Are feelings and intuitions a valid source of knowledge?

**Linkzelda** · 07-04-2013 02:31 AM

Just going to post this table real quick for the sake of making it easier to conceptualize Intuition and Emotions on Conscious vs. Unconscious

A logical left brain without intuition lacks foresight! The deficiency of foresight is why we are in a huge environmental mess. Plastic bottles? Great for business. You think they planned to drown the sea in plastic? No one saw it coming. Our entire culture thinks almost solely with the left brain. Without engaging in that creative right brain - we are deficient in foresight.

Actually, with the logic of the intuition you stated before (which was superb until this moment with foresight), it sort of comes back being contradicting. Intuition itself, in order for it to not have any reaction, or to be void less of emotion, it doesn't necessarily become a catalyst or a fuel for foresight. Foresight is based on what will be or what will be needed for the future, and with need comes the Ego. The voice of ego is something that has a sense of urgency, and with foresight, the ego will have more control over that because of "need."

Intuition is not sustained by need, it is focused on the present. It does not worry about what happened before or what will occur sooner or later in the future. An easy example is just finishing a project without worrying too much on having enough resources or whatever. You just do it, you don't question it, it just happens with little to no cognitive processing.

Now, a lot of people think listening to intuition is dangerous. Its not dangerous, its more dangerous to ignore it. Almost all of formal education is geared for the left. We don't really study emotions in school. And we sure as hell didn't understand our own emotions as students. So I can understand why there's a lot of mistrust when it comes to following intuition. "I followed my heart and now my heart is broken!".

Foresight becomes a need due to a lack of awareness to solve a current situation/problem. It's how the unconscious or just the ego in general would use quantitative measures to make predictions that can justify a solution to some type of lack, be it:

- Do this right now

- You need to do this

- Or anything based on fear if one doesn't achieve something urgently or as soon as possible

Voice of intuition is patient, the ideas come by quick without you being able to process and analyze/justify it. With this, having a "lack" of intuition does not mean you don't have foresight. The ego would be more suited (at least have a larger role) with foresight since it has urgency from the lack that comes with needing something/someone/etc. . Intuition would create models of potentials one can take and much more, and the Ego, based the current situations of the present, it's making a call to action for something more suited to solve the problem as it deems fit

So think of Intuition as a Shotgun and Ego as a sniper rifle. Intuition has the expansive awareness while Ego (or conscious if you want to use that instead) shoots for whatever seems practical for the given situation.

Intuition is just saying, "Just putting these out there for you to play around with, I won't try to persuade you though."

Ego is saying, "Crap, which seat should I take?!?!?!"

The real problem is people are confusing emotions with intuition.

Following intuition = good. Following emotions = bad. Emotions are reactions! Basing an important decision off a fleeting emotion can be really really bad. I mean, tomorrow you might feel completely different!

Not necessarily, especially if you discussed about being self-reflective of your emotions being a good thing. So it's really about how people use Emotions based from reactions and aiming for a balance between Ego and Intuition. Become fixated with intuition, that sees things as simultaneously eventually might make the ego want to start sequencing the thoughts vertically (as in scale of importance).

So it's a matter of having more time seeing things "horizontally," or things of equal value a bit longer to presumably be with one's "intuitive" self.

Unfortunately, people trying to follow their own intuition end up following fleeting temporary emotions. But the more you spend time on self-reflecting your feelings the more you can spot the difference. Intuition is not fleeting.

The idea behind temporarily fleeting emotions is for one to focus on the present without giving much thought, to essentially be an "intuitive being" that's more focused on inspiration rather than what negative emotions can create ( the need to accomplish, achieve, or get something).

When you start becoming "self-reflecting," you are embracing the role of the Ego that aims to justify and quantifies your self of self, a concept of yourself and your identity. It's a matter of being aware (observing without critical thought) to become more shifted into intuition, not self-reflecting, huge difference there. Which is why one of the most practical ways to presumably become more with intuition, meditation (at least mindful meditation) focuses on the present. Which is why the concepts behind it teaches one to not linger on one thought for too long, but instead just observe and become aware of what's happening. It's not lending faith or investment that would entice one to have reactions.

Intuition can be a form of knowledge, but it isn't hesitant to inform us. Emotions is a form of knowledge that informs us in a different way based on urgency, or the reactions that are occurring.

Are they valid? That's based on how the ego tries to justify that (and with mental filters and all, one could be disregarding something that probably would've been beneficial if they had a better accumulation of experiential learning.

Having a call to action based on positive feelings usually might lead you into better scenarios. (Ego)
Having a call to action based on negative feelings (anxiety, anger, hatred, things that are usually byproducts of Fear that Ego has with "you need to do this now or else!") usually leads one into worse scenarios. (Ego)
Just being aware (not lending too much focus on one thought and having cognitive processes with reasoning) usually leads to something more into intuition.

That intuitive feeling can be described as "the feeling that you know or understand something prior to putting it in words". This intuitive feeling is never 'anger' 'hatred' or even 'passion'. Its simply that subtle feeling of knowing.

People tend to have a misconception that "I have a feeling" with intuition leads to some conclusive possibility (note with conclusive involves having cognitive processing already accomplished). But you're not going to know before having cognitive processes of reasoning and rationalizing (thinking). Once the processes are run through, that's when one starts thinking and comes to realization of the potential that intuition made us "feel" something is going to happen that led us to go about how to reach the solution. Intuition has alternative possibilities, but not the actual pathway of reasoning for Ego or Conscious to conceptualize why the alternatives are solutions.

So, because intuition is wrapped up in spiritual circles, some people conclude its the folly of religion and anti-logic and anti-science. Its not anti-science because its not anti-logic. Its simply how the right brain packages and delivers information. Lots of scientists follow their intuition when setting up experiments. And because intuition is not the experience of anger or hatred, it has nothing to do with any self-righteous fundie casting judgement on another.

Again, how a scientist "follows" intuition with experiments (which falls into the spectrum of Scientific method that is SEQUENTIAL) is a bit contradicting. Again, the sniper and shotgun analogy I used before can make it easier to conceptualize. When the scientist is going through those experiments, testing out potentials, it's a matter of pick and choose. It takes one sniper shot, reloads (picks another test during the experimentation), finds something that seems a bit more suitable (but may not be more conclusive), and takes another shot at precision until hopefully they can repeat whatever phenomenon the experiment is aiming for (solution).

But even with that, something as sequential as the scientific method for experimentation usually leads to predispositions that are limited (because there's one goal in mind, and trying everything out with the expansive awareness with intuition might just make the process confusing).

