Intuition Evolution

[Aylen]

"We say our Intuition is our sixth sense,” Mitchell continues. “No, it should be our first sense because it is rooted in the quantum reality which was around long before our sensory mechanism, long before our solar system. It is a first cause information structure in nature. And this is what the Quantum Intuition world is all about."

To the Moon and Back:
What Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell
Says About Intuition


Apollo 14’s Edgar “Ed” Mitchell was the 6th out of 12 astronauts to walk on the moon. The surreal experience of space and time inspired him to spend these last few decades exploring the elusive workings of consciousness, including intuition. Mitchell founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences, or IONS, in 1973 and began collaborating with many well-known scientists. Today, their findings are shared with those of us down here on Earth through the IONS website and videos.

One of those videos features Mitchell explaining Quantum Intuition, a relatively new theory that takes the mysticism out of a seemingly spiritual concept. His words bridge quantum physics with evolution and leave the viewer with a fuller understanding of pre-cognitive ability.

Mitchell explains, "All objects, our bodies, this, that, everything emit particles of light…those emissions are quantum entangled, coherent, holographic and carry information about us.” The holographic reference regards Quantum Hologram Theory which states that all information for any dimension is present and available in the second dimension. But the big punch here is “light”. Because our emitted info-packed light particles all entangle or mash together, we are able to share information at our deepest sub-cellular, sub-nuclear level and through spacetime. So, even when two people are separated by miles, their emissions can still connect with and affect each other. Thus, the sharing of intuitive information, often demonstrated when out-of-the-blue we think of someone who then suddenly rings our phone.

“We say our Intuition is our sixth sense,” Mitchell continues. “No, it should be our first sense because it is rooted in the quantum reality which was around long before our sensory mechanism, long before our solar system. It is a first cause information structure in nature. And this is what the Quantum Intuition world is all about."
Of course it is!

Our 5 rudimentary senses came along long after our intuitive senses. This is why instinct was so strong in early man, not just because it had to be to keep people safe from pending danger, but because it was the first information link to be structured. Quantum Intuition has always been prevalent in humans, and now many researchers believe it helped evolve our DNA to where it is today. And since the dawn of man, our intuitive abilities have developed right alongside those genetic codes.

Mitchell wraps things up by presenting evolution as a “learning process,” and points out that thanks to brave thinking and technological advancements, “We’re starting to understand (the universe) quite differently than our predecessors did even a few decades ago.”

We've come a long way from a flat earth!

Enjoy Dr. Mitchell's interview here:
http://twis.s3.amazonaws.com/mac/vid...hell/index.htm

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

[Aylen]

[Words]

From an evolution perspective I wonder if there is any advantage to being N or S. Does any particular function preference grant a reproductive and survival advantage? What about T and F? I am not sure if there is any evolutionary advantage to any of them so I wonder the purpose of them being there and therefore does it really exist and as a non changeable trait?

[wacey]

From an evolution perspective I wonder if there is any advantage to being N or S. Does any particular function preference grant a reproductive and survival advantage? What about T and F? I am not sure if there is any evolutionary advantage to any of them so I wonder the purpose of them being there and therefore does it really exist and as a non changeable trait?

I've often wondered as well why the traits survive at all from each generation. They most confer some social advantage and disadvantage in order to be perpetuated and fairly evenly distributed among groups and communities. Some people noticing this facet of reality and others noticing some other facit.

Although, socionics theory may just deal with facets of reality that are strictly cultural and community centric, balancing each other out only within a human community paradigm, starting at the family level, with extended family, then community of families and eventually societies and nations.

This really begs the question, at least for me, was the sociotypes present PRE CULTURE? Were the 16 types roaming the Earth, perhaps in hunter gatherer societies? Was there ancient Stirlitz? A pro-magnon Don -Quixote? A primal Dostoyevsky? Were their researcher club men and women from both quadras, trying to solve life's puzzles like how does a bow and arrow work? Were there self assured Beetles roaming the landscape, making sure the group fought for survival? Maybe a charismatic Hamlet making everyone believe they can read the weather in the bones?

I'm being serious here. Are the sociotypes a response to culture, or are they innate in the make-up of what makes us human? Because if the later is true, then the informational elements have been inside mankind for a very, very long time. And if this is the case, because they have survived for a thousand, thousand generations, (about 50-70,000 years we have been "human") then this means there must be a high fidelity for balance among the informational elements, T, F, S, N, and a proper distribution among human populations throughout history and continents.

[Pookie]

Its information metabolism, I struggle to see how they wouldnt be present in any self aware being.

[marooned]

I'm being serious here. Are the sociotypes a response to culture, or are they innate in the make-up of what makes us human? Because if the later is true, then the informational elements have been inside mankind for a very, very long time. And if this is the case, because they have survived for a thousand, thousand generations, (about 50-70,000 years we have been "human") then this means there must be a high fidelity for balance among the informational elements, T, F, S, N, and a proper distribution among human populations throughout history and continents.

the information elements are categories of information types. they, and the functions, are concepts in our minds.

[wacey]

Fi----> Cohesion.
Fe----> Expression.
Si----> Safety.
Te----> Knowledge.
Ti-----> Concentration.
Se----> Reality.
Ni-----> Causation.
Ne----> Imagination.

Each is boiled down to what the IE really are at the core, before culture.

[wacey]

the information elements are categories of information types. they, and the functions, are concepts in our minds.

Of course, everything is a concept, a working description of reality. Concepts are explanations, usually in words, of phenomena that can be experienced, described, imagined. As such, concepts are both real and unreal. Real in that they are agreed upon truths of the relative world, and unreal in that they described apparent reality with limited human capacity.

Just because they are concepts, however, does not make what they are describing any less "real". Gravity is a concept, yet the truth of gravity exists even so, pre-description.

Its this "pre-decriptions, the reality before the concepts" of informational elements and sociotype that fascinates me.

[wacey]

Its information metabolism, I struggle to see how they wouldnt be present in any self aware being.

I agree, the Informational metabolisms seem to be inherent in the reality of having a body, a mind, and social environments. They are there, because they have always been there.

Whose to say that other creatures are not cognizant of certain informational elements at any given time as well? For example, a dog might be conscious of introverted sensing information, or even extroverted feeling? Or a cat might be conscious of introverted intuition and memory? But that their brains are not as structured, the biological shape and capacity that leads to psychological complexity is not as formed a man's. Or even further, that they may have similar non-egoic awarenesses of reality like man does, but that the social/egoic states that man possesses do not exists inside them, egoic states that socionics tries to explain with informational elements and functions.

[Pookie]

Doesnt cognizant preclude non-egoic awareness?

Eh thats sloppily worded, cognizant means aware of oneself doesnt it?

[Aylen]

Fi----> Cohesion.
Fe----> Expression.
Si----> Safety.
Te----> Knowledge.
Ti-----> Concentration.
Se----> Reality.
Ni-----> Causation.
Ne----> Imagination.

Each is boiled down to what the IE really are at the core, before culture.

Introverted functions would probably have been the first to develop in early man?

