the body so quickly and with so little conscious effort, it appears as if we weren't even the source. In fact, most people are so intuitionally based that they do not even analyze what is around them, hence the reason why philosophy is often so hard, as we are so prone to not question ourselves.


Difficult to think cogently when writing about something utterly unrelated...!

This piece may cover some of the non-esoteric elements (ie instinct and intuition):
http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/1-50/article26_body.html (instinct and intuition)

Also begs question of consciousness... since I believe some levels of 'invisible support' require a leap of faith. Meaning, what precisely are we conscious of?

There is equally the matter of learned patterns – but what of following 'intuitively' something not consciously known?

Sorry - have to finish another task...

Ah, a fulsome reply worth pondering

Indeed.

Quite fitting to its precedent cause.

But seriously, what are you looking for?
You ask how it is that Atheists 'know' or 'sense' without using rational thought.
This is rife with contradiction.
There can be no knowing without rational thought.

Formally speaking, you've provided no argument, taken no position, and have fallaciously taken the position of assuming that there is something called 'intuition', without even defining it, beyond merely directing us to another source (which is fallacious as well).

Euphrosyne the Grace of Mirth, you're probably pretty tight with Thalia the Muse of Comedy? :) We once had a parrot by that name and she lived up to it. The first sound she learned to mimic was laughter.

euphrosene:

"This piece may cover some of the non-esoteric elements (ie instinct and intuition):
http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/1-50/article26_body.html"

The website is currently down. I shall try later, but perhaps until then you can summarize its points?

"Also begs question of consciousness... since I believe some levels of 'invisible support' require a leap of faith. Meaning, what precisely are we conscious of?"

We are primarily conscious of our conscious processes, that is to say, our mind save for the subconscious (which I postulate stands mostly as a suppository of information and where most of our unaware input goes into) and the unconscious (which is only part of the mind in so much as the processes there are distinctly mental in nature even if not part of thought).

"There is equally the matter of learned patterns – but what of following 'intuitively' something not consciously known?"

What do you mean regarding this?

Indeed.

Quite fitting to its precedent cause.

But seriously, what are you looking for?
You ask how it is that Atheists 'know' or 'sense' without using rational thought.
This is rife with contradiction.
There can be no knowing without rational thought.

Formally speaking, you've provided no argument, taken no position, and have fallaciously taken the position of assuming that there is something called 'intuition', without even defining it, beyond merely directing us to another source (which is fallacious as well).

I have indeed taken a ‘position’. It just so happens to be one where ‘unlimited thinking’ can often mean parking rational or pragmatic thinking processes in order to step into another dimension of thought or ideas.

Like, Sheen, it is my ‘invisible support’ and how I inter-relate with that, leans to the mystical – although on some levels it can simply be tapping into the collective unconscious.

So there is no ‘argument’… although *your* utter certainty is mindboggling. Knowledge is what I call the ‘electricity syndrome’ in one of my books. Meaning that just because we have not tapped into something does not mean it does not exist.

However, there was, and is, a genuine desire on my part to understand how some people can get through dire situations in life (as I have – many times) without having invisible support.

When people and situations have failed me, I have felt guided out of the pit – an external intangible inspiration and guidance, rather than just strength of character. And no, I have no proof – but then it is not that important to me. I am simply sharing. You can accept or dismiss as you wish.

Unfortunately, I do find the sneering tone of some rather tiresome. It is a form of fear and unworthy of a scientific forum. The scientific mind should first and foremost be open – even to themes that you may despise.

And btw I did indeed provide a definition of intuition in my first post and in subsequent ones. In IT we would say RTFD first. Equally, you have assumed there is NOT something called ‘intuition’ with no counter ‘argument’.

Balance, as always, please.

euphrosene:

"This piece may cover some of the non-esoteric elements (ie instinct and intuition):
http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/1-50/article26_body.html"

The website is currently down. I shall try later, but perhaps until then you can summarize its points?

"Also begs question of consciousness... since I believe some levels of 'invisible support' require a leap of faith. Meaning, what precisely are we conscious of?"

We are primarily conscious of our conscious processes, that is to say, our mind save for the subconscious (which I postulate stands mostly as a suppository of information and where most of our unaware input goes into) and the unconscious (which is only part of the mind in so much as the processes there are distinctly mental in nature even if not part of thought).

"There is equally the matter of learned patterns – but what of following 'intuitively' something not consciously known?"

What do you mean regarding this?


Another busy day and I don’t have that much spare energy for facetious disinterest (I don't mean you).