Does this mean that intuition is always right? Of course not. However, because the right brain deals with the big picture, when it comes to important decisions, its wisdom is greater than that of the left. Of course an even better brain is one that uses both equally.

Exactly, if one can practice how one learns unconsciously and consciously, both are deadly supplements towards accumulating experiential learning.

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by JoannaB

Except that I am also not comfortable with your definition of factual and of truth, or rather for me the statement that I do not believe that God is part of factual truth implies I do not really believe that God exists, and I very much do believe he exists.

What does factual verifiable truth have to do with belief?

Ok then, if you insist, I'll further refine the terminology - what you call knowledge in relation to the spiritual and religious realm is not verifiable by other people and also cannot be demonstrated to be true.

Here's what an intuition is - it's an idea that occurs to you and you don't know the source of it. If that idea is in relation to something spiritual or religious, it cannot be verified to be true in any concrete sense, so essentially you receive an idea that could have come from a divine or spiritual source or it could come from some part of your own mind, including the irrational unconscious, and you must simply decide whether you think it's true or not. The best a person can do as far as I can tell with that kind of intuition is to say "It just feels really true to me". And I don't see why any more than that is necessary?

And while I totally understand that feelings and intuitions are extremely important to you, nonetheless as we've been discussing, they lack any concrete factual basis that can be verified or demonstrated to be true. What would verifiable truth even mean in relation to a being who himself has no verifiable aspects? God is utterly beyond the reach of our knowledge. I don't see how it would be even possible for any intuition about him to be verifiable in any way - it makes no sense.

I made a thread last night where I discussed my own thoughts about the nature of God. I did believe in him at one time, and even then, I did not try to say that my thoughts about him were in some way factually true or verifiable. As I said there, and as you agreed, it's all about faith. I don't see any reason to pretend like it's anything other than that. Why must you try to find a basis in concrete objective fact? I never felt like I needed any such basis when I believed. All I needed was the belief itself.

**juroara** · 07-04-2013 03:29 AM

-for link

But intuition does become foresight - when the left brain is involved. According so some, that's where our sense of self or ego is. Its kinda hard for the left side to keep intuition as just that intuitive feeling - a lot of people will simply take that intuition and form some sort of plan of action (for better or for worse). So - were still on the same page, lol. Ego makes it foresight.

And sure, the scientific method is straight forward and has nothing to do with intuition, but that doesn't mean a scientists life is devoid of intuition. When scientists run into a problem, the solution is generally to view the information they have in a completely new and different way, which really engages the more creative right side.

Theres a good example floating around on ted. When a mathematical formula became too complicated to really perceive and work with, it was instead translated as a geometric form. The geometric form made it glaringly obvious that the previous formula was incomplete. But when looking at a bunch of numbers, the scientists couldn't readily recognize its incompleteness. That's a really bad description of that video, but if youve seen it then you know what im talking about.

All I mean is, even before you can use the scientific method to prove something, a lot of creativity, hunches or 'intuitive guesses' can be needed before ever setting it up. Most especially in leading edge sciences. And aren't there famous examples of scientists finally having that eureka moment from a dream?

**JoannaB** · 07-04-2013 03:48 AM

The thing is that even though I do believe that a belief in God is based on faith and not just on logic or empirical observations, and even though I believe that there is no knowledge without at least the potential for doubt, and I do believe that I can be wrong and probably am in some really important ways.

However, I also believe that God is real, that he is not a figment of my imagination, that I have personally experienced him with a sixth sense which I believe to be as real as my five senses even though I cannot prove it to anyone other than myself. And for me that is not just a feel good feeling but it is truth. I believe that God truely does exist. That I do not just believe in the idea of a God, but rather that there really is a God external to me as well as within me.

I am well aware that some of my beliefs are contradictory, and they are not logical but that does not mean that they are less valid. I believe logic is inadequate. I know that my beliefs are contrary to yours, and I do not wish to convert you to my beliefs, however I am very uncomfortable with some statements you make about my beliefs because I know that that does not accurately reflect what I believe. I believe that while we cannot verify the existence if God with anything but faith and conscience, but I believe that in spiritual matters faith and conscience are the sources of knowledge, and they can reveal truth, albeit a truth which is very personal. For me the word "objective" has mostly negative connotations, so no I do not claim that these spiritual truths are objective facts, though I do think they are as real as any other knowledge I have. Darn it! I don't think I can really explain this well to someone other than myself, but that is due to my limitations in communicating. I wish I could explain this better. Sometimes it is frustrating because these concepts are so complex and I feel like I am but a small child and novice in comparison.

Edit: I think a large part of the problem is one of translation. No, not because English is not my native language but because due to my experiences and my understanding of the world versus your experiences and your understanding of the world, I think most of the words we use come with completely different connotations, and when you say a word then I interpret it based on my understanding of that word even though I know that your meaning is different, and that is the case with so many words we use that it becomes much more difficult to communicate. I know that you have said (or at least I heard you say, though I may have misunderstood) that this is because my definitions of the words are wrong and yours are right, but I cannot agree with that. I think you would like for us to stick to your definitions of the words because that is what you are used to, and also then you would have homefield advantage in the debate I think. The thing is that my definitions are valid ones also held by many other people not just myself, or at least many people have similar definitions, and for me your definitions sound as foreign and wrong for me as my definitions sound to you. It's almost like if one of us said to the other what you call a house is really a car, so you must realize that you live in a car and drive your house to work. That would not make any sense to the other one, and it would sound completely wrong. And I have the sense that this is what our conversations often are like, and I do not believe it is anyone's "fault" and that one set if definitions only is right though, but it sure makes conversation complicated.

**Linkzelda** · 07-04-2013 05:13 AM

Spoiler for In Response To Darkmatters:

TL;DR

(Even though it wasn't directed to me), I don't know how I would justify how I would try to find basis in things that are consistent and most likely are going to be that way...but it's just always more interesting to find loopholes. I guess putting the burden on reality itself and then trying to find meaning for myself in just a state of consciousness with waking life isn't enough. And ultimately, for me, wanting to explore more into dreaming and exploration of self in dreaming life becomes so strong that closing it and letting it collect dust would just be masochism on my end.

Originally Posted by juroara

-for link

But intuition does become foresight - when the left brain is involved. According so some, that's where our sense of self or ego is. Its kinda hard for the left side to keep intuition as just that intuitive feeling - a lot of people will simply take that intuition and form some sort of plan of action (for better or for worse). So - were still on the same page, lol. Ego makes it foresight.

