Hee hee. Touché ;)

It's all two-sides of the the same coin, the only difference is that one side (science) can be clearly documented and demonstrated in a rigorous manner.

So scientific breakthroughs may be generated by a leap of intuition, but the "fruit" of this intuition can be proved or disproved using the scientific method. It's much easier to convict a criminal when you can catch them in an out-and-out lie than it is for a detective to just say, "I had a hunch." But the detective has this hunch because of years of watching criminals and how they respond. While the hunch may be prone to a degree of error (is that squinting because he's guilty, or a speck of dust in his eye?), the hunch may lead to more concrete evidence after the attention has been redirected properly because of the hunch.

This can also backfire though. Hunches can lead you down a path of false assumption. Take the troubleshooting example: "Oh, I've seen this a thousand times. It has to be <xyz>!!!" and so you keep trying to solve the problem the same way, and it never works. The only way you end up breaking that loop is to assume your intuition is wrong, so you go back to step #1, abandon all assumptions, and begin taking precise measurements.

Intuition = good. Scientific method = good. It's all about context.

P.S. This is why I cannot prove my opinion. I only have a hunch this is how the universe / human mind operates. Until I gather some more measurable data then we're just speculating with each other. And that's cool, too.

 

This is what I am wondering about, where do they act "as one"?

I never seen a single aspect of reality where they acted as one. where is that portion of reality located where they act "as one"?

what point can you make by doing so?

in what sense?

when you say "maybe", do you mean that you have a argument to make for such a thing?. If so please present it.

I don't remember discussing a methodology in arriving at anything, did I?
I must have, to have you so confident that it is flawed.
Instead I just remember bringing up one specifc situation , from where we have since moved on from.
But please if you "think" I have layed out a methodology which you then preceded to find flaws in , unpack that for me nice to speak with you.

which part of it has NOT been explained?
as far as I know consciousness is a word only, a shortcut so to speak to describe the function of the advanced very developed brain.

Even if we had no explanation at all in any way, Im not sure anything we then invented in thought is a candidate, I believe we have to demonstrate possibility.

 

You don't have to prove anything to anyone
Just ask your intuition, don't confuse it with a hunch

assumptions & intuition do not go together...ask your intuition about it....an insight will come.

yes i agree, but that has to do with beliefs........your intuition or an insight that you may have does not leave space for doubt...if so it is not a real insight or your intuition speaking ....it is your emotion & your mind playing games

^ is that true ( the absolute truth) ? feel this before you answer.....take some years perhaps to answers things like this

i will leave you with this my good friend : intuition & insight are not fruits.....they are the roots of the tree

 

From my understanding we are not "random" people, in the sense we ourselves place significance on our own lives and the lives of ones we care about.

Next about the pure chance thing, The universe is governed by laws what I mean by this is there is a very specific way things work.
you cannot build a computer out of salami and coat hanger. the laws of chemistry are very specific.
E=mc2 is very specific. every aspect about reality what makes things "do as they do" is not "random" it is "specific"

we "meet" here because we are social creatures, we have invented computers and internet based on how reality works, next based on how we work we end u here, this entire process is opposite of "random" instead it is "specific"

 

my understanding is that the earth is tinier than spec of dust compared to our galaxy and there are at least 60 billion galaxy just in the "visible universe" ( scientists recognize becuase of the limitations of speed of light ,that the universe which is actually out there could be vastly larger than the tiny portion we are able to see)
this is important because it ties into the "big bang"
the "big bang" says that we have a limit to how far back we can look, the big bang is a boundary where ignorance takes over, because of the limitations of the speed of light.
the "big bang" has zero to do with the universe having a beginning itself, and everything to do with being a boundary we cannot see past due to the speed of light.
for example in many billions of years in the future, human telescopes will look out a see only the milky way , but no other galaxies due to them speeding away from each other over time, from their point of view it will look like there is only 1 single galaxy the milky way.

 

I think I get where you're going with this, but I think the terms intuition, insight, gut feeling, hunch, etc. are too nebulous and semantically imprecise.

I'm assuming you're after the idea that computers possess no intuition and therefore cannot draw organic conclusions, and can only reason within a defined algorithm, yet can hold and process knowledge very well. Conversely, humans can draw a conclusion from assorted and disparate sources and kinds of input, and this ability is what really gives us power to know and learn in a comprehensive, adaptable, expansive form.

If so, then I might agree, but I think intuition is more like imagining solutions and calculating their probabilities and that its accuracy/effectiveness can be honed via its own success record (which is independent for each individual, of course) and augmented by feedback from proved data. But, you have to make some intuitive leaps to be able to determine which methodology can actually prove data. In other words, you have to rely on your own intuition to gauge whether or not the scientific method is a dependable source, or if other people (publications, gossip, etc.) are trustworthy enough to incorporate into your worldview.

However, as there is always a degree of doubt about one's own faculties (am I trapped in a virtual reality, a la The Matrix?) then any argument or discussion about the "reality" of anything can go on forever without some kind of base assumption.

Intuition is essential, but I don't feel you can share the benefits of intuition with other people with any degree of success. I feel differently about knowledge. You might be able to inspire an intuitive leap in someone, but not with any certainty -- either a eureka moment comes, or it doesn't. In other words, I can show you how binary works, but I can't understand it for you. However, if you understand the concept of number bases, then I can share my knowledge of binary, hexadecimal, octal, logical AND, OR, and XOR very easily, as well as any further mathematics built upon it.

 

You know about this ^ ? how nice ! i had some experience with this when i was younger ....and no i'm not old now
See ? i feel all of us here at the end we are not random people having random conversations after all...maybe it is synchronicity ?

Your intuition is there to guide you in your life

a eureka moment is an insight ,,,,out of that comes knowledge...if the knowledge is true and meaningful.....your intuition will tell you that

i agree, lets not get very deep down the rabbit hole......then the mind will loop & it will need un quantize & some swing.

@Rasputin thank you for sharing your thoughts' really appreciate it .

i did not know when i started this thread where it will go.....
.....but here is my question to all :
what is the difference between intuition/insights & knowledge(scientific)/ideas/practice
what is the difference between chance, luck & synchronicity ?
is anyone inspired by this thread to make a trillion songs ?
That is the thread now
love you all

 

I am always open to whatever I find out reality is like. At the same time I m cautious about being gullible.
Any time I go into a situation where I have a desired result in mind, I try to be extra cautious to be objective about it.
It is real easy to be tricked to believing what you already wan to be true.
Do you guys agree with this or do you differ from this?