Gathering Knowledge The Intuitive Way

[Native]

Abstract: It´s my opinion that modern cosmological science has become very speculative and disconnected from all-natural things.

I´m convinced that all “living things” communicate with the micro- and macrocosmic surroundings via our embedded electromagnetic sensitive qualities.

Intrinsic knowledge - Tacit knowledge - Wikipedia

Tacit knowledge or implicit knowledge—as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge. This can include personal wisdom, experience, insight, and intuition.

Intuition - Intuition - Wikipedia

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning.

Shamanistic Visions - Shamanism - Wikipedia

The natural Shamanism is the oldest “religious/mythical/astronomical/cosmic” system on the Earth.

“The word shamanism probably derived from the Tungusic word šaman, meaning "one who knows". Shamanism is a natural practice that involves a practitioner who is believed to interact with a spirit world through altered states of consciousness, such as trance. The goal of this is usually to direct these spirits or spiritual energies into the physical world, for healing or another purpose”.

Me: The overall goal is also to mark the natural motions on and above the Earth to follow the motions of creation and how humans are a part of such cyclical formations and motion.

Stories of Creation: The Shamanistic method is the basis of and in all ancient religions and their cultural Stories of Creation. These global stories are of course remarkably similar in the basics, as the creation deals with the fact that we all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe.

The Creation: Most modern persons believe that the ancient Stories of Creation deal with a creation of the Universe, but this is wrong. Our ancestral stories deal specifically with the pre-conditions of and the very creation of our Milky Way galaxy and of the creation of the Solar System – and all other scenarios experienced in cosmic visions, were mentioned as “Islands in the Sky” floating in the “Cosmic Sea” or in the “Cosmic ocean”.

Perception of the Creation: Our ancestors had it that the Universe is infinite and eternal (hence NO beginning or end) – but “inside” the Universe, everything undergoes eternal transformative changes between formation, dissolution, and re-formation.

Ancient and modern methods: In my opinion we humans have all the skills needed and embedded in order to understand us self, our society and other environmental surroundings everywhere.

The modern scientific method of measuring everything in a linear approach, has IMO led to a lesser understanding of the creation at large, in fact only 4 % of the observable Universe.

Relevant Links:
Creation Myth - Creation myth - Wikipedia

Creation Myth List - List of creation myths - Wikipedia

Milky Way Mythology - Milky Way (mythology) - Wikipedia

Mytho-Cosmology - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

Visions and Dreams - Native way of knowledge. Spiritual Visions and Dreams

 

[exchemist]

.......Otherwise known as making **** up.

 

[Native]

In my opinion we humans have all the skills needed and embedded in order to understand us self, our society and other environmental surroundings everywhere.

.......Otherwise known as making **** up.

Apparently not all of us have the conscious skills mentioned above.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Native,

Do you see any reason that intuitive knowledge shouldn't be tested for validity just as with knowledge obtained by reasoning or rational thought?

 

[Native]

Do you see any reason that intuitive knowledge shouldn't be tested for validity just as with knowledge obtained by reasoning or rational thought?

Not at all. If and when the intuitive informations are correct, they´ll pass all tests. And they even can correct standing consensus theories as well.

Did you think of a specific incidence?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Did you think of a specific incidence?

Nope. Just interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[Polymath257]

Intuition is a wonderful first step. Every scientist needs to develop some form of intuition.

But it is the *first* step, not the last.

The results of intuition need to be testable. And then they need to be tested by actual observations, discarding those intuitions that give the wrong answers.

The problem? EVERYONE has some sort of intuition. Most of them are WRONG. No matter how reasonable or intuitive some idea is, if it doesn't hold up to actual observation, it is wrong and needs to be modified or discarded.

Now, if you have a working system and you find a relatively minor situation where the prediction is wrong, it is more reasonable to tweak things before throwing the whole thing out and starting again.

Always make sure that any new system agrees with the old whenever the old actually worked.