Yeah, I definitely agree with how you presented what intuition was (just slightly disagreed with how you explained it "leading" to foresight. I agree completely that Ego "makes" or "converts" parts of intuition into foresight because with foresight, it's a just one potential solution to consider based on the current situation at hand.

But for the left brain being where sense of self or Ego is, I guess that's plausible, and I agree to that, however, my interpretation of Sense of Self in terms of Ego is a bit different. For ego, I see it as Sense of Identity rather than Sense of Self. It would be Sense of Self, but just sense of self in waking life. Dreaming would be an extension that would shift our sense of self into something broader and expansive, or in some people's terms, "Oneness," "Whole," etc.

And how people define that...ho ho ho...yeah, I'll just leave it at that.

And sure, the scientific method is straight forward and has nothing to do with intuition, but that doesn't mean a scientists life is devoid of intuition. When scientists run into a problem, the solution is generally to view the information they have in a completely new and different way, which really engages the more creative right side.

Yeah you're right, I don't think scientists would be completely devoid of intuition, since they do have to have some kind of competence in working things out in varied amounts of ways.

All I mean is, even before you can use the scientific method to prove something, a lot of creativity, hunches or 'intuitive guesses' can be needed before ever setting it up. Most especially in leading edge sciences. And aren't there famous examples of scientists finally having that eureka moment from a dream?

Oh definitely, when it comes to something like a Scientist being in Antarctica, finding some weird microbe moving about in extremely cold whether, that would be an obvious inspiration for them to scoop it up safely, get the microscope, and potentially start getting egotistical with a new discovery. And then they would have some dream that could relate to the same unknown microbe they found on going about becoming acknowledged by other scientists for the discovery. And after that, just depends on where Science leads it to once it warmly accepts the concept into its rigid fortress of rationality and peer-review.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

The thing is that even though I do believe that a belief in God is based on faith and not just on logic or empirical observations, and even though I believe that there is no knowledge without at least the potential for doubt, and I do believe that I can be wrong and probably am in some really important ways.

Yeah, anyone can tell a scientist "What if you're wrong?" And then they'll respond something like this,

But even with that, it's just a matter of people flinging the question of "what if you're wrong" back and forth.

However, I also believe that God is real, that he is not a figment of my imagination, that I have personally experienced him with a sixth sense which I believe to be as real as my five senses even though I cannot prove it to anyone other than myself. And for me that is not just a feel good feeling but it is truth. I believe that God truely does exist. That I do not just believe in the idea of a God, but rather that there really is a God external to me as well as within me.

I would categorize that as experiential truth (with the sixth sense and all), but the type of concrete objective facts and truths that Darkmatters has the question on why people want to find a basis of theorizing the facts is something completely different from something subjective like yours.

But you see, right there when you stated "external to me" as well as "within me," ultimately, that will encroach Solipsism, thus it becomes a figment of your imagination. I'm not trying to insult your beliefs, because how anyone tries to delegate the burden of finding assurance in a belief is difficult, very difficult. And if your belief works for you, if it's an experiential truth (something that may not necessarily be true for others, but it is for you based on your experiences), than you should enjoy that truth you found in finding meaning for yourself and beyond. And I or anyone shouldn't aim to try and refute you, but again, there's people (not you though), like in those cult threads and "LUCIFER IS GONNA GIT YA" threads that just makes it hard to appreciate that specific person's right (who made those absurd threads with cults and such) to have security in their beliefs.

You know what I mean?

I am well aware that some of my beliefs are contradictory, and they are not logical but that does not mean that they are less valid. I believe logic is inadequate. I know that my beliefs are contrary to yours, and I do not wish to convert you to my beliefs, however I am very uncomfortable with some statements you make about my beliefs because I know that that does not accurately reflect what I believe. I believe that while we cannot verify the existence if God with anything but faith and conscience, but I believe that in spiritual matters faith and conscience are the sources of knowledge, and they can reveal truth, albeit a truth which is very personal. For me the word "objective" has mostly negative connotations, so no I do not claim that these spiritual truths are objective facts, though I do think they are as real as any other knowledge I have. Darn it! I don't think I can really explain this well to someone other than myself, but that is due to my limitations in communicating. I wish I could explain this better. Sometimes it is frustrating because these concepts are so complex and I feel like I am but a small child and novice in comparison.

Again, a better term to explain what you're going through is Experiential Truth. And what you stated in the last sentence when you have those feelings of inferiority (feeling like a small child), I can relate to you completely on that. Because even with my belief with walking on a rope between Agnosticism and Atheism, even when I have everything solved in and out, left and right, up and down....I always find myself wanting to go beyond that. And when I can't find a solution, or a justification that can sustain my assurance for a good bit until it starts draining again...it really sucks, it really does.

And that constant back-and-forth motion with my own concepts...it's almost a necessity in me being able to talk myself into being calm.
But hey, I guess it's something all of us are going to go through, even if someone's belief might be more "practical" or "true." So don't feel too bad about the complexity behind your belief, and I shouldn't feel too bad with the complexity behind mine. As long as we don't become defeatists, it's just more fuel for the thought (or Ego

), and that's a good thing, I guess?

Edit: I think a large part of the problem is one of translation. No, not because English is not my native language but because due to my experiences and my understanding of the world versus your experiences and your understanding of the world, I think most of the words we use come with completely different connotations, and when you say a word then I interpret it based on my understanding of that word even though I know that your meaning is different, and that is the case with so many words we use that it becomes much more difficult to communicate. I know that you have said (or at least I heard you say, though I may have misunderstood) that this is because my definitions of the words are wrong and yours are right, but I cannot agree with that. I think you would like for us to stick to your definitions of the words because that is what you are used to, and also then you would have homefield advantage in the debate I think.

Although it might seem like that, he is presenting interesting questions no doubt. And that should inspire people to really look into themselves and their beliefs and hopefully have a healthy discussion with him or anyone that makes a thread with an engaging set of questions. I see it more of rising to the challenge of seeing how people can break your worldview or view of reality. Because if you can climb over that, you just made yourself a better person overall. So you shouldn't see it as him trying to get the home-field advantage, see it as yourself just growing as a person when you're trying to formulate and make more justifications for your experiential truth and values.

No one is the enemy here, at least that's the implication I got from that quote you had. We're all people just trying to understand, that's all I think we're trying to get at.

The thing is that my definitions are valid ones also held by many other people not just myself, or at least many people have similar definitions, and for me your definitions sound as foreign and wrong for me as my definitions sound to you.

You see, that ends up with the inevitable argumentum ad populum. If many people believe so, it is so. But that right there, "It is so," that implies it is so for everyone. But you Joanna, clearly know that it's based on your endeavors of finding experiential truth, so ultimately, you can't use "the many people follow along with your belief as well".