If I were to put in some kind of order it would be:

Ni (causation) Si (safety) Fi (cohesion) Ti (concentration)

Then

Ne (imagination) Se (reality) Fe (expression) Te (knowledge)

But that doesn't feel right so there might of been some alternating of strong functions in early man between the introverted and extroverted. There seems to be some form of progression of processing information for early man that is not far from our own. We have just grown more complex over time. Like children born in the last twenty years seem to learn much faster.


Plants intuitively talk to each other in a variety of ways including a form of sensing. I can even go as far as saying that plants feel but probably not anything close to what we call emotion. I would have a bit of trouble believing they think but if they communicate intuitively they would not have to. Just saw a documentary on amazon prime.

Not that this is completely related but what you said got me thinking about something @William mentioned awhile back in another thread.

Has anyone ever thought what life was like before contacts and glasses were invented? If you were born with bad eyesight, I guess you were just out of luck for living a normal life.

It made people more interdependent on their tribesman or kinsman to survive. Some farsighted, some nearsighted, some blind. I am thinking the blind would be responsible for listening for things others would miss and the ones who could see well up close did more detailed work. The others would spot things at a distance that normal vision might miss because they were focused clearly on their immediate surroundings. heh

It is kind of easier to view it as intuition/sensing were most important for early survival. Feeling/Thinking would have been important to develop in order to not only survive but to build societies. I can't quite put this into the right words so will probably edit later. It's like right there but not.

[Aylen]

“It’s hard enough to tell what the cognitive abilities are of somebody who’s standing in front of you,” says Alison Brooks, an archaeologist at George Washington University and the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. “So it’s really hard to tell for someone who’s been dead for half a million years or a quarter million years.”

Since archaeologists can’t administer psychological tests to early humans, they have to examine artifacts left behind. When new technologies or ways of living appear in the archaeological record, anthropologists try to determine what sort of novel thinking was required to fashion a spear, say, or mix paint or collect shellfish. The past decade has been particularly fruitful for finding such evidence. And archaeologists are now piecing together the patterns of behavior recorded in the archaeological record of the past 200,000 years to reconstruct the trajectory of how and when humans started to think and act like modern people.

There was a time when they thought they had it all figured out. In the 1970s, the consensus was simple: Modern cognition evolved in Europe 40,000 years ago. That’s when cave art, jewelry and sculpted figurines all seemed to appear for the first time. The art was a sign that humans could use symbols to represent their world and themselves, archaeologists reasoned, and therefore probably had language, too. Neanderthals living nearby didn’t appear to make art, and thus symbolic thinking and language formed the dividing line between the two species’ mental abilities. (Today, archaeologists debate whether, and to what degree, Neanderthals were symbolic beings.)

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...rVobYZBqvwr.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

This meets my quota for Te today. I will come back to this later. I need to watch something mindless and cleanse my brain palate.

[Words]

I've often wondered as well why the traits survive at all from each generation. They most confer some social advantage and disadvantage in order to be perpetuated and fairly evenly distributed among groups and communities. Some people noticing this facet of reality and others noticing some other facit.

Although, socionics theory may just deal with facets of reality that are strictly cultural and community centric, balancing each other out only within a human community paradigm, starting at the family level, with extended family, then community of families and eventually societies and nations.

This really begs the question, at least for me, was the sociotypes present PRE CULTURE? Were the 16 types roaming the Earth, perhaps in hunter gatherer societies? Was there ancient Stirlitz? A pro-magnon Don -Quixote? A primal Dostoyevsky? Were their researcher club men and women from both quadras, trying to solve life's puzzles like how does a bow and arrow work? Were there self assured Beetles roaming the landscape, making sure the group fought for survival? Maybe a charismatic Hamlet making everyone believe they can read the weather in the bones?

I'm being serious here. Are the sociotypes a response to culture, or are they innate in the make-up of what makes us human? Because if the later is true, then the informational elements have been inside mankind for a very, very long time. And if this is the case, because they have survived for a thousand, thousand generations, (about 50-70,000 years we have been "human") then this means there must be a high fidelity for balance among the informational elements, T, F, S, N, and a proper distribution among human populations throughout history and continents.

I wonder these things too.

Also what's interesting with socionics, to me, is the idea that the psyche is lopsided, that the psyche is designed to need other people who also need other people to balance out these functions.

I can't think of anything else to do with the mind that is unbalanced in a person, unless they are defective in such a way has having a PD. So does this mean in terms of socionics people are effectively de-fective? I think this really is quite an interesting concept.

Some points of expansion would be - does socionics, and do communities attract people with defective (or they believe they are) defective psyches? Because does socionics suggest that people are infact defective by nature.

[Aylen]

I wonder these things too.

Also what's interesting with socionics, to me, is the idea that the psyche is lopsided, that the psyche is designed to need other people who also need other people to balance out these functions.

I can't think of anything else to do with the mind that is unbalanced in a person, unless they are defective in such a way has having a PD. So does this mean in terms of socionics people are effectively de-fective? I think this really is quite an interesting concept.

Some points of expansion would be - does socionics, and do communities attract people with defective (or they believe they are) defective psyches? Because does socionics suggest that people are infact defective by nature.

This has me thinking about intelligent design vs natural selection (which could also be part of an intelligent design). In a sense this would point to intelligent design and we live within a perfectly constructed system (not wanting to get into what created the system to begin with). If we did not have some kind of need for others in order to survive and experience what this world has to offer what is the point in even being here. Plants, animals and humans have instincts that draw them together. The documentary I saw on plants recently was pretty amazing. Certain plants draw certain insects in and repel or even kill others. I kind of believe we are consistently drawn into close interaction with others of similar energy. You know like the law of attraction... chemistry + energy draws and keeps us together. Other people repel us, sometimes for no apparent reason. I believe there is a reason though and it is something felt on an intuitive level. I have some reading to do today.

I think forums like this draw people who are curious above the norm. People who want to understand themselves or others, probably the later in most cases. Just because all our functions are not completely balanced does not imply unhealthy or defective. I don't care to comment on whether or not one can be healthy and still participate in this forum. Everyone has issues.

[Words]

This has me thinking about intelligent design vs natural selection (which could also be part of an intelligent design). In a sense this would point to intelligent design and we live within a perfectly constructed system (not wanting to get into what created the system to begin with). If we did not have some kind of need for others in order to survive and experience what this world has to offer what is the point in even being here. Plants, animals and humans have instincts that draw them together. The documentary I saw on plants recently was pretty amazing. Certain plants draw certain insects in and repel or even kill others. I kind of believe we are consistently drawn into close interaction with others of similar energy. You know like the law of attraction... chemistry + energy draws and keeps us together. Other people repel us, sometimes for no apparent reason. I believe there is a reason though and it is something felt on an intuitive level. I have some reading to do today.

Hmmm, if we were to say socionics was right, and considering intelligent design, my question would then be why can't we get along with everyone? Because it would seem that people are invented to basically not be able to get on with certain individuals, for instance someone is my conflictor, someone is in a different quadra. Of course there are other reasons but this is something fundamental which socionics suggests doesn't change.

