Science for the awakened

[Karl]

I think you can.  Part of it is keeping a quiet mind.  Part of it is watching and recording the flashes of ideas that come into it and seeing how well these pieces of intuition work out.   Find out as objectively as possible if your intuition comes is on the money.   In which situations its right or wrong.

 

It's not mumbo jumbo either.  People make hugely importantly decisions very quickly based on minutiae that doesn't register to the conscious mind.   Some people are gifted in it, others are not and need to take time and effort in decisions. 

 

I'm against the whole 'We live in the Matrix' meme.  But I do agree with the idea that we tend to make decisions immediately and spend most of our conscious thoughts on rationalizing them. 

 

Arent you really talking about decisions based on experience and the review of those actions towards future decisions ?

 

It certainly isn't necessary, and likely impossible to be fully conscious of every single aspect, of each and every thread of a decision making process. Our minds have evolved the ability to hold concepts in order that we can build towards our own futures without simply acting like animals which have the luxury of acting only at the immediate moment.

 

Indeed, during the introductory logic course I took, it was certainly part of logical reasoning to take the time to allow the mind to make the necessary connections after examining a problem. This is how we come up with solutions. Part of that might well be a logical intuition that serves to illuminate some aspect of a problem in light of previous experience.

 

I'm highlighting this as the difference between pure feeling intuition in which a person says they use no logical reasoning at all-it just comes to them-and the kind of intuition which is part of a subconscious process , but which springs from an active, voluntary conscious grasping as opposed to staring blankly into space in order that something will automatically direct action without any requirement to think.

[Michael Sternbach]

Intuition is an umbrella term that covers what could be called non-linear parallel computing. The conscious mind can't follow and therefore doesn't perceive this; at best it gets to know the final result. This is therefore an un-conscious process. Intuition also often includes unconscious psychic perceptions.

 

A straightforward method to train your intuition is to ask yourself any question and make an effort to capture and further reflect on the first thought that comes to mind, before it's glossed over by the rational minds with its endless argumentation.

[Karl]

Intuition is an umbrella term that covers what could be called non-linear parallel computing. The conscious mind can't follow and therefore doesn't perceive this; at best it gets to know the final result. This is therefore an un-conscious process. Intuition also often includes unconscious psychic perceptions.

 

A straightforward method to train your intuition is to ask yourself any question and make an effort to capture and further reflect on the first thought that comes to mind, before it's glossed over by the rational minds with its endless argumentation.

 

Do you mean sub conscious ?

I ask because unconscious would mean exactly what I previously alluded to-that there was no issue that could not be solved by simply staring into space for a moment and up pops the answer ? The question must surely be part of a conscious, voluntary and active one. We are looking at future goals and must use our minds to get there.

 

If you need to buy a house, car, make an investment, decide on a health regime etc are you telling me that you need no experience of these things at all, that you are born fully installed with a set of predetermined actions that only need the mind to become quiet in order to hear them ? That rather than being born tabla rasa, we are actually born fully loaded so to speak ? Are you then ruling out any free will to determine any action and brcause all thinking is simply an illusion ?

 

I do not find I am troubled by endless argumentation. It seems inherently simple for me to arrive at a course of action. It does not mean I make the right choice, or that I'm correct in every conclusion of course, but it certainly isn't the mass of befuddled thinking you claim is normal for a rational person.

 

For instance It would seem to me an impossibility to pick up an instrument-having never been familiar with music- and pick the right notes to play in order to convey a composition. A whole lot of thinking would be going on in order to gain the experience to play the music and master the instrument. It seems impossible to me that this would be an entirely intuitive activity. Someone entirely familiar with music and skilled with an instrument through conscious effort would require little processing or thought, but that isn't intuition, but learned capacity.

[Nikolai1]

I would certainly agree with it being intuition. How do you apply method to intuition ? Surely intuition is a feeling ?

First thing you have to realise is that we are not performing an analysis of any thoughts, impressions that we have gained in experience.  This would just be more empiricism, more extroscience.  So, if we stay with our exampe of the young man trying to work out if the woman loves him back...this is not a situation where we are ruminating over all the things that she has said and done and settling on the interpretation that 'feels right'.

 

No data from past experience is taken into account in introscience.  This is an analysis of personal real-time feelings which will passively give rise to thoughts about the future that reflect our feelings.  

 

When we move our consciousness into the heart we will immediately feel at peace with the situation we are in.  To enter the heart is to enter a place of security and well-being whatever the outcome of our investigation.  This is why I say this method is only available to the awakened and is the post-awakened science.  The method is the privilege of those who are truly able to face up to reality and let it be as it is.  It is for those who have found true and imperturbable selfhood.

