tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post5103511766451608178..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Intuiting GodMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-39057105574861298202008-09-17T23:30:00.000-07:002008-09-17T23:30:00.000-07:00Alexander,that was awesome, seriously. You should ...Alexander,<BR/><BR/>that was awesome, seriously. You should come over to my blog (see link from my name), we could use someone with your wit to liven things up a bit. Note, there's lots of atheist discussions on Xanga, not that I'm pitching here! I also direct them to this blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-68064483872731785762008-09-17T22:28:00.000-07:002008-09-17T22:28:00.000