My original question was sincere and a desire to find out how others deal with extreme situations when all else fails them.

Anyway, here are some words directly from Daniel Cappon, M.D. [who was a physician in psychological medicine and professor of environmental studies at York University, Ontario, Canada, author of Intuition].

I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says but the ideas are interesting.

“I think intuition has been reduced to a myth and allowed to sink into the province of mystics and fringe groups because its operation is unconscious. In the course of the evolution of human intelligence, intuition had to become unconscious for the sake of the brain's economic effectiveness.”

“Intuition from Instinct - This evolution of intuition has its seed in ancestral instincts for survival and adaptation. For our ancestor's survival, there was no time for thinking or conscious and laborious logic. Their responses had to be instantaneous. ... Therefore these original instincts, now distilled as intuition, had to be based on a rapid-access fast track system separate from conscious thought, and unencumbered by hesitation and doubt.”

I'll answer the other point when I have more time.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Kind Rgds
Euphrosene

Euphrosyne the Grace of Mirth, you're probably pretty tight with Thalia the Muse of Comedy? :) We once had a parrot by that name and she lived up to it. The first sound she learned to mimic was laughter.

This comment would have more resonance if you shared YOUR name too...

Euphrosene:

So essentially the thesis of Dr. Cappon is a bit similar to my postulations regarding our innate abilities to assess and to act with very little time?

...

So there is no ‘argument’… although *your* utter certainty is mindboggling. Knowledge is what I call the ‘electricity syndrome’ in one of my books. Meaning that just because we have not tapped into something does not mean it does not exist.


The only certainty i suggested was that your position was formally specious. Arbitrarily tossing together suppositions is indefensible. Clear thought requires definitions and valid argumentation.




However, there was, and is, a genuine desire on my part to understand how some people can get through dire situations in life (as I have – many times) without having invisible support.


And so your attempt to understanding this is to create ad hoc entities to investigate?
Not only does this fly in the face of Occam's Razor, but the very scientific method you claim to follow: data collection first, then hypothesis, then verification.



Unfortunately, I do find the sneering tone of some rather tiresome. It is a form of fear and unworthy of a scientific forum. The scientific mind should first and foremost be open – even to themes that you may despise.


No sneering or despising here. I'm simply a stickler for cautious methodology.
Disregarding any possible explanation would indeed be counter-productive and contrary to the scientific mind. Nevertheless, the scientific mind is bound by the constraints of process, and your position shows little regard for this.



...
Equally, you have assumed there is NOT something called ‘intuition’ with no counter ‘argument’.


As scientists, the onus is upon the one hypothesizing new entities, not those who deny them.

Perhaps I should write this more clearly:

I was not trying to posit a theory, therefore I have nothing to prove, answer or add.

The purpose in asking was to provide balance to my writings. That meant at least having the courtesy to state my position (which I did).

I know what MY invisible support is; I had wanted to know (with no maliciousness or underhand reasons) what that was for atheists - who I gather are predominant on sciforums.

However, if I cannot get a straight answer, I will leave it at that. Sorry about not answering any specific questions. They were distracting from my original one.

Kind Regards
Euphrosene

Has anyone else ever found themselves becomming 'more aware' and with heightened senses when disengaging the 'rational mind'.
I find that with certain rare meditative states i become more aware rather than less aware. Maybe its because im not abstracting all that outside data to the extent that i normally would if i was thinking in the traditional sense, thus experience becomes more pure and direct.
*Sorry not trying to hijack the thread, although it is on topic i think :)

Has anyone else ever found themselves becomming 'more aware' and with heightened senses when disengaging the 'rational mind'.
... Maybe its because im not abstracting all that outside data to the extent that i normally would if i was thinking in the traditional sense, thus experience becomes more pure and direct.
*Sorry not trying to hijack the thread, although it is on topic i think :)

Agreed... on both counts.

And thanks. Euphrosene

Religion could be deconstructed as formalized collective intuition.
Bravo!

Intuition often kicks in during times of pressure and danger - when 'noticing patterns' is the last thing on most people's minds..
That's intinct- not intuition. They are different. For instance, instinct can often make you afraid, while intuition is never based on or related to fear. Intuition is what happens in the corpus callosum. It's when the abstract mind meets the rational one. Women have bigger, more developed, corpus calossi, hence why a majority of psychics are women.

Truthseeker:

What scientific basis do you have for intuition happening in the corpus callosum? What is the "abstract mind"?

Truthseeker:

What scientific basis do you have for intuition happening in the corpus callosum? What is the "abstract mind"?