If one continues, and then put a religious slant on intelligent design one could say that the psyche requiring other people in the form of socionics has been contaminated by the demiurge, as a better situation would be a form of psyche which can connect with everyone. One could also carry this forward by instead of putting a religious label on intelligent design to say instead that good aliens made us and the bad aliens corrupted us so that we can't get on with everyone. Now lets open our hidden extra 846 chromosomes - an enneagram type and a numerology there, can 846 combine to give ennea 9 hmmmm.

I think we could create a whole new idea here and have some paid for subscribed followers

I think forums like this draw people who are curious above the norm. People who want to understand themselves or others, probably the later in most cases. Just because all our functions are not completely balanced does not imply unhealthy or defective. I don't care to comment on whether or not one can be healthy and still participate in this forum. Everyone has issues.

I have a suspicion that the idea of a lopsided psyche can give excuses for a form of ill health. For instance, I don't look after my body because I am weak in Si. I can't stand up for myself because I require someone to do this with Se. I am inconsiderate and pushy because I have Fi PoLR. I am destructive of happy situations in my life because i do not value Fe.

[Aylen]

Hmmm, if we were to say socionics was right, and considering intelligent design, my question would then be why can't we get along with everyone? Because it would seem that people are invented to basically not be able to get on with certain individuals, for instance someone is my conflictor, someone is in a different quadra. Of course there are other reasons but this is something fundamental which socionics suggests doesn't change.

If one continues, and then put a religious slant on intelligent design one could say that the psyche requiring other people in the form of socionics has been contaminated by the demiurge, as a better situation would be a form of psyche which can connect with everyone. One could also carry this forward by instead of putting a religious label on intelligent design to say instead that good aliens made us and the bad aliens corrupted us so that we can't get on with everyone. Now lets open our hidden extra 846 chromosomes - an enneagram type and a numerology there, can 846 combine to give ennea 9 hmmmm.

I think we could create a whole new idea here and have some paid for subscribed followers

I have a suspicion that the idea of a lopsided psyche can give excuses for a form of ill health. For instance, I don't look after my body because I am weak in Si. I can't stand up for myself because I require someone to do this with Se. I am inconsiderate and pushy because I have Fi PoLR. I am destructive of happy situations in my life because i do not value Fe.

Oy, close that can of worms. Well, I believe that we are born with a, rough outline (ethics), built in user guide (intuition), a map (logic), and choice/free will (sensing). Looking at the world, as essence, before we are born, let's say we are already fully connected and "get along" (thinking in human terms) outside of a physical reality. So earth would be one place to experience what is only a concept within the realm of essence/all that is/god. If you were "god" and had an infinitely creative imagination but no experience, only concepts, why not manifest infinite dimensions to experience all that you had dreamed/imagined... Then this forum would be a microcosm within the macrocosm, perhaps, maybe. IOW, just another creative experience.

As far as using socionics as an excuse for anything... that only works on a forum like this and it is just another way to question "why?". In the real world you can't call out of work because you Si is weak and you got sick. You might just need a doctor's excuse if you do it too often. If your employer was also into socionics it might fly though. hah

I don't take any of this serious enough to blame socionics for what I do or what others do but it is interesting to consider. If others do it doesn't affect me as long as they do not try to attribute all my actions to socionics. Being duals does not guarantee everlasting life or happiness.

I like socionics as a tool not as an excuse.

Macrocosm and Microcosm in Taoism

Like several other cultures, China has developed the macrocosm-microcosm theory in different forms. Taoism has borrowed some of them and has elaborated others. These multiple formulations are not restricted to the universe and the human being. Other components come into play. The first is the state: the human community with its codes, hierarchies, and physical seats of power ideally mirrors the configuration and order of Heaven. Reciprocally, Heaven is an administrative system managed through bureaucratic procedures similar to those performed at court and in government offices. The second is the ritual area, whose altars correspond to the cosmos and its temporal and spatial configurations. Other environments and surroundings, including gardens and gourds, are also said to represent a "cosmos in miniature." Cosmos, human being, society, and ritual area are analogically related to each other, so that an event or an action that occurs within any of these domains can be relevant for the others. This is determined by the principle of "resonance" (ganying, lit. "impulse and response"), by which things belonging to the same class or category (lei) influence each other. Ritual, for instance, reestablishes the original bond between humans and gods, and the Realized Persons (zhenren) or the Saints (shengren) benefit the whole human community in which they live by aligning themselves with the forces that rule the cosmos. On the other hand, a ruler who ignores Heaven's omens brings about natural calamities and social disturbances.

In many cases, the conduits linking each domain to the others are either the abstract emblems of correlative cosmology or the gods of the outer and the inner pantheons. Emblems and gods are closely related to each other, as several divinities correspond to cosmological notions. Symbolic numbers and images (xiang) play a central role in establishing these relationships. In Taoism, however, numbers and images also perform an even more important function, as they serve to express both the different stages of the self-manifestation of Dao into the macrocosm, and the reverse process of return to the Dao, which is often performed with the support of a microcosmic framework.


Read more...

"Every person, all the events of your life,
are there because you have drawn them there.
What you choose to do with them is up to you."

[anndelise]

The progression I had learned about somewhere previously goes:

Se, Te, Ti, Si, Ne, Fe, Fi, Ni

I'm not 100% but I thiiiink that is the right order (someone correct me if I'm wrong) according to the properties of the functions, in order of what is most external (overall) to internal. So for example, Se = external statics of objects, Te = external dynamics of objects, Ti = external statics of fields, Si = external dynamics of fields, Ne = internal statics of objects, Fe = internal dynamics of objects, Fi = internal statics of fields, Ni = internal dynamics of fields. (External/internal not the same as extroversion/introversion.) @anndelise had some useful visual charts illustrating the functions, do you still happen to have those, ann?

I've got quite a few on my photobucket page: http://s51.photobucket.com/user/annd...?sort=3&page=1



For those who take a dual pathway (who/what & where/when) approach:




For those who take a memory model approach:




For those who take the brain sides metaphor approach:
(combine clubs with quadras)

Clubs
Left side=explicit
Right side=implicit
Frontal lobes=abstract
"Back"=the involvement


Quadras
E=objects I=fields

[anndelise]

In terms of evolutionary development, try going back before human development/culture, and from simple to complex.
Off hand I would suggest the idea that
Simple-> Complex
The Involvement (S/F) -> Abstractions (N/T)
External(explicit) (S/T) -> Internal (implicit) (N/F)
Statics (relatively consistent/stable objects and fields) -> Dynamics (objects in motion and interinfluencing fields)
Objects (individual objects) -> Fields (the interplay and influence between two or more objects)

But the above idea might change upon further reflection, especially when considering the following from Jaak Panksepp's book "The Archaeology of Mind":

levels of control in brain emotional-affective state controls (#1) and information processing (#2 & #3)
1. Primary-process, basic-primordial affects (sub-neocortical)
a) emotional affects (emotion action systems; intentions-in-actions)
b) homeostatic affects (brain-body receptors; hunger, thirst, etc)
c) sensory affects (extroceptive-sensory triggered pleasurable and unpleasurable/disgusting feelings)

2. Secondary-process emotions (learning via basal ganglia)
a) classical conditioning (eg FEARvia basolateral and central amygdala)
b) instrumental & operant conditioning (SEEKING via nucleus accumbens)
c) behavioral and emotional habits (largely unconscious-dorsal striatum)

3. Tertiary affects and neo-cortical "awareness" functions
a) cognitive executive functions: thoughts and planning (frontal cortex)
b) emotional ruminations and regulations (medial frontal regions)
c) "free-will" (higher working-memory functions; intentions-to-act)

In simple diagram form


I couldn't find the image online, so took a snapshot of the image in his book:

[Aylen]

Removing the False Mask By Aurora Clawson Contributing Writer for SoulScience

This is how our minds process reality in a nutshell.