 

As we enter our heart and be in it we will feel peaceful and expanded.  Our thoughts, we notice, will start to follow a certain train - but all of them are characterised by peace and well-being and acceptance of the situation that our thoughts are painting.

 

The young man may suddenly feel that he is absolutely fine and happy whether she loves him or not.  He will see that worrying about it is what disturbs his peace.  He will see with great confidence that he can live his life without her anyway, and her love for him is not necessary.  He sees that he was wanting something that he does not need.  Yes! He can live without her.  Yes! he shall live without her!

 

Or,

 

He may realise that the most important thing is his love for this woman.  Whether she loves him back or not, it does not matter because his love is there, from his side, regardless.  He sees in his heart that he already has what he thought he needed to get.  Nis only need is to love this woman.  His only desire is that the love never dies.

 

Now notice the massive difference in these two thought based intepretations of entering the heart.  The first sees that his love for the girl is not necessary.  The second sees that his love is the only necessary thing.

 

This information will henceforth colour all of his interactions with the girl.  He will know with suh confidence and with no shadow of a doubt about the cosmic reality of his feelings that he may let reality play out as it will.  The first knows he does not need this girl and will be 'over her' in a flash.  The second knows that his love is so real that he will be with her in a flash.

 

This capacity to discern cosmic truths from inner exploration is not something that comes without work.  In affairs of the heart, this extraordinarily deep understanding of our beloved's significance is something that we tend to leave to the poets: Dante, Plutarch, Shakespeare all showed the unmistakable hallmarks of this capacity I'm talking about.  It is the fruit of the spiritual quest.  And it will not come until we have moved beyond our belief that that only science is the science of exploring the outside world.

[Karl]

How do you even know what a women is except through past experience ? How can you identify self/woman as seperate items or that causality ?

 

How did you get where you are now except by active cognitive integration of your past sense experiences ? As a baby we are unable to even focus our eyes, only being dimly aware of entities and existence. We have not yet established identity or causality. Are you saying that this isn't true ?

[Nikolai1]

How do you even know what a women is except through past experience ? How can you identify self/woman as seperate items or that causality ? How did you get where you are now except by active cognitive integration of your past sense experiences ? As a baby we are unable to even focus our eyes, only being dimly aware of entities and existence. We have not yet established identity or causality. Are you saying that this isn't true ?

What I call introscience starts out as the complement to extroscience.  As I explained in the OP, when we come to be aware of our timeless nature - the event I call awakening - it does not lead to omniscience.  Introscience is the method of gaining certainty on those matters where normal science and mathematics can't help us.

 

Everyday intuition definitely pre-figures this in our lives - you could call it proto-introscience if you like. 

[Marblehead]

Do you mean sub conscious ?

Yes.

[Nikolai1]

When we move into the heart our thinking function becomes passive.  This is the hallmark of introscience.  We enter the place of empty peacefulness, and then...we see the thoughts.  We read them as if they are words on a monitor, and we know their truth. Truth comes in a flash, and is entire.  We do not get there by degrees.

 

It is the exact opposite of normal thought which is iterative in nature, which moves from thought to thought, association to association until the process ends with a truth which 'feels right'.  This all has its place, but it is useless when it comes to answering those unique questions of the universe that have never been posed before.

 

Does this girl, love me, in this moment?  This question has never been asked, no data has ever been gathered. Only the heart can give us the answer.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

What I call introscience starts out as the complement to extroscience.  As I explained in the OP, when we come to be aware of our timeless nature - the event I call awakening - it does not lead to omniscience.  Introscience is the method of gaining certainty on those matters where normal science and mathematics can't help us.

 

Everyday intuition definitely pre-figures this in our lives - you could call it proto-introscience if you like. 

 

Right, but I certainly don't subscribe to the idea that science and maths are the only methods of gaining knowledge-that is an empiricists view. I'm saying science is the product of philosophic work which lead to the adoption of a specific methodology called the scientific method. It is the application of inductive logic in a repeatable framework. Prior to this inductive method, the gathering of knowledge was totally empirical, or it was entirely mystical.

 

This inductive leap is certainly not omniscient. It could be, by an large, considered intuitive but backed by a logical methodology that does its best to remove the errors inherent in intuitive guesswork and reveal reality.

 

I'm not at all sure that you aren't simply inventing new words to describe a change in your own understanding of how the world works ?