 

[Native]

Intuition is a wonderful first step. Every scientist needs to develop some form of intuition.

But it is the *first* step, not the last.

The results of intuition need to be testable. And then they need to be tested by actual observations, discarding those intuitions that give the wrong answers.

The problem? EVERYONE has some sort of intuition. Most of them are WRONG. No matter how reasonable or intuitive some idea is, if it doesn't hold up to actual observation, it is wrong and needs to be modified or discarded.

Now, if you have a working system and you find a relatively minor situation where the prediction is wrong, it is more reasonable to tweak things before throwing the whole thing out and starting again.

You speak as if you´re an expert on intuitive informations. Do you have such intuitive experiences yourself? If so, give an example.

 

[Native]

Always make sure that any new system agrees with the old whenever the old actually worked.

Regarding cosmological knowledge, how can you decide WHAT old and new intuitive ideas are working at all, as cosmological science only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe?

 

[epronovost]

Regarding cosmological knowledge, how can you decide WHAT old and new intuitive ideas are working at all, as cosmological science only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe?

Well for a starter, if you have an new theory, that theory must agree with the 4% we already know. That's what it means.

 

[Native]

Well for a starter, if you have an new theory, that theory must agree with the 4% we already know. That's what it means.

Which isn´t much compared to the amount of this ancient intuitive knowledge quoted from my initial Op post:

Stories of Creation: The Shamanistic method is the basis of and in all ancient religions and their cultural Stories of Creation. These global stories are of course remarkably similar in the basics, as the creation deals with the fact that we all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe.

The Creation: Most modern persons believe that the ancient Stories of Creation deal with a creation of the Universe, but this is wrong. Our ancestral stories deal specifically with the pre-conditions of and the very creation of our Milky Way galaxy and of the creation of the Solar System – and all other scenarios experienced in cosmic visions, were mentioned as “Islands in the Sky” floating in the “Cosmic Sea” or in the “Cosmic ocean”.

Perception of the Creation: Our ancestors had it that the Universe is infinite and eternal (hence NO beginning or end) – but “inside” the Universe, everything undergoes eternal transformative changes between formation, dissolution, and re-formation", end of quotes.
----------------
All things what happen naturally to all of us and to all elementary things and atoms.

 

[Polymath257]

You speak as if you´re an expert on intuitive informations. Do you have such intuitive experiences yourself? If so, give an example.

Of course. EVERYONE has some form of intuition. And most of the intuitions are simply wrong. Most people have wrong intuition even when it comes to rotating objects.

Regarding cosmological knowledge, how can you decide WHAT old and new intuitive ideas are working at all, as cosmological science only knows of 4 % of the observable Universe?

Again, those things that are testable and agree with observations are, BY DEFINITION, those that work.

 

[Native]

Of course. EVERYONE has some form of intuition. And most of the intuitions are simply wrong. Most people have wrong intuition even when it comes to rotating objects.

Just as expected, you don´t have any positive experience of how intuition works - hence your remarks of "intuition" is nothing worth at all. You simply don´t know what you´re speaking of at all.

 

[epronovost]

Just as expected, you don´t have any positive experience of how intuition works - hence your remarks of "intuition" is nothing worth at all. You simply don´t know what you´re speaking of at all.

He didn't say that intuition was worthless, far from there, he said intuition isn't a proof. Intuition is an idea about how to solve a problem. You need to test to see if it works to see if it had any value. Depending on the people and the circumstances your intuition is more or less efficient.

 

[Polymath257]

Just as expected, you don´t have any positive experience of how intuition works - hence your remarks of "intuition" is nothing worth at all. You simply don´t know what you´re speaking of at all.

Once again, of course I do. But I strongly doubt the examples I would give would make sense to you nor would you understand why they were ultimately wrong.

For example, suppose you have a rapidly spinning wheel (say, a bicycle wheel) on a flexible axle. Suppose you then hit the wheel strongly by slapping it at the rim quickly. How does the wheel react?