First we detect information. Everything that exists is a frequency of energy. Colors, sounds, tastes, smells, textures, objects, people, places and experiences. Everything vibrates, moves, flickers, pulses and undulates. Our five senses are attuned to the 3rd dimension. Therefore, what they detect is the slowest rate at which everything vibrates. We don’t detect the more complex information about anything, only the simplest aspects. Yet even at this, they are enough for human beings to lead whole lives, but what kind of lives? We detect things as separate, when in reality, the energy between things is merging and dancing. We detect time and space as a reality.
We are being flooded with information that our senses cannot detect, because we can only detect less than 1% of the millions of frequencies of information around us. This information is filtered out by a system led by our Pineal gland. In this way, we can live in this perception of a world to learn from our experiences here.

So, as I said, first we detect information. Then, our own process of cognition DEFINES what that information means, in relation to our past, what we know, preferences, and our sense of self. We filter out every possible definition except what resonates with our own understanding.

Then, after we define information for ourselves, we RESPOND to our own definitions. This means that all meanings in our lives, we have projected onto every aspect of our reality.

Our response to anything, is only our response to how we ourselves have defined it. It cannot be any other way. That is how mind functions.

In this world, we have a seat of identity called ego. Ego is not who we really are. It is a pseudo identity. We have this for a reason. The reason is, that ego is a master teacher that moves us through the illusions in this world by believing in them. Our challenge is to transcend the ego and its illusions. That is what living in illusion is meant to offer. We live in illusion to discredit it, and recognize truth.
Since ego is not our true self, what then, is our true self? This is age old question. This is what every master has sought, and taught through the ages. The answer is in something called Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Consciousness. There are many names for this phenomenon.

Within this Consciousness, is a higher, more vast aspect of you, of me, of everyone. This aspect is who we must awaken to via our experiences with ego. How we do this, is to incrementally realize the limitations, falsehoods and ways of interpreting reality born of ego.
Ego believes in a limited, individual self that is separate from everyone and everything else. Ego believes anger, fear, hatred, sorrow, jealousy and all other negative emotions are justified. It therefore subscribes to the mechanic of blame. It also believes in self belittlement, and all manner of limitation. It believes that it is the world that provides all that it is lacking. It believes in victim hood because other egos have not taught it about Reincarnation and universal laws of attraction and karma, that teach energy we put into the universe comes back to us to teach us.

When the ego detects information, it defines it in limiting, illusory ways. It defines it from the standpoint of a separate, limited self. It will define information in ways that confirm its convictions of self and what it thinks it knows about itself and life. It can therefore SEE its own beliefs in situations. For example, if a person is insecure, and on a regular basis jealous of his girlfriend, she can be merely talking to a stranger at the Farmer’s Market about the price of veggies, and that ego will see information in that simple visual supporting need for jealousy. It will define that information as threatening and supportive of self diminishing beliefs.
The entire world provides supportive feedback for the misperceptions of ego. We create entire days in sync with our beliefs about ourselves, and what we understand so far about life. Life becomes a reflection of our own minds. This is why they say, “When you change your mind, you change your life.

We live in a world of pseudo selves. The only way we can become free from this imprisonment, is to proceed along a course in which we awaken from the spell of ego. This has been the focus of centuries of spirituality. Spirituality is not religion. Religion does nothing to empower freedom from ego. It rather more deeply entrenches the ego by teaching concepts of victimhood, need for salvation, sin, separation, judgment and punishment of hell if rules are not obeyed. Religion could not exist were it not for a pseudo self to support it. Therefore, it can never truly free a human being, only offer hope that assists in tolerating illusions of self it propagates.
What are we really then? We are beautiful, vast, free, joyous loving beings who have none of the limitations believed by ego. We have infinite love, ingenious capability to create, and access to Universal intelligence. We know we are all one, in a brilliant connected Consciousness. We know we are infinite love and light. We are spiritual beings having a human life. We have many incarnations to awaken from this spell of ego.

It is the spell of ego that enslaves. That is the only thing with the power to do it. Nothing in the world can give that to anyone. It must be a self initiated process. All teachers in the world can do, is point the way, inspire and teach about the nature of the ego and how it imprisons.

Self awareness then cannot be gifted or proven to another individual. It is a personal process. Unless one moves through the process themselves, they won’t understand or believe it. It is like asking another person to go through a healing process to heal YOUR body. SELF awareness is blatantly literal.

When we are free from ego, we are in sync with our true fullness. We no longer define life in limitation. We see greater truths, more complete stories and have access to more information because in freeing mind from ego, we activate an empowered ability to detect more information about everything than the mere 1%. We begin to see a bigger and bigger picture in which all experiences connect to form an ordering we before, had no idea existed. We develop a more powerful sense of Universal SENTIENCE, being, presence.
So that is the answer. We enslave ourselves, via belief that this ego is the parameter of who we really are. When we free ourselves from this prison, we begin to awaken to the fullness of ourselves as represented by higher frequencies of consciousness. We see that the world cannot truly give anything to us, or take anything from us via its changing tides. We then begin a journey with awareness of this greater self. It is a whole new chapter filled with astounding revelations.

The ego is the prison for the mind.

Socionics is a belief system...

Edit: That was what my subconscious told me in a dream as I was waking this morning. I heard it clearly, "socionics is a belief system."

[strangeling]

Today would be a different day, she thought. It wasn't the forum or the way that people posted, it wasn't the standard clash of opinions or the way that people hated on Socionics because it didn't give them what they wanted or expected, nor was anything really all that different in the end. But what was different was different to her and that was enough for a difference to be. See there was a man pulling brains out of heads; he'd pull them out and the bodies would wither and fall featherly to the ground; then the man would put something in place of the brains, somewhat quite small, something that acted as if to reanimate their souls, like a dream-catcher that gave the souls back, except that all their meat had been consumed and the souls were quite bland. And these bodies would sit there staring off into space, staring at what was either the most interesting spec of paint ever seen or perhaps eclipsing a slow flicker of a very small lit in their souls, struggling to stay lit, or perhaps something much more clever was going on. Who was to be sure, without knowing, yet what use can be knowing if it doesn't always represent itself? And yet, she floated around, flying like a fish in the currents of the air's ocean and watched this man, not knowing what exactly to think, but looking to know something. Sometimes the staring bodies would mutter to each other and stare at one another, seemingly reaching for something that the other could not give them. How sad, yet peaceful she thought, they seem to have lost their being, their souls are freed from being, yet imprisoned by not being, they yearn for something more. The thought was strong enough to awake her. "The ego isn't really such a bad thing", she thought. And today was different for her.