 

The meat of your post 'science and maths cannot answer everything' I agree with, but by the same logic that a hammer cannot be made to calculate PI. The cognitive mind comes first and the scientific method is the best way we have at present for error free knowledge of the universe.

 

I do not understand 'timelessness' or 'awakening' but you do say that it doesn't lead to omniscience so I don't have any trouble accepting that this is how you describe some aspect of internal cognitive integration. Thoughts don't have a specific time or place and 'awakening' could be a description of a succesful integration of concepts. I don't know if either of those is true for you, I can only guess at the descriptions as they pertain to my own cognitive processes.

 

 

[Karl]

When we move into the heart our thinking function becomes passive.  This is the hallmark of introscience.  We enter the place of empty peacefulness, and then...we see the thoughts.  We read them as if they are words on a monitor, and we know their truth. Truth comes in a flash, and is entire.  We do not get there by degrees.

 

It is the exact opposite of normal thought which is iterative in nature, which moves from thought to thought, association to association until the process ends with a truth which 'feels right'.  This all has its place, but it is useless when it comes to answering those unique questions of the universe that have never been posed before.

 

Does this girl, love me, in this moment?  This question has never been asked, no data has ever been gathered. Only the heart can give us the answer.

 

Perhaps you are describing how you once thought by comparing it to how you currently think ? I certainly don't have any need for rambling thoughts unless I want them, or substituting 'feeling' for a reasoned conclusion.

[Nikolai1]

Karl

 

I'm saying science is the product of philosophic work which lead to the adoption of a specific methodology called the scientific method.

I should say now, as it seems relevant, that I'm also not talking about a philosophical method which uses a priori reasoning - rationalism in other words.  Rational thought uses concepts that are grounded in former experience and is therefore not substantially different from pure empiricism.

 

All conceptualisation must be dispensed with as we enter the heart.  There is no conceptual input, but there will be conceptual output.  Nothing from the past is brought in.

 

Prior to this inductive method, the gathering of knowledge was totally empirical, or it was entirely mystical. 

Well, that's you writing history.  There is a mystical germ at the heart even of extroscience;introscience is its raising to the level of consciousness and its fruition.

 

I'm not at all sure that you aren't simply inventing new words to describe a change in your own understanding of how the world works ?

Both.  When we become conscious of something that was unconscious, it seems new but at the same time we see that it was always there.  But when it becomes conscious we can...enjoy it, so to speak.  We can ask questions pro-acticely now.  Before we had to anxiously await the outcome.  I made this point in the early posts. 

 

The cognitive mind comes first and the scientific method is the best way we have at present for error free knowledge of the universe. 

But it won't tell you if the girl loves you.  You have to go ahead and ask...her not expecting such an awkward question, you worried about the answer.  As I said before, the truth will always out anyway.  But we gain peace when we understand in ourselves...we save ourselves much bother.  This is what introscience is all about.  We get knowledge that makes our lives work better.

 

Think of it like a weather forecast.  Watching it won't stop the rain, but it will teach us to take an umbrella.  

 

Looking into our own heart will tell us the contents of the others.  This is useful information for a happy and peaceful existence.

[Karl]

Don't you simply enjoy that life is full of these uncertainties ?

 

It's as if you are synthesising and rationalising everything in an attempt to make it conform with your view point. We can muse, but it seems you are adding unnecessary complexity to something which occurs naturally.

 

I don't use science to ask a girl on a date. Instead I talk to her and find out if we have enough in common to take things further. I'm not sure what all that timelessness, awakening or going into the heart has to do with anything ? If we click then we let things progress whilst finding out a little more at every meeting. It's been done like that since we came down from the trees.

 

I'm happily married for 26 glorious years and still very much in love. I did that all on my own without any reference to logic, science, mysticism or any other ism. Seems like we have been managing to forge relations that way for millennia so why try and re- invent it ?

Edited December 11, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

I'm happily married for 26 glorious years and still very much in love. I did that all on my own without any reference to logic, science, mysticism or any other ism. Seems like we have been managing to forge relations that way for millennia so why try and re- invent it ?

There are many, many people who have not married well as you did.  They were unable to ' let things progress whilst finding out a little more at every meeting'  They did not have the instinctive confidence.  Their minds were full of all sorts of considerations that blinded them to the reality of their feelings.  They were anxious and lonely and wanted to secure a mate our of fear.  They therefore married badly and their lives were awkward and unsatisfactory as as result.