I guess the question I could easily ask of you is,

"If all of those people were dead, gone, nothing but corpses, used to be full of life but are now mulches for the Earth, where do you delegate the assurance that comes with the argumentum ad populum now?"

You can't delegate that assurance on corpses anymore. Sure, you can delegate it through their memories, but what's really more important in the long run? You or them?

And even if I were to use the argumentum ad populum on my belief with Agnosticism and/or Atheism (or whatever I cherry pick), I can't fixate on other people's belief forever like that. You know that, and I know that, so what does it really boil down to? Aiming to be self-responsible, content with yourself, content that despite of the fact that you and I have beliefs that have their limits, we at least try to expand our awareness beyond that from time to time and put in other beliefs in our pockets for a good chuckle or interest later on.

It's almost like if one of us said to the other what you call a house is really a car, so you must realize that you live in a car and drive your house to work. That would not make any sense to the other one, and it would sound completely wrong. And I have the sense that this is what our conversations often are like, and I do not believe it is anyone's "fault" and that one set if definitions only is right though, but it sure makes conversation complicated.

Yeah, usually how we interpret it, especially with conversations like this, it's about others clarifying others, and it does usually get annoying and often ends up with people pretending to agree to disagree on something doesn't it?

I guess there's a limit, but overall, it is interesting to know the other person a bit more (for better or for worse).

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by JoannaB

.. I have personally experienced him with a sixth sense which I believe to be as real as my five senses even though I cannot prove it to anyone other than myself.

Ok, so it cannot be verified or demonstrated to be true.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

And for me that is not just a feel good feeling but it is truth. I believe that God truely does exist. That I do not just believe in the idea of a God, but rather that there really is a God external to me as well as within me.

Yes, belief. I'm totally with you so far.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I believe that in spiritual matters faith and conscience are the sources of knowledge, and they can reveal truth, albeit a truth which is very personal.

Of course! I never meant to imply that you can't have a personal belief that your intuitions are correct. When I say they're not verifiable, that means other people can't see your intuitions, and when I say they can't be demonstrated to be true it means pretty much the same, that you can't prove their truth to other people. So I guess you really have been misunderstanding me all along.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

For me the word "objective" has mostly negative connotations,

There's nothing either positive or negative about objectivity. It's just a term that has a particular meaning. And we've already agreed that we're not going to slip back into the "we can't really know things are as we perceive them" argument because we're forced to live our lives with the assumption that it really is as we perceive it, and if we stop doing that then everything becomes meaningless. At that point there's no use arguing about things that we perceive anymore, is there? If you really do want to use that argument then go ahead, but at that point the conversation is over.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I think a large part of the problem is one of translation. No, not because English is not my native language but because due to my experiences and my understanding of the world versus your experiences and your understanding of the world, I think most of the words we use come with completely different connotations, and when you say a word then I interpret it based on my understanding of that word even though I know that your meaning is different, and that is the case with so many words we use that it becomes much more difficult to communicate.

Yes, that's exactly why I've been making such a massive effort to try to really understand what you mean when it's clear we're using a term differently.

Originally Posted by JoannaB

I know that you have said (or at least I heard you say, though I may have misunderstood) that this is because my definitions of the words are wrong and yours are right,

Seriously? You're actually going to say that after I worked so hard to understand exactly what you meant by knowledge in a spiritual/religious context and then adjusted my own use of the term to match yours? You did say above that in a spiritual/religious context knowledge has a different meaning than it does in a factual/scientific context, that it's use is broader and less strict. So I accepted that and said that as long as you explain that to atheists, who take the word knowledge to mean something verifiable and demonstrable, then you won't have any problems. I've been working hard to accommodate you when we have a difference of opinion on the meanings of words. For example, if you have a different understanding of what verifiable or demonstrable mean, then please say so, and we can easily find the right terms, ones we can both agree on. I've clearly explained above what I mean with both of them, and they both involve other people being able to experience what you experience and corroborate that what you observed is also what they observed.

I want to make sure we can get over this definition problem, so please list any words that you feel mean something different from what I understand them to mean, and we'll work out a way to clear up communication. I've explained exactly what I take verifiable and demonstrable to mean - are we in agreement on those terms?

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

endless wall of incomprehensible text...

Link, man - I tried, I really did, but I'm sorry, I couldn't understand any of what you wrote. I read the first ten sentences or so (which took a long time) and must admit, I was utterly baffled by every one of them.

I'm already extremely exhausted by this topic and the two others I started last night, each of which has been keeping me incredibly busy trying to keep up with them, and I just don't have the wherewithal or the fortitude to wade through that. If you can put your statements into clear, understandable form that isn't so unbelievably long then I'll try to respond, ok?

**JoannaB** · 07-04-2013 10:10 AM

I am sorry Darkmatters, I do know that you try hard to understand and reach understanding of definitions. However, when I say that I hear you say that your definitions are right and mine are wrong, consider that it may not mean that this is what you actually said or meant but that some statements you made could be interpretted like that from my point of view, that this is how I read some of your statements. For example when you said "It's intellectually dishonest to use the term knowledge in this way knowing that people who aren't religious don't consider this knowledge at all. Why not just call it faith or belief? It seems like apologia, like an attempt to legitimize faith and pretend like it's somehow the same thing as facts."

You say that objectivity is neither positive nor negative. I say that it is impossible for a human being to keep emotion separate from thinking, and concepts have emotional connotations. For you objectivity is desirable in a debate, when you hear or say "objective debate", you feel positive about that. For me objectivity is impossible and not desirable even if it were possible, so when I hear "objective", I have a negative reaction to the word.

Btw, I cannot find this quote of yours right now, but I read somewhere that you stated that one needs to be careful not to confuse intuition with the subconscious or am I misremembering that? That the fact that the subconscious mostly works in metaphors shows that it is less reliable than conscious thought? For me, I agree that the subconscious often presents its a messages in metaphors which the conscious mind is more likely to misinterpret, however the fault there may well be the conscious mind's. it is not necessarily that the subconscious is incorrect in using metaphors and that its messages are therefore distorted, but rather that the conscious is limited in its ability to understand and that it is that limit in understanding that makes the communication between subconscious and conscious frustrating. At times the subconscious may have a better understanding of complex concepts which cannot be yet expressed by conscious thinking using the limited language of the conscious thinking. A metaphor is often a much richer way of expressing thoughts, one can pack a lot more meaning into a metaphor - sort of like a picture says a thousand words, and metaphors can communicate ideas for which our language is inadequate because we do not have quite the right words for them yet. So the subconscious is definitely a source of knowledge from where I am standing. Now that knowledge may be misinterpreted because the conscious is not a good enough source or interpreter of knowledge.