[Aylen]

Today would be a different day, she thought. It wasn't the forum or the way that people posted, it wasn't the standard clash of opinions or the way that people hated on Socionics because it didn't give them what they wanted or expected, nor was anything really all that different in the end. But what was different was different to her and that was enough for a difference to be. See there was a man pulling brains out of heads; he'd pull them out and the bodies would wither and fall featherly to the ground; then the man would put something in place of the brains, somewhat quite small, something that acted as if to reanimate their souls, like a dream-catcher that gave the souls back, except that all their meat had been consumed and the souls were quite bland. And these bodies would sit there staring off into space, staring at what was either the most interesting spec of paint ever seen or perhaps eclipsing a slow flicker of a very small lit in their souls, struggling to stay lit, or perhaps something much more clever was going on. Who was to be sure, without knowing, yet what use can be knowing if it doesn't always represent itself? And yet, she floated around, flying like a fish in the currents of the air's ocean and watched this man, not knowing what exactly to think, but looking to know something. Sometimes the staring bodies would mutter to each other and stare at one another, seemingly reaching for something that the other could not give them. How sad, yet peaceful she thought, they seem to have lost their being, their souls are freed from being, yet imprisoned by not being, they yearn for something more. The thought was strong enough to awake her. "The ego isn't really such a bad thing", she thought. And today was different for her.

I like this.

I scored highest on egoist yesterday so I guess ego isn't so bad even if it did sound kind of selfish as an ethical quiz result. Maybe I should take it again when I feel less selfish.

[Aylen]

How To Notice Intuition

When a question arises in our minds, it focuses our thoughts. Our thoughts take the shape around this question in the form of night dreams, daydreams, and intuition that then lead us forward to the answers that we are seeking.

In this buildup of consciousness, we become aware of our Intuitive Guidance at a higher level. Through practicing MINDFULNESS, we can discern between ordinary, calculative thoughts and the more mystical, Intuitive thoughts and feelings.



Here’s the key difference:

Calculative thoughts are the words we consciously think to ourselves when processing a general problem. This is a significant thought process, but this is not Intuition.

Intuitions are spontaneous notions that appear to come from nowhere. They seem just to occur to us with a hint of inspiration and discovery, yet we didn’t think of them, in the calculative sense. While our egos may well be in the habit of taking credit for such thoughts (“aren’t we smart”), upon closer inspection, we can see they are obtained from some deeper source within us.

Intuitions come from a superior part of our intelligence. They naturally appear in the back of our minds as clarifying ideas on how to proceed. In short, they are ideas that sometimes seem too random, spontaneous, and not logical, but upon greater interpretation they can be observed to apply perfectly to the situation at hand.

Once we begin to identify guiding intuitions in this way, we realize how we have been missing them in the past. When clarifying the different types of thought, ask yourself, “Why did I just think of this now?”

Mindful Intuition

We learn to become detached observers of our experience, employing a habit of watchfulness over every experience as we proceed through our daily lives. This Mindfulness involves close observation of what happens in our outer world but also being attuned to the various thoughts and feelings that show up in our minds.
The idea is to stay impartial and patiently monitor everything you feel or think, including ideas, images, emotions, and automatic reactions. Be the objective viewer without getting distracted by memories, worries, regrets, unfinished plans, or any other ego concerns. When distraction does occur, catch yourself and return to the observer position quickly.

Once we learn to identify intuitions, we realize how they bring forth Synchronicity(another elevation of awareness occurring). First, we receive an Intuitive picture (an urge) to end or begin something, to solve a problem, or to pursue some line of interest. Then, if we follow the guidance diligently with MINDFULNESS, an important Synchronistic breakthrough will take place — thus leading our lives forward to our greater calling. In this way, following our Intuitions is the key to increasing ourSynchronistic Flow and maintaining our flow of destiny.

The Seventh Insight also deals with how to interpret our night dreams and daydreams. When a night dream occurs, compare the dream story to your life. Bad dreams have the most important messages since they act as warnings of things that are probable but can be avoided by recognizing the message from the dream.

However, when a daydream occurs, we must ask why? How does it relate to you as seen from the position of an observer. The Seventh Insight says that fear images should be stopped as soon as they come. Then another image, one with a good outcome, should be willed through your mind. Your intuitions will be about positive things.

Soon, negative images will almost never happen. When they do occur thereafter, they could have particularly serious meanings, and their message should be dealt with accordingly.

I believe our Intuitive thoughts, night dreams, and daydreams are elemental to the process of downloading our higher, divine intelligence through an increased spiritual connection. Yes, we have free will, and we can exercise our reasons and preferences at every turn. But, recognizing our inner, spiritual intelligence opens us up to a life guidance. One that will address how we can break through old habits and distractions, and then find and evolve to our most exciting and prosperous, life purpose.

Read my article: How Intuition Gave Me Confidence
See The Insight Experience Study Archives
September 16, 2015
Posted by James Redfield


Posted in Spirituality

http://www.celestinevision.com/2015/...erience-study/

[Aylen]

"Theta brain waves are the brain state of REM sleep (dreams), hypnosis, lucid dreaming, and the barely conscious state just before sleeping and just after waking. Theta is the border between the conscious and the subconscious world, and by learning to use a conscious, waking Theta brain wave we can access and influence the powerful subconscious part of ourselves that is normally inaccessible to our waking minds. While in the Theta state, the mind is capable of deep and profound learning, healing, and growth - it is the brainwave where our minds can connect to the Divine and manifest changes in the material world.

Extreme relaxation (almost dream like) is a commonly noted result when listening to Theta Waves.

Listen to this track as much or as little as you feel comfortable, either sitting or lying in a settled position. We always recommend using headphones for optimal results, however this is not essential.

Please note: ALWAYS consult your GP first before trying to cure any medical problems (including depression, anxiety, sleep disorders, phobias or any other cognitive - or physically related illnesses) with an alternative."



What-are-Brain-Waves-Theta-Delta-Alpha-Beta-brain-waves-What-is-brainwave-entrainment

[uncivilized]

Socionic cognitive functions would have to exist pre-culture in order for culture to develop. At some point, someone had to start making art, religious and burial rites, tools, etc. They just didn't come out of nowhere. Any sentient being would need a way of perceiving information and then judging it wouldn't they?

[Aylen]

The following is excerpted from Active Consciousness: Awakening the Power Within[1], released from R.L.Ranch Press.

One piece of evidence for the holographic nature of nonstandard fields that have been proposed in recent years — the zero-point field (a candidate for the unified field [2]), the psi field of psychic phenomena, Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic field [3], and the morphic field proposed by Rupert Sheldrake [4] — is that they all share a common feature: sensitivity to similarity in vibration.