The *vast* majority of people will get this wrong. The intuition is that the place where you slapped will rise and the whole wheel will start to rotate in a way that follows the motion of your hand.

THIS IS WRONG.

The intuition people have about rotating objects is demonstrably wrong. And, in some cases, this error can be deadly.

I have plenty of other examples, of course, but that is one that you can chew on for a while. What is the actual motion of the wheel?

 

[Native]

Intuition is an idea about how to solve a problem. You need to test to see if it works to see if it had any value.

Your definition of "intuition" needs to be updated from "speculation" to immediate knowledge.

Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning.

 

[Native]

Once again, of course I do. But I strongly doubt the examples I would give would make sense to you nor would you understand why they were ultimately wrong.

You´re contradicting the very definition of this OP introduction of "intuition":
"
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning"

Intuition is to KNOW what is right foremostly just by looking at something.

For example, suppose you have a rapidly spinning wheel (say, a bicycle wheel) on a flexible axle. Suppose you then hit the wheel strongly by slapping it at the rim quickly. How does the wheel react?

The *vast* majority of people will get this wrong. The intuition is that the place where you slapped will rise and the whole wheel will start to rotate in a way that follows the motion of your hand.

THIS IS WRONG.

The intuition people have about rotating objects is demonstrably wrong. And, in some cases, this error can be deadly.

I have plenty of other examples, of course, but that is one that you can chew on for a while. What is the actual motion of the wheel?

I´m sure you have lots of other intellectual and speculative examples, but this has nothing to do with "intuition" in this OP.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re contradicting the very definition of this OP introduction of "intuition":
"
Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning. Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning"

Intuition is to KNOW what is right foremostly just by looking at something.

I´m sure you have lots of other intellectual and speculative examples, but this has nothing to do with "intuition" in this OP.

In that case, I deny intuition of that type exists at all. Knowledge requires testing and intuition happens before testing, so it cannot give knowledge.

'Just looking at something' *never* gives knowledge. It may allow you to see something interesting, but it isn't knowledge. When you do this, you are neglecting several crucial steps to knowledge. one of the most important is skepticism.

 

[Native]

In that case, I deny intuition of that type exists at all. Knowledge requires testing and intuition happens before testing, so it cannot give knowledge.

And then you rely on calculus based on disconnected issues and then you have the actual standing cosmological situation = 4 % knowledge and otherwise darkness.

'Just looking at something' *never* gives knowledge. It may allow you to see something interesting, but it isn't knowledge. When you do this, you are neglecting several crucial steps to knowledge. one of the most important is skepticism.

Well "skepticism" is certainly one of your best qualities. Unfortunately it regards the very natural way of observing nature et all and finding the philosophical natural patterns of formation.

Without the electromagnetic impulses everywhere, your eyes wouldn´t observe anything at all as the eyes works via electromagnetic impulses to the brain - and so wouldn´t telescopes either.

But of course, your skepticism also dimms this natural part of the Universe, thus leaving you in 96 % darkness regarding a natural way of gathering knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

And then you rely on calculus based on disconnected issues and then you have the actual standing cosmological situation = 4 % knowledge and otherwise darkness.

Well "skepticism" is certainly one of your best qualities. Unfortunately it regards the very natural way of observing nature et all and finding the philosophical natural patterns of formation.

Without the electromagnetic impulses everywhere, your eyes wouldn´t observe anything at all as the eyes works via electromagnetic impulses to the brain - and so wouldn´t telescopes either.

But of course, your skepticism also dimms this natural part of the Universe, thus leaving you in 96 % darkness regarding a natural way of gathering knowledge.

What you seem to ignore is that I have had 'flashes of insight' just like everyone else has. When working on a problem, it is not uncommon to get such flashes along with a *feeling* of certainty. But, of course, that feeling of certainty needs to be tested. And, in practice, it is wrong more often than it is right.

Just looking and feeling you have knowledge is not knowledge. it is the first step, not the last. And it is usually wrong.