 

You married well, but there are other areas of your life where all the above applied.  Your heart's wisdom was completely obliterated by all the things that you were told about the world and the way it works.  Things have aways felt 'against the grain', unsatisfying.  When you become conscious of this and admit it to yourself then you are ready to consider introscience.  If you think that those unsatisfying aspects of your life are simply 'the way things are' then you are still stuck in the mindset of extroscience. 

 

I'm not inventing anything.  I'm raising something to the level of consciousness so that we can use it.  Yes, with your marriage you were not blocked from using it, you did it without thinking.  But what about the rest?

[Nikolai1]

A few notes about the introscientific hypothesis:

 

The question we ask very much chooses us.  It presents itself very vividly in the form of a practical dilemma.  We do not know what to do?

 

And this is not some idle query.  The question is very important to our lives and it feels that we shall be at a standstill until we answer it to our satisfaction.  If it remains unanswered, we are left wondering.

 

Only this real-life vital motivation will enable us to undertake the search. We will not earn money or fame, we not contribute any body of knowledge for the betterment of humanity.  We need the answer for it's own sake.

[Karl]

There are many, many people who have not married well as you did.  They were unable to ' let things progress whilst finding out a little more at every meeting'  They did not have the instinctive confidence.  Their minds were full of all sorts of considerations that blinded them to the reality of their feelings.  They were anxious and lonely and wanted to secure a mate our of fear.  They therefore married badly and their lives were awkward and unsatisfactory as as result.

 

You married well, but there are other areas of your life where all the above applied.  Your heart's wisdom was completely obliterated by all the things that you were told about the world and the way it works.  Things have aways felt 'against the grain', unsatisfying.  When you become conscious of this and admit it to yourself then you are ready to consider introscience.  If you think that those unsatisfying aspects of your life are simply 'the way things are' then you are still stuck in the mindset of extroscience. 

 

I'm not inventing anything.  I'm raising something to the level of consciousness so that we can use it.  Yes, with your marriage you were not blocked from using it, you did it without thinking.  But what about the rest?

 

As you have read my 'warts and all' auto biographical philosophy I can't exactly hide anything from you :-)

 

That book was based on that particular time and space. Several readers have asked how things have progressed.

 

I married well because I applied logic and reasoning without realising it. I matched values with several women-even to the point of severe ridicule by women who were keen to introduce me to their friends. When I stuck to my principles things went well, if I tried to evade them, then things went badly. I spent years conforming to other people's whims and compromising my own principles-such as they were-which landed me in a self made hell.

 

I have discovered that it is necessary to develop a principled approach to life and to apply total, rational, rigorous integrity and honesty. That means life is now completely satisfying and full for me. I am home, unified and complete. It was a long, bumpy road but I got there in the end-a bit worn, but that can't be helped.

 

Thats enough about me :-)

 

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Do you mean sub conscious ?

Superconscious might be the better term. But there is no "up" and "down" in the psyche, and different models use different terminology.

 

I ask because unconscious would mean exactly what I previously alluded to-that there was no issue that could not be solved by simply staring into space for a moment and up pops the answer ?

In principle, yes. You could "unconsciously" draw a Tarot card to help you formulate an answer more clearly, for that matter, or use a pendulum to access your intuition via your body etc.

 

The question must surely be part of a conscious, voluntary and active one. We are looking at future goals and must use our minds to get there.

Of course, intuitive insights can and should be integrated with conscious thought processes.

 

If you need to buy a house, car, make an investment, decide on a health regime etc are you telling me that you need no experience of these things at all, that you are born fully installed with a set of predetermined actions that only need the mind to become quiet in order to hear them ? That rather than being born tabla rasa, we are actually born fully loaded so to speak ?

Have you seen "Matrix"? In principle, you could "download" whatever skills you require from the ethers. To illustrate, very average individuals were told in hypnosis that they are i.e. a great painter, and lo and behold, they were suddenly able to produce a master piece.

 

I will answer to the rest later, I'm in a bus and it is arriving at my stop.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[thelerner]

Arent you really talking about decisions based on experience and the review of those actions towards future decisions ? I

Nope, I was referring to a half second or so flash.  The lightning that goes on in the back of your mind way faster then conscious thought.  Past experience is undoubtedly involved in it but not through conventional memory or thinking back.  In computer terms it's more flash memory then searching the hard drive.  

 

Sometimes we need a trigger to access it; clearing and emptying the mind.  Its not that exotic, we use it all the time for problem solving.  Stopping conscious thought and allowing the subconscious to solve the problem.  It doesn't always work, but it's cool when it does.   Problem solved instantly.  