If a holographic image has many different holograms embedded within it, shining a laser of a specific frequency upon it will cause only those holograms made with lasers of the same frequency to stand out. That’s because things with the same vibration naturally resonate and reinforce one another — just as two violin strings at the same pitch resonate with one another. This property of resonance has [also] been used to explain how each of us might interact with mysterious fields like the psi or Akashic fields… People pick up only that with which they personally “resonate.” Each individual’s resonant frequency, determined by their life experience, physical body, and energy body, limits what they can perceive.

Biologist Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance also depends upon similarity in vibration. Members of the same species, being “on the same wavelength,” are able to tap into information that pertains uniquely to them. And while members of an entire species might be able to tune into a fairly broad spectrum of frequencies (think of Carl Jung’s notion of the collective unconscious that humans supposedly tap into [5]), smaller, more tightly connected groups — such as members of the same family or loving couples — resonate in more focused zones of vibration; they have access to their own “private frequency.” In fact, Sheldrake goes even further and suggests that morphic fields can explain how human memory operates. Instead of being stored in our brains, he suggests that memories are stored in the morphic field. Our brains then pick them up via resonance, like radios tuning to their own private stations.

The existence and importance of similarity in vibration has also popped up in psi experiments. For example, individuals gifted at psychokinesis — the ability to affect physical objects with the mind — have described the experience as a feeling of resonance with those objects. A fascinating body of evidence has also been uncovered by Dean Radin and his colleague Roger Nelson at Princeton’s PEAR lab… Researchers at PEAR found that connected couples can influence random event generators (REGs) more effectively than individuals working alone. Because of this phenomenon, Radin and Nelson decided to test for even larger field effects by using these random devices as “antennae.” First they placed REGs at events where people were all focused on the same thing and therefore “vibrating” similarly-for example, at music festivals, religious events, and even at the Academy Awards. The results were as predicted; these venues did indeed cause the machines’ outputs to deviate from the norm [6, 7].


http://thesyncmovie.com/2014/05/when...ampaign=buffer

[Aylen]

This article is based on the book “Vernetzte Intelligenz” -Networked Intelligence

Russian scientists have shown that our DNA can actually be reprogrammed by words and certain frequencies. According to scientists only 10% of our DNA is being used for building proteins. It is this subset of DNA where researchers are pointing their investigations to, their plan is to review and classify it again and they hope to learn something very interesting in the process.The remaining 90% of the DNA is considered “junk DNA”, I know that many won’t agree with a term such as “Junk DNA” but let us continue. Interestingly couple of years ago, new formulas from Russian scientists, specialized in biophysics and molecular biology showed that 7 percent of our DNA has a higher purpose and is not in any way ‘junk’. According to newer studies, the human DNA is a biological internet far superior than any artificial.

Russian biophysicist and molecular biologist Pjotr ​​Garjajev and his fellow scientists involved in the research exposed that, directly or indirectly, phoneme such as: clairvoyance, intuition, spontaneous and remote acts of healing, self-healing, affirmation techniques, unusual light/auras around people (namely spiritual masters), mind’s influence on weather patterns and much more. In addition, there is evidence for a whole new type of medicine in which DNA can be influenced and reprogrammed by words and frequencies without cutting out and replacing single genes.

http://www.ewao.com/a/1-our-dna-can-...n-frequencies/

[Aylen]

"Most humans have not been taught logical thinking, but most humans are still intelligent. Contrary to the majority view, it is implausible that the brain should be based on Logic; I believe intelligence emerges from millions of nested micro-intuitions, and that Artificial Intelligence requires Artificial Intuition. Intuition is surprisingly easy to implement in computers."

Intuition and Logic

Intuition and Logic are two strategies for prediction and problem solving.

We hear so much about the virtues of logic that we'd be excused to believe that logic was somehow the superior method, but a quick analysis shows that most actions we perform on a daily basis mainly use intuition.

Logic is not better, just different. Both strategies have their advantages and apply in different situations. Sometimes we need to use both. Sometimes we can use either one, because the problem is so simple it doesn't much matter how we solve it. Sometimes it matters; if we happen to choose the wrong approach, it may prevent us from solving our problem.

Computer-based intuition - "Artificial Intuition" - is quite straightforward to implement, but requires computers (a recent invention) with a lot of memory (only recently available cheaply enough). These methods were simply unthinkable at the time AI got started, not to mention at the time we discovered the power of Logic and the Scientific Method. The tendency to continue down a chosen path may have delayed the discovery of Artificial Intuition by a few years.

Logic

Logic is used a lot in the hard sciences, such as Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry. We can think of most of mathematics, including things like the rules of Algebra, as part of a framework that is anchored in Logic. Physics and related sciences use logical and mathematical models to describe the world. These models are what allows the hard sciences to be so accurately predictive.

Computer hardware is designed based on principles of Boolean Logic, and Logic is also used in programming them. We use Logic for puzzle problems, and we are taught it in school, either formally or informally.

Mechanical manipulation of formulas, even in the most strictly logical contexts require intuition-based guidance in order to progress towards a goal, such as simplification. We will discuss this below.

Logical formulas can be manipulated "mechanically", by following syntax based rules that specify which operations are allowed. In performing these manipulations, Innovation is (in theory) unnecessary — that would be using Intuition.

Logical methods have many advantages: The can be used to make long term predictions, such as predicting planetary orbits years into the future. They can also make high precision predictions, such as predicting masses of elementary particles to the fifth decimal before experiments to establish the masses have been conducted.

Logical methods are productive. Valid Logical theories lead logically to new theories through mechanical manipulation of the formulas. Again, no innovation is (in theory) needed for this process of producing "new knowledge".

Logic and science have an excellent track record. Logical methods have solved innumerable important problems over centuries.

But Logical methods also have their limits.

One of the most surprising limits is that they require Theory, i.e. a high level model of the problem domain. This is surprising only because many cannot fathom that this is a limitation, since they believe doing anything without a solid Theory is impossible. But, as we shall see, Intuition requires no Theory or Logic based models. So this is in fact a limitation on Logic.

Logical methods require idealized conditions. Anyone who has opened a textbook on Physics or Mechanics has time and again encountered the phrase "All else being constant...". This is how Physics avoids problems with Systems that require a Holistic Stance, for instance any system that is constantly adapting to an environment that it cannot be separated from.

Logical and scientific models are relatively simple. It is true that some formulas can run to multiple pages, but this would still be simple compared to the complexity we discover in nature.

But first and foremost, Logic cannot handle Bizarre Systems, and therefore cannot solve many important problems in the life sciences, and cannot handle everyday problems such as Discovery of Semantics, including language.

Intuition

Intuition is what we use to handle everyday problems such as predicting limb positions and controlling muscle movement, to understand and generate speech, to read, to analyze what we see, to drive a car, etc. In short, all the things we do that we take for granted and which we do "without thinking". Many of these are non-trivial and hard or impossible to do using current computer technology.