"Newsweek stated in 1992 that the corpus callosum was "Often wider in the brains of women than in those of men, it may allow for greater cross talk between the hemispheres—possibly the basis for woman’s "intuition". It has also been used, for example, as the explanation of an increased single-task orientation of male, relative to female, learners; a smaller male organ is said to make it harder for the left and right sides of the brain to work together and to explain a feminine ability to multitask."


Read it all right here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum

Oh yeah... abstract mind is the creative part of brain that create correlations between completely different variables to create a new variable, basically. It defers from logic because logic does not add something, while the abstract mind always add some kind of uniqueness. An easy way to see it is this: the logic mind creates words while the abstract mind understands the meaning behind the words.

[QUOTE=TruthSeeker]That's intinct- not intuition. They are different. QUOTE]


True. That's why I added the link to Cappon.

...
An easy way to see it is this: the logic mind creates words while the abstract mind understands the meaning behind the words.

Interesting.

TS, in what kind of hierarchical order would you arrange these two 'aspects' of the mind?

I'm wondering because, it seems to me that meaning must necessarily precede the word (naming, the logos). As a symbol, the name is empty, a cipher. It can only obtain once there is content. That content is, of course, the meaning.
This entails that the 'abstract mind' must precede the 'logical mind'.

This all according to your schema of course.

In my estimation, the two are one and the same: the logical aspect is nothing more than the mind's activity of organizing its abstractions.

Interesting.

TS, in what kind of hierarchical order would you arrange these two 'aspects' of the mind?
It's horizontal. They are both equally important and happen simultaneously.

I'm wondering because, it seems to me that meaning must necessarily precede the word (naming, the logos). As a symbol, the name is empty, a cipher. It can only obtain once there is content. That content is, of course, the meaning.
This entails that the 'abstract mind' must precede the 'logical mind'.
Yes, precisely. But as I said before, they are both equally important and happen simultaneously. Without meaning, words are pointless. Without words (well, symbols), meanings cannot be communicated and therefore are pointless.

In my estimation, the two are one and the same: the logical aspect is nothing more than the mind's activity of organizing its abstractions.
As I said, it's not hierarchical- it's "horizontal".

Truthseeker:

"As I said, it's not hierarchical- it's "horizontal". "

Like your mother with me last night!

HIYOOOOOOOOO!

Oh, someone hasn't grown up.
So the conversation (with you) ends here... :bugeye:

euphrosene, eh...
Why does a man that does not believe in entities-outside-physics rely on entity-that-doesn't-exist? How does a man that defines thinking as rational force think without rational thought? By definition alone, they do not..

Conscious mind is like a strict leader, that requires you to report every action and have conferences at every moment. It checks and verifies everything, and ultimately slows everything to a crawl. The unconscious mind just does it. Hence it seems very fast. But without verification nothing is ever made certain, while the conscious mind always reaches proper conclusions (as long as the assumptions it takes are as proper..).

So it either requires trust or acceptance of error marginal. Faith or Socratenian philosophy (He rather claimed not to KNOW anything.)

Intuition: The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes

Fulton J Sheen once said “An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support." .... I happen to believe intuition (for me) comes from my 'invisible support'.

How do atheists ‘know’ or ‘sense’ without using rational processes?

Intuition may be explained in terms of specific brain functions. We, subconsciously, notice patterns and come up with the “best explanation” (abduction) for such patterns based on our experiences. Intuition isn’t an “invisible support” (if you mean, by “invisible”, something which cannot be physically analyzed and observed). The more you are experienced with something, the better your intuition on the given subject seems to be.

Intuition may be explained in terms of specific brain functions. We, subconsciously, notice patterns and come up with the “best explanation” (abduction) for such patterns based on our experiences. Intuition isn’t an “invisible support” (if you mean, by “invisible”, something which cannot be physically analyzed and observed). The more you are experienced with something, the better your intuition on the given subject seems to be.

That is retrograde perspective.

If the problem is pressing (ie when I had £60,000 of debts, my 'love life' was killing me and more... MUCH more!) the 'reality' of the present moment is usually far too emotive to analyse and observe!

When I talk about intuition, instinct and indeed 'invisible support', I mean something which happens out of the ordinary, and definitely out of the present consciousness or gleaned knowledge.

Pedants may of course apply retrospective logic to it but invisible support ought to be viewed in the present tense, the 'now' to use new age parlance.

To continue with the 'airy-fairy' logic, it really is like plucking rabbits out of thin air.

I though continue to be deeply grateful whenever it does happen. Not as much as I would like, unfortunately :(