 

Like other types of intelligence, it works better for some then others and some are genius's of it.  In the Robert Downey Jr version of Sherlock Holmes they paradoxically don't show him so much to be a deductive master, rather in one montage they show how images flash before him, linking unlikely but connected items giving him answers instantly.  

 

That's Sherlock Holmes, but when I problem solve, say word scrabble or Sudoku, my first approach is to blank the mind and stare and be open to solutions.  It usually gets me the easy ones.  Later I'll use my logical brain to work on others, then when stymied go back to empty blank mind, and see how that does.  They work not exactly together but complimentary in my opinion.  

Edited December 11, 2015 by thelerner

[Karl]

Joe 90 got there before the matrix did in regard to downloading skills. :-)

 

Hypnotism, like alcohol, can relax a person sufficiently to make them more creative, more confident and less inhibited. There isn't anything controversial in that, but hypnosis cannot 'download' something without some sensory input and some conscious, voluntary integration on behalf of the subject. I know, I've done it many times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Continuing my response to Karl:

 

Are you then ruling out any free will to determine any action and brcause all thinking is simply an illusion ?

 

That's a non sequitur. I don’t downplay the role of the mind's cognitive functions.

 

I do not find I am troubled by endless argumentation. It seems inherently simple for me to arrive at a course of action. It does not mean I make the right choice, or that I'm correct in every conclusion of course, but it certainly isn't the mass of befuddled thinking you claim is normal for a rational person.

 

All the better. It is quite common though.

 

For instance It would seem to me an impossibility to pick up an instrument-having never been familiar with music- and pick the right notes to play in order to convey a composition. A whole lot of thinking would be going on in order to gain the experience to play the music and master the instrument. It seems impossible to me that this would be an entirely intuitive activity. Someone entirely familiar with music and skilled with an instrument through conscious effort would require little processing or thought, but that isn't intuition, but learned capacity.

 

See my last post above.

[Karl]

Right, so you do not mean pre programmed. That wouldn't have been a non sequitur mind you, because it follows that self determinism would be an illusion if the mind was fully pre programmed.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Joe 90 got there before the matrix did in regard to downloading skills. :-)

 

Hypnotism, like alcohol, can relax a person sufficiently to make them more creative, more confident and less inhibited. There isn't anything controversial in that, but hypnosis cannot 'download' something without some sensory input and some conscious, voluntary integration on behalf of the subject. I know, I've done it many times.

So you could actually do this experiment yourself: Hypnotize a volunteer without known artistic abilities, tell them that they are Picasso and that they are going to paint something. Make sure that they have the tools available and see what happens...

 

I won't tell you how far you can stretch this. But feel free to tell me (later).

 

Right, so you do not mean pre programmed. That wouldn't have been a non sequitur mind you, because it follows that self determinism would be an illusion if the mind was fully pre programmed.

No, I don’t believe that it's fully preprogrammed. But it seems to be equipped with some information from the onset of an incarnation, which only needs to be "remembered".

Edited December 11, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Karl]

Be honest Michael. Doesn't your philosophy feel a bit fuzzy to you ? A bit floaty and patchy ?

 

You are not fully an intrincisist and you have demonstrated pragmatism to paper over the cracks, by suggesting knowledge is partially intrinsic ( from memory of past life) and partially cognitive-which is a pragmatic view point. It's a compromised philosophy. If pushed you will be forced to slide into full subjectivism.

 

Does it make sense that you are born with some intrinsic knowledge, but not all intrinsic knowledge ? What specific memory is retained ? How is that selected ?

[ilumairen]

Does it make sense that you are born with some intrinsic knowledge, but not all intrinsic knowledge ? What specific memory is retained ? How is that selected ?

 

I've read that the 'heart' remains, that this is what we keep, while all else falls away.

[Karl]

I've read that the 'heart' remains, that this is what we keep, while all else falls away.

 

When you say 'heart' Des, what exactly do you mean ? Do you mean emotional capacity and not memory? If so, then what is the purpose of reincarnation exactly.

 

If we are born as blank slates with cognitive and emotional capacity, then there is no requirement for reincarnation or karma.

 

 

[ilumairen]

When you say 'heart' Des, what exactly do you mean ? Do you mean emotional capacity and not memory? If so, then what is the purpose of reincarnation exactly.

 

If we are born as blank slates with cognitive and emotional capacity, then there is no requirement for reincarnation or karma.

 

I cannot tell you 'exactly'.. I can say that I don't understand why you ask questions, formulate a response for others (without giving them a chance to answer the query), and then argue against the answer you provided, as if you are arguing with someone other than yourself. It's really kind of interesting to watch - especially since I'm pretty sure I've done this myself.