Most languages distinguish the quickly gained and more logic-influenced "intelligence" of youth from the growing set of effective intuitions accumulated during a lifetime known as "wisdom". Wisdom gives reliable guidance in complex social situations, for instance those involving humans with conflicting goals.

We also use intuition to get new ideas of all kinds, to generate novelty and make innovations. Every sentence we speak is an invention.

Consider the anecdotes in Malcolm Gladwell's book "Blink"

Intuition is fast. We make life-and-death decisions in split seconds, when we have to, and we are often correct. This is of course the reason Intuition evolved in the first place — it increases our chances of survival.

Intuition is Theory-free. It does not require a high-level logical model. This neatly solves a bootstrapping problem of Artificial Intelligence. You cannot create high-level models until you already have Intelligence.

This also makes Intuition much more Biologically Plausible than Logic since a considerably larger amount of mechanism would be required before Logic could be used to improve predictions. Intuition-based mechanisms could conceivably evolve in small steps from simpler prediction based mechanisms, with incrementally available benefits every step along the way.

Since there is no high-level Logic based model, then there is no model to get confused by the illogical Bizarreness of the world. AN based systems are immune to all the problems in Bizarre domains, such as constantly changing conditions, paradoxes, ambiguity, and misinformation. It does not mean that sufficient misinformation won't lead such a system to make incorrect predictions, but it means that the system does not require all information to be correct in order to operate at all. Intuition is fallible, and occasional misinformation makes failure slightly more likely. The system can keep multiple sets of information active in parallel (some more correct than others) and in the end, more often than not, the information that is most likely to be correct wins. This happens in humans, and will happen in AN based systems.

Intuition also has severe limitations; some of these mirror the advantages of Logic based systems.

Intuition based systems cannot do long term predictions, cannot do high precision predictions, and are not productive. They cannot generate new knowledge by mechanical manipulation of the existing theory since there is no such thing as "theory".

Intuition requires prior experience. Intuitions are acquired by learning, and the benefit of learning what happens in a given situation is only available if you encounter a sufficiently similar situation again. Lacking prior experience with a identical situation, you have to make a generalization of a previous "precedent" experience in order to guess what the "consequent" event will be. This is an error prone operation; the ability to generalize correctly is intimately tied to the ability to get to the "semantics" of the situation and is likely the reason we evolved semantic capabilities in the first place.

Intuition based skills improve with practice

Intuition based skills improve with practice, whereas Logic based skills do not. You can use this as a test to determine which of our skills are based on Logic.
Logic is Logic. If we had the opportunity to tell a purely logical being such as Mr. Spock in Star Trek about some trick of Mathematics such as L'Hospital's rule then he should immediately be able to use it to its full capacity. But we need to practice our skills in order to perfect them.

In school, we had to practice doing arithmetic in order to get it right. A few years ago, it was discovered that certain Pentium processors had a problem with certain arithmetic operations. A nine year old would be excused for believing the Pentium needed to practice more arithmetic, but we understand that this would be absurd.

"The prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery..."
— Richard Feynman


"... the outstanding intuitionist of our age, and a prime example of what may lie in store for anyone who dares to follow the beat of a different drum." — Julian Schwinger on Richard Feynman

A mathematician in front of a whiteboard covered with formulas will use intuition to select the next substitution, simplification, or experiment to try. Sooner or later, something may well work. They will verify the validity of what they did using logical methods. This will be the only path that will be shown in published work. This traditional hiding of the intuitive part and the joy of discovery makes Science look boring to outsiders.

How does Intuition work?

Intuition operates at a "level below logic". It is not unscientific or illogical, it is sub-scientific and sub-logical. Intuition operates on events, not theories.
Some of our senses observe events in the world around us and others observe our own bodies to track things like positions of our limbs and our center of balance. Friedrich Hayek has observed that all sensory information is converted to one single kind of nerve signals before reaching the brain. The brain then processes these incoming nerve signals by sending further nerve signals to other parts of the brain.

We can view all nerve signals as events, no matter what their origin or purpose. Memory allows us to track and remember these signaling events.

We can now start remembering which events precede which other events. Sometimes the former are frequent predictors for the latter, and remembering this correlation would be valuable. Intuition is a process that uses this kind of correlation data to make short-term predictions that are correct often enough to improve our survival.

Evolution has, over millenia, discovered many elegant shortcuts to this primitive brute-force version. So have I, in six years of exploration. Some of these shortcuts are (or will be) described elsewhere, and others will (currently) be discussed only with collaborators.

Note that Intuition makes no attempt to model causality, or create any kind of high level models or theories. That would be using Logic. Intuition simply tracks events. This means it is immune to all the listed problem types in Bizarre Domains that confuse Logic based systems.

Intuition is Fallible

Intuition is fallible. Intuition attempts to make short term predictions in Bizarre Domains. This is a best-effort process. Intuition can often make useful predictions in spite of ambiguous, incomplete, or misleading information in constantly changing chaotic environments.

Even extremely simple-minded agents can benefit from Intuition. If the best you can do is to try and try again, and if you do not track what you have done, then there is nothing from preventing you from repeatedly trying one and the same failing thing. Even a single bit of memory might allow you to discover the winner when given an alternative that works and one that fails. I plan to add a so far unpublished paper named "Primitive Problem Solving" on this topic to this site at some date.

Since Logic requires a good high-level theory, and in general also insists on correctness, it is incapable of making any predictions at all. This is one more indication that Logic is Biologically Implausible since it is difficult to imagine any kind logic-based intelligence evolving piecemeal. Intuition, on the other hand, could easily evolve since even small amounts of memory could provide a significant advantage over competing agents that don't use it to predict their environment.

Neurons are Fallible

Neurons communicate by using electrochemical processes involving diffusion of neurotransmitters across synapse junctions. Neurotransmitter receptors are sensitive to ramping concentrations. These mechanisms have indeterminate delays, and the massive parallelism in the brain will be sensitive to race conditions between parallel paths of signaling. The brain is therefore inherently unreliable at the neuron level.

How can the brain work as well as it does in spite of this inherent fallibility? There is redundancy in the brain, and a delayed signal may often cause the desired effect even if it arrives too late. But I believe there is another effect at work in the brain and in my Artificial Intuition based systems:

Emergent Reliability handles internal errors

Artificial Intuition systems make internal predictions of future events, both external (sensory input events) and internal events. When these predictions are frustrated it indicates either a new situation that requires learning or some problem, internal or external, that may require skepticism and/or corrective action.

AN systems have layers of nested predictors and at each level they attempt to detect problems of this kind. The layers are "shallow" enough to make this process possible in many cases. Add to this the redundancy inherent in distributed representation, which is how the system represents all emergent concepts.

What happens is that a system that has learned a lot, and learned it well, will be skeptical to perplexing internal events at some layer and will often be able to ignore and/or correct the problem.

Emergent Robustness handles ambiguous input data

AN systems are fallible "all the way down" to the input layer. This means that ambiguous, incomplete, or erroneous input data can be detected and ignored/corrected with about the same accuracy as internal errors.