Edit: Another thought that occurred to me to illustrate the words have feelings attached to them idea: One person says "This car is fast." And another person hears it. However, the first person may like fast cars and think of the thrill of driving fast or of the technological achievement of making such a fast car in a positive way. The person listening may be scared of fast cars, and perhaps had a relative who died in a car accident, so this person hears the statement as negative. The solution to communication is not to tell these two people to be objective and take the feelings out of the statement, because they cannot do that, I believe because the statement is emotionally laden for both of them, and while they may pretend to be objective about it but then they would be deluding themselves and the person they are communicating with. So the person saying that the car is fast cannot just tell the other person to take that statement objectively. Instead communication is improved by both of them explaining the connotations, understanding that the other means or interprets this same statement with a different set of connotations, and trying to empathize with the other person's point of view. Now the person who likes fast cars will continue to like them, but he may after an honest conversation also understand why the listener has a strong negative reaction to fast cars. Saying that the car is fast objectively is meaningless for that conversation between those two people, and not explaining the connotations just creates misunderstanding because the listener will hear the same statement completely differently than intended by the speaker. And neither of them is right, both are correct interpretations of the car is fast from their two distinct points of view.

Now when I hear the word "objective," for me it comes with the connotations of "useless," "impossible," and "arrogant". I cannot help it those are my feelings whenever I hear anyone say objective. Now, I understand that you feel very differently about that term, and you say that a debate needs to try to be objective, I believe. For me, that is not true. Does that mean we cannot have a conversation? I believe we can. However, conversation between us at this point in our lives with our current perspective that each of us brings to it will be very frustrating and emotionally laden. However, I want to have such conversations because if I only had conversations with likeminded people my mind would become stagnant - growth of ideas requires communication with those who bring a completely different perspective to the conversation. And that is what I value about communicating with you because you help me change my ideas - it may be gradual, and not necessarily in the direction of your ideas always, in fact on some points conversation with you may lead me further in the opposite direction, whereas on other points I will indeed get closer to your understanding. Oh, and then there is also the option that my thoughts as a result of conversations with you might go into a third direction that is neither toward your way of thinking nor opposite, but a third path which I may not have been aware of before having the conversations with you, and which may surprise both of us of how I might have gone in that direction which may seem strange to both you and me.

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 12:27 PM

Yes, you've said several times already that there's some confusion when people have different understandings of words. I thought we were working to clear that up? I had asked you to list any words you feel are unclear.

But really all this talking about talking is getting pretty far off topic.

Getting back to the main focus - you've agreed a few times that intuition is inherently different from anything that can be demonstrated to other people and verified by them, so obviously guaging the (objective) truthfulness of an intuition is a bit problematic when it concerns God or anything supernatural. We're dealing with internal thoughts of unknown origin about something that by definition nothing can be known about. And yet you want to insist that somehow you know your intuitions are (objectively) right but you can't explain how.

As I see it the only off-key statement here is your claim that the knowledge you gain from intuitions about God is somehow objectively true. How could it be, and why should it be? You said you don't like objectivity anyway, why would you want to claim that your knowledge about God is objectively true? I'd think that would be unimportant to you, or even distasteful. It seems to me you would actually prefer to have intuitive knowledge about God that doesn't need to be demonstrated to others or verified by them. I mean, we can't know anything (in the objective sense) about God anyway, right? I think you agreed with that elsewhere, didn't you? And you also agreed that when it comes to religion it's all about faith.

As far as I'm concerned there's a basic schism between objective factual knowledge and God or anything supernatural anyway - the two are mutually exclusive. The realm of God is a realm of intuitive understanding, faith and belief, not of objective scientific facts and experiments. Does this make sense to you, and would you agree?

**Linkzelda** · 07-04-2013 02:10 PM

Sorry about that Darkmatters, the point I was making with the question you had with people trying to find a basis, or theorizing too much with what's considered concrete and verifiable truth or fact is that it's just based on collaboration from others that all saw consistency behind whatever led them to that fact. But like with what I said for Joanna, even when there's evidence (anecdotal for her case) that sustains some truth, peer-review and people attempting to reason with each other doesn't mean the concrete and solid fact won't have loopholes. Which is why people would still try to make some underlying meaning behind a fact or truth that's easy for most people to perceive (and this urge to find find the underlying meaning would involve a singular endeavor in Introspection behind it initially before discussed with others).

The belief itself and just that is what's not enough for others that want to know as much as they can behind why they want to have assurance in the belief.

---

And yeah, Joanna acknowledges that her medium of faith is based on Experiential truth, but the Argumentum ad populum she expressed with how she tried to use other people's similarities in her belief, in order to try to make it some kind of objective truth (with the "If people believe it is so, it is so"). So really, she can't state that the existence of God, or there being a God, or that people who have assurance in the possibility/probability of a God being there as objective truth, just experiential truth and nothing more. Because God and how people have their own schema of defining the word is based on their experiences, and experiences themselves at most become anecdotes, but not concrete objective truth or facts.

So no matter how she tried to word it, she can't shift God or the concepts behind God in objective truth, which is why she felt it was too complex and was left with nothing to add on other than thinking you were trying to get the home-field advantage. She just isn't able to answer the question, or at least doesn't want to admit that God is just in the realms of intuition and solely just that unless there somehow is quantitative, empirical, and solid evidence in a Deity/super natural entity.

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 08:46 PM

Nicely done!! Thank you for that!

I agree with you for the most part, though I'd say there's more to verifiable fact than just collaboration - there's also demonstrability. Some things can be demonstrated to be true, like for instance ballistics testing can prove a bullet was fired from a particular gun. And of course, before you or anyone else says it - I'll add "within a margin of doubt". There's always the possibility, however slight, that two different guns might give exactly the same ballistics test results, but of course if a gun found in the possession of the prime suspect is found to be ballistically a perfect match for the bullet and has traces of the victim's blood on it as demonstrated by DNA testing, then tha'ts pretty conclusive evidence!! And other factors can play in as well, like maybe the suspect was also seen entering the victim's apartment with the gun shortly before neighbors heard a gunshot. That's another factor, that things that are objectively verifiable can be tested in multiple ways, and if you get a positive test result in two or more different kinds of tests then that reduces the chances of being wrong to very nearly nothing.

Good catch on the term Experiential Truth. I'll look into that, because Ive been wondering if I might have missed any possibilities. Now that I have the term for it I can look around and read about it, and that way I should be able to find various things people have said about experiential truth.

One big strike against experiential truth of course, especially when it concerns a subject that doesn't exist in the physical world in any sense like God, is that people have said God told them to murder people. And obviously those people were totally convinced of the truthfulness of that claim.

Five possibilities as I see it -

1 They were insane.

2 God really did tell them to do it.

3 Something else told them to do it and called itself God and they were unable to ascertain the difference.

4 They were just lying.

5 It might have been a hallucination or dreamlike phenomenon.

Obviously there's no way to prove most of these, aside from whether the person is insane or not. But once we've eliminated insanity, there are still several options with absolutely no way to tell which one is real. And I don't mean just no way for other people to tell which was real, but for that person as well.

This is why I say intuitions, unless they're verifiable in some way (like if they relate to something in the physical world that you can check, such as a sudden feeling that your oil is running dangerously low and needs to be filled for example) are the realm of faith and belief and trust. Are there any others I'm missing? When someone has an intuition about God, is there some more reliable way to determine whether it was true or not? Inside your head, when it comes to thoughts that can't be verified through logic or math or scientific experimentation or comparison with known factors in any way, what else is there? I don't see any reliable way of knowing a thought like that is correct. Nor do I see a reason or need to claim that such knowledge is possible. Since it could actually be any of the 5 factors I listed above (we'll discount insanity in Joanna's case, though an insane person might not know they're insane or might be in denial of the fact) then how can you corroborate the truthfulness? How can it be more than a strong suspicion or feeling that you're right?

And one final factor - The people who strongly believe in the power of intuitions have a vested interest in promoting them as something other than hunches or feelings. Obviously since they believe strongly that intuition is something special and is usually or always right, and since it gets a bad rap all the time, there's strong incentive for them to keep insisting that somehow they know there's more to it than just a hunch or a feeling, and that they somehow know their intuitions are correct but just can't explain how. So they have motive to lie or to distort the truth, or to themselves have a distorted concept of the truthfulness of their own intuitions.

Ok, I'll be searching around for some web pages concerning this that might be able to provide some better possibilities. I think I've made a strong case that there's no way to verify the truthfulness of intuitions when the subject of them is invisible and intangible and in-everything-else-ible. And so far throughout this lengthy conversation no-one has been able to poke any holes in it. But in the interest of being thorough I'll attempt myself to falsify my own findings.

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 10:47 PM

Of course, there are real tragedies on set. Does anyone remember the accident that took place on John Landis' failed production of The Twilight Zone?

Yes...I know a little something about that...yet another example of some 'uber weirdness' surrounding the movie business.

Vic Morrow and the two young children (working illegally) that got wiped out by that helicopter, a scene that involved dangerous FX etc. An explosion occurred too near a very low flying helicopter (supposedly at Landis' request to fly perilously low) and it was sent off course and careered into the actors.(KIlling them)

Vic Morrow seemed to have an innate fear that he would be killed by a helicopter...I did a little about it...the content of which, is not really suitable to be posted here. It's all very twilight zone...literally! (Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, Donner post)

Earlier in his career (9 years earlier), Morrow was in a film called Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (with Peter Fonda). There was a scene where he was supposed to fly in a helicopter. "I’m not getting up in the helicopter… I have a premonition that I’m going to get killed in a helicopter crash."

This is an exchange from another message board I frequent, which took place in the last couple of days.

Ironically I myself had a sudden and very strong premonition last night.

It was late, like around 3 in the morning, and being the nocturnal creature I am I was loading the dog in the car to go to Jack-in-the-Box for dinner. For some unfathomable reason I had a sudden very strong premonition, just a sort of stab of wild panic accompanied by a vague image of a car crash and maybe a sound like screeching tires and smashing metal and glass. I stopped for a moment and almost decided not to go, especially because I switched on the radio and the song Baby Please Don't Go Down To New Orleans was on, and I kept hearing the line Please Don't Go over and over to the point that it made me really nervous. I sort of laughed nervously and switched the station at the same time promising myself that if the next song seemed to be saying something similar we'd turn around and go right back home for the night. The next song was Maneater by Hall and Oates. There's a line where he says "I wouldn't if I were you", and immediately on realizing what song it was that line popped into my head. I decided that if I hear that line we'll turn around, but apparently it was already past that part of the song, and I never heard it.

I was extremely nervous though, while at the same time laughing about my own gullibility, and I sat for a long moment at an intersection where I couldn't decide if I wanted to go right and get back home or go left to get my Jumbo Jack. In the end hunger won out and we went. No accident, but there was a very close call. I was driving on a dark road completely empty of other cars when movement caught my eye just ahead of the car, and I immediately slowed down fast to the point of almost stopping. It was a raccoon running across the street just in front of the car, and it's really lucky that I saw it in the dark. Perhaps if I hadn't been hyper-alert for danger because of the premonition I might have hit it. Being still in a cautious frame of mind I continued driving very slowly even after it was across, and good thing I did, because there was another one behind it!

Now a case can be made that I might have hit them, killing them or perhaps me and Pepper as well, if I hadn't been driving so carefully due to the premonition. But then again, I also would have been already past that point when they crossed if I hadn't hesitated so long at that intersection earlier.

**Linkzelda** · 07-04-2013 11:01 PM

And one final factor - The people who strongly believe in the power of intuitions have a vested interest in promoting them as something other than hunches or feelings. Obviously since they believe strongly that intuition is something special and is usually or always right, and since it gets a bad rap all the time, there's strong incentive for them to keep insisting that somehow they know there's more to it than just a hunch or a feeling, and that they somehow know their intuitions are correct but just can't explain how. So they have motive to lie or to distort the truth, or to themselves have a distorted concept of the truthfulness of their own intuitions.

When people get to that level where they can't connect the dots anymore, where they distort the truth and lie to gather meaning, it's just Apophenia. And it's most apparent with religion because despite of the countless..COUNTLESS claims (especially with the argumentum ad populum), people still use that despite them saying it's just experiential truth.

Which is why I asked Joanna if those same people she shares the assurance of there being a Christian God or a God of her medium of faith were suddenly dead and nothing but corpses, how would she find people to delegate her urge to have assurance in her experiential truth?

The answer to that is that she simply can't live with a contradicting logic like that, because she has to stick to it being an experiential truth alone and not trying to use other people's opinions on it (because that's an endeavor of making it an objective truth, especially with percentages). Using other people's similarities in one's belief is an excuse, and is honestly distorting them from the harsh reality that they're clearly in the wrong in trying to make it an objective truth.