Put another way, in systems with emergent reliability the same mechanism that handles internal errors makes the system resilient against errors in the input data, such as ambiguous, missing, or incorrect information.

Hard Symbolic AI and Fallibility

The hard sciences, such as Mathematics and Physics, insist on correctness. Computer Science was born in Mathematics departments at universities worldwide, and Computer Science is therefore a hard science. Programs are expected to be correct and to run as specified. Artificial Intelligence was born in Computer Science departments, and inherited their value sets including Correctness. This mindset, this necessity to be logical, provable, and correct has been a fatal roadblock for Artificial Intelligence since its inception.

The world is Bizarre, and Logic can not describe it. Artificial Intuition will easily outperform Logic based Artificial Intelligence for almost any problem in a Bizarre problem domain.

From the very beginning, Artificial Intelligence should have been a soft science.

http://artificial-intuition.com/intuition.html

[Aylen]

Childhood Origins of Adult Resistance to Science
Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg
Science 316: 996-997, 2007 (18 May)
(excerpts for discussion)

"Here we review evidence from developmental psychology suggesting that some resistance to scientific ideas is a human universal ... even 1-year olds possess a rich understand of both the physical world ("a naive physics") and the social world ("a naive psychology") ... The problem with teaching science to children is thus "not what the student lacks, but what the student has ... alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach" (S. Carey, J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 21, 2000).

The examples so far concern people's common-sense understanding of the physical world, but their intuitive psychology also contributes to their resistance to science ... children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose ... dualism, the belief that the mind is fundamentally different from the brain, comes naturally to children ...

Adults ... rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do ...

These developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive explanations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and it will be especially strong if there is a nonscientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are thought of as reliable and trustworthy."


ARTICLE COMMENTS

[DavidH]

I am having difficulty discerning the question of this thread.

[Aylen]

I am having difficulty discerning the question of this thread.

No worries, there was no question.

[DavidH]

No worries, there was no question.

An ILI on a forum discussed this with me recently. It would appear that it is similar to the intuition which you are referencing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto...lled_processes

[Aylen]

An ILI on a forum discussed this with me recently. It would appear that it is similar to the intuition which you are referencing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto...lled_processes

Actually that was informative and easy to understand. It is probably helpful for those who are put off, or are not familiar, with some of the language/concepts mentioned in some of my posts. Thanks.

[DavidH]

Actually that was informative and easy to understand. It is probably helpful for those who are put off, or are not familiar, with some of the language/concepts mentioned in some of my posts. Thanks.

There are times when we have the ideas but not the words. You are welcome.

[Aylen]

.

3 MYTHS ABOUT INTUITION EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW
Heather February 7, 2017

Connecting To Spirit, Higher Self, Intuition

3 myths intuition everyone know

INTUITION IS A HOT TOPIC, BUT STILL A VERY MISUNDERSTOOD CONCEPT.

While we’ve generally accepted the idea that trusting our gut instinct is the fastest and surest way to make better decisions and create a happier life, not all of us are peachy-keen to ‘follow our heart’ to see where it takes us.

Debunking the misconceptions about intuition will make it easier for you to more fully trust your intuitive abilities. Here are three commonly held myths about intuition you should know.

MYTH 1. INTUITION IS A SPECIAL GIFT

The ability to send and receive ‘intuitive’ information isn’t a special ability some people are born with while others aren’t. All human beings are intuitive beings. Intuition is natural occurring skill not a ‘gift.’ Just like you can learn how to play a piano or ride a bike, you can learn to harness and hone your innate intuitive power.

This is a confusing concept, because the idea that intuition is a skill seems to fly in the face of what we know about intuitives themselves. After all, most people who are highly psychic or intuitive seem to have just been “born that way.” And that’s true. They are, but it’s not a gift.

Intuitive people are simply born with their intuitive “baseline skill” set at a higher level than your average person. This shouldn’t be surprising, because we see this happen with other skill-sets as well, be it musical, academic, athletic (you get the point).

Just like Kobe Bryant’s got an incredible talent for basketball, or Beethoven had an insane knack for ticking the ivories, intuitives have a talent for picking up on energy that’s outside the typical human sensory range and communicating it well to others.

With practice, you can learn how to do it too.

MYTH 2. INTUITION IS SUPER-NATURAL

Not even close. Intuitive communication is as natural as breathing. We view intuition as being super-natural because it operates outside the ‘typical’ way in which we define or conceptualize communication (the perceiving, gathering, and sharing of information). In other words, we view ‘normal’ human communication as talking, writing, reading, and seeing/observing, not as intuiting subtle forms of energy.

But just because intuitive communication takes place outside the mainstream definition doesn’t make it super natural.

Current research has revealed that intuitive information is communicated energetically via our heart’s electromagnetic field. Our ability to do so doesn’t break any of the physical laws of nature, therefore intuition literally isn’t and can not be super-natural (outside natural law).

You send and receive intuitive information every moment of your life, and you do this as naturally, effortlessly, and unconsciously as you blink or breathe. So while being intuitive seemingly falls rather nicely into the realm of esoterica, the truth is that it’s a totally natural occurring phenomena that’s well understood and explained by science.

MYTH 3. INTUITION IS SPIRITUAL IN NATURE

While it is true that most people who are highly intuitive or who desire to be so express an affinity or interest in the esoteric, it doesn’t follow that intuition itself is fundamentally spiritual. Intuition is a form of human communication that gives us access to a broad range of physical and non-physical sources of information and intelligence.

Even if your intuitive abilities allow you to connect with super-human intelligences (spirit guides, angels, Higher Self, etc.) the function through which that dialogue is taking place (your intuition) is still a human one and terrestrial in nature.

Also, it’s entirely possible for a person to be highly intuitive but not necessarily need to or want to have anything to do with spirituality, evolving into a better person, or connecting with something or someone divine. After all, history is replete with examples of people who were intuitive as hell, but did perfectly horrible things with it.

I believe it’s accurate to say that intuition is more creative in nature than spiritual. Although, how a person choses to employ their intuitive skill can definitely change flavor of it. I personally characterize my own intuitive experiences as being very spiritual, but I understand that’s a perspective I’ve chosen to hold, rather than something inherent in my experience of it.

And there you have it!

I hope this helps you embrace the idea that you are an intuitive being capable of developing this powerful skill in order to enhance and enrich your life, No super-powers are necessary, but you will feel like you’ve got them once you get really good at it!


https://heatheraliceshea.com/3-myths...e-should-know/

[Sol]

MYTH 4. Intuition can't be used for good typing

It can. I see so.

[Aylen]

MYTH 4. Intuition can't be used for good typing

It can. I see so.

Who said that was a myth?

[Sol]

Who said that was a myth?

my intuition

I find it funny when polr N protects the use of N from base N in the theme created by that N with the intention to protect the authority of N.

(Said my typing matches experiment with bloggers on socioforum done in 2015 which like no one noticed. In case intuitive method was not effective, it did not give the matches higher than random and close to matches of other methods like IRL interview and big questionnaire.
Also my IR test (based on examples identified by N) gives interesting results which are not random.)