So in a way, it's not them trying to distort or lie to have a skewed concept based on their intuition, it's to have a skewed concept based on their Ego. That's very important, VERY important, because with how I addressed intuition, encroaching Religion with intuition automatically becomes the work of the Ego. Because Intuition, for it to be just a strong suspicious or just strong hunch, it can't possibly include that religion suddenly is the only plausible way to find morality or understanding empathy. That's just the work of the Ego because thinking religion becomes plausible involves a conscious cognitive processing of some sort, which is what Intuition shouldn't be confused with.

So it doesn't become a question of Intuition or emotions being a valid form of knowledge, it's whether or not it's "plausible." Intuition, which usually deals with expansive awareness, can only be practical to use if the conscious can be as expanding as the unconscious. But unfortunately, because of this, it's not going to be considered valid in objective terms because cognitive processes can't really be done without some personal feeling into them.

Unless the person has unparalleled humility and expansive awareness in themselves, seeing Intuition and Emotions as valid forms of knowledge (in these specific parameters) becomes an automatic lost cause. But it can become a plausible form of knowledge (doesn't have to be valid, but if it justifies something, it can be led to be true to someone, even if it is distorted or skewed).

Ok, I'll be searching around for some web pages concerning this that might be able to provide some better possibilities. I think I've made a strong case that there's no way to verify the truthfulness of intuitions when the subject of them is invisible and intangible and in-everything-else-ible. And so far throughout this lengthy conversation no-one has been able to poke any holes in it. But in the interest of being thorough I'll attempt myself to falsify my own findings.

It's because you've been dead on from the start, because those 5 pointers you stated, no matter how I would try to explain which one is more apparent, are the usual signs with people who are led to believe that a certain faith is right. That killing people, committing suicide through acts of terrorism would enable them to achieve divinity and heaven (this is just for an example of course). To be honest, even when people are taught to think that, they are still good people (not for their actions, just people who are sadly gullible in seeking anything that can give them a happy life, because we all would want a life that has more happiness and is less conflicting). I know that's kind of difficult to conceptualize, but it brings me back to the word "Plausibility," and including "critical factor."

Any authority figure (or someone that pretends to have less authority to be less intimidating for people trying to find assurance with belief) with religion that can bypass a person's critical factor can make what would seem implausible (killing and bombing for the sake of reaching heaven) more plausible.

And it's fairly simple to make people think implausible things are plausible, and here's how they can do it (in a nut shell).

1. Set up agreement frames [Stating things anyone can agree with automatically with little to no cognitive processing, like]

"Better late than never"
What they're actually wearing
Or even going over what they said in a different wording

(These really do help in unconsciously getting the person into the vibe of agreeing (it may be not 100%, but it's about creating the potential of them agreeing that's important to implant those skewed suggestions)

2. Slip in the suggestion that would be considered negative and implausible if the person had a higher critical awareness before falling for the agreement frames that distracted their critical factor

3. Go back and forth with distracting the individual's critical factor with the agreement frames, words to make them contemplate and imagine, etc.

4. Repeat and then make implications that the individual can unconsciously accept the suggestions given to them (of course, this would be done indirectly)

These 4 steps (there's more, but I'm making it short for the sake of being concise) are what people usually do naturally when tempting someone to think something becomes plausible.

The goal in order to do that is to make the person focus more on the event that the authority figure WANTS them to imagine as right, beneficial, and worthy of doing to achieve the twisted schema of achieving happiness. And because we are people that can imagine and foresee ourselves being in the place we want to be, that's how people can be led to think something is plausible once their unconscious says "yes" "yes" "yes" yes!" with the agreement frames.

**Darkmatters** · 07-04-2013 11:39 PM

^ More excellent points!

I've looked at several articles now about Experiential Truth, and I was rather surprised to find that so far every site mentioning it is religious. I was under the impression that it isn't just a strictly religious term? I suppose I should say spiritual rather than religious really.

All the articles I've seen are in agreement that nothing about experiential truth is objective or verifiable, and in fact they seem to agree that's a strength, not a weakness. They all equate it with belief and faith.

One article included a brief example about a person who is in some kind of desperate hopeless situation and has abandoned all hope, when suddenly they're filled with experiential truth and they stop thinking about the world in terms of concrete facts etc and instead concentrate on religious revelation, bringing hope and security back into their lives.

Obviously this is a major benefit of experiential truth - the inner truth is at times far more important than external facts. Especially in emotional situations. However, that doesn't indicate in any way that God touched that person. It's well known that in such dire situations psychology will do the same thing. In fact the mind is very susceptible to change in extreme situations - example, if someone's childhood is very chaotic and a parent is harsh or uncaring to a great degree so that the child isn't able to get the love form the parents he needs, the mind re-organizes itself in such a way that the person now feels love coming in all the time, by switching things around such that the child interprets everything a person does to them as love, even when it's not. This is known as Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and creates a person who's profoundly out of touch with reality (objectively) and lives in a sort of imaginary world in which any time other people pay any attention to them it's interpreted as good attention, even when it quite obviously isn't. I have a friend with NPD, and he used to ride a motorcycle insanely all the time, weaving in between cars on the highway up the center line etc, and then he'd lovingly reminisce about all the attention he got for it. I'd say "Yeah, they were all looking at you with their mouths hanging open, because they couldn't believe what a stupid asshole you are and how you're endangering everybody's life for a stupid thrill!"

His response was contempt and disregard, with some stupid dismissive statement like "They're a bunch of dumbasses who are afraid to live on the edge, and when they see somebody like ME they just can't believe it".

His brain obviously responded to a situation of hopelessness by re-wiring itself so that his interior beliefs became more real to him than any external realities. This happens to a lot of people. Obviously I'm not saying religious and spiritual people are all self-deluded fools and dangerous. Though some are - there's always an inherent element of danger when people are utterly convinced their own distorted version of reality is more real than anything else.

A person with NPD does not believe there's anything wrong with him or her - they believe resolutely that they're right in their worldview, and that everyone else is wrong, and they engage in an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance in order to maintain the illusion. If you insist on pointing out the falsity of their beliefs they will at first argue using all kinds of logical fallacies, taking refuge in new ones each time you dismantle one, and then they'll just get mad and stop talking to you.

Joanna, I'm obviously not saying you suffer from some delusion like Narcissistic Personality Disorder! Everyone defending that which can't be defended using logic or experimentation will engage in logical fallacies to try to obscure the logical points being raised against them.

And again, my whole point is simply that intuition cannot be objectively proven to be reliable. I don't understand why anybody would try to argue that it can, especially when they're unable to provide any good arguments. I think that's just cognitive dissonance.

I maintain that in matters both of intuition and spirituality objective fact is impossible and irrelevant, and that what's known as experiential truth, or what I call belief and faith (which is supported by all the articles I've seen about it so far), is appropriate and all that's necessary.

**Linkzelda** · 07-05-2013 01:32 AM

I've looked at several articles now about Experiential Truth, and I was rather surprised to find that so far every site mentioning it is religious. I was under the impression that it isn't just a strictly religious term? I suppose I should say spiritual rather than religious really.

All the articles I've seen are in agreement that nothing about experiential truth is objective or verifiable, and in fact they seem to agree that's a strength, not a weakness. They all equate it with belief and faith.

One article included a brief example about a person who is in some kind of desperate hopeless situation and has abandoned all hope, when suddenly they're filled with experiential truth and they stop thinking about the world in terms of concrete facts etc and instead concentrate on religious revelation, bringing hope and security back into their lives.

Obviously this is a major benefit of experiential truth - the inner truth is at times far more important than external facts. Especially in emotional situations. However, that doesn't indicate in any way that God touched that person.

Yeah, when a person starts lending their faith that God is the one that has bigger and better plans for them, that they'll be in control in their lives, offering their belief to an imaginary entity like that is making them less in control of their lives. Because for anyone to lend their ability to train themselves to become calm in dire situations of powerlessness and hopelessness means that entity they want to sublimate positive intentions for them isn't obligated to do that.
It's almost as if one's engaging in sadomasochism thinking that by lending faith to an imaginary deity outside their spectrum of reality, that the deity feels they're obligated or that they're more than happy to fulfill that person's desire to keep themselves in check or whatever.

---
However, even with that, it gets more complicated, especially when people start lending faith in dream characters or thought-forms in their dreams. A prime example is how people conceptualize dream guides or higher aspects of themselves (keyword being "themselves" and not some entity outside the spectrum of their perception of reality in waking and dreaming life).

I often find that it feels more practical for one to take advantage of the unconscious' way of collaborating with other aspects of their minds to emulate the feeling of assurance that comes with how people conceptualize dream guides, etc. They're lending their faith to themselves, or an implication of a higher aspect of themselves. The same way people lend their faith to a deity/entity beyond their spectrum of reality. In this case, how people interact with dream characters and can utilize lucid dreaming to emulate sensations that can keep themselves in check and maintain balance with sense of self, all that can be done without putting "God" into the equation.

They're simply using their mind's ability to create these simulations and virtual realities to cope with things they lack in waking life, or what they need to work towards.

But the question just begs if this case of slight Solipsism is more practical than lending faith to an abstract entity beyond a person's perception of reality?

Because when I contemplate on that a bit, I often find myself that people are just engaging in skewed Solipsism when they lend faith towards a God, that it's really just them reaching out to the inner self to provide solutions. I would like to know your opinions on this, I left the concept a bit in muddy waters, but just to see if you have something different to discuss on this.

I state "slight" Solipsism, since I know that at some point, we do see ourselves and dream characters as parts of ourselves that we know to exist (within dreaming), but not to the point where we have implications that waking reality and the people within it are aspects of ourselves in absolute terms.

(Compared to something like how people go around with the saying that when you kill someone you kill a part of yourself or something of that nature in a metaphorical sense).

NPD friend

People want to have the sense that they're in control in their lives, and with NPD, it's as if they're just.....hopeless. They go through this superiority complex, like your friend that went out to show off with his motorcycle and how much on the edge he's in. He expresses feelings of superiority with a random set of individuals, out of the BILLIONS of people in this world, just those random set of people within his region is enough to justify to him that he's in control. I mean, I get that we need people to relate to and share ideas and opinions with, but when the person starts thinking they're the top dogs, they're the ones in full control and no one else can do so, I guess the complex comes with instinctive predispositions to be alert, always on the edge, diligent, being able to think on the fly, etc.

And his habit also brings a quick idea into mind that when people want to express confidence or having more authority than others:

- They tend to expose their neck, chest, and groin areas more confidently. Because usually, a jittery or shy or reserved person would instinctively want to protect themselves. Because when he goes out motorcycling, I'm sure he just spreads his arms out, wears the typical biker outfit (or whatever) with confidence, and when he goes about having his thrill, it's way of saying,

"Hey, I have so much control in my life that the environment that I'm in isn't dangerous for me!"

I guess with the unconditional love the mind can provide (especially with reformatting one's schema of things in dire situations), it becomes a double-edged sword.

**Darkmatters** · 07-05-2013 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Linkzelda

Because when I contemplate on that a bit, I often find myself that people are just engaging in skewed Solipsism when they lend faith towards a God, that it's really just them reaching out to the inner self to provide solutions. I would like to know your opinions on this, I left the concept a bit in muddy waters, but just to see if you have something different to discuss on this.

Yeah, I often suspect that what people see as God(s) or spirits or whatever is really some aspect of their own psychology that they're interpreting as something external, because as you said earlier the unconscious mind is much bigger than the conscious mind and what exists in the unconscious is often seen as alien or external, just as it is in dreams.

Of course that can be turned to different purposes depending on the individual - some people will use their belief in God to justify their own actions that they don't want to take responsibility for - like you said earlier about religious terrorists. Or sometimes an unscrupulous religious leader can use brainwashing tricks to motivate his 'flock' to do his own selfish bidding (to send money to him or whatever). But of course this is on an individual basis - moral/ethical people will mostly understand whether their own actions are ethical or not, except in cases where their deeply held religious beliefs tell them it's necessary to act a certain way. And obviously many religious people don't obey all the dogmatic rules such as stoning their neighbors for working on the sabbath etc. So I think that depends largely on the person.

But then, more in line with what I posted on my Thoughts on God thread, the kind of God I used to believe in is closer to something natural, and would express itself through a person's unconscious. But if a god does that, then you'd have no way to tell if it's him calling or some hidden unconscious fear or complex or belief.

About the NPD thing - it does't always manifest as people becoming daredevils or anything, different people express it in their own ways. My friend was a tough guy who's dad drove a tow truck and had an incredibly harsh hard-working blue collar attitude and was also a tough guy himself. So lifelong conditioning in the necessity for being tough and bold played a strong part, as well as high testosterone. I've known a few other NPD people, and they're all quite different.

As far as I'm concerned this thread is done unless somebody wants to provide either some good evidence that intuitions about God can be somehow tested for truthfulness or has a good way to falsify my statements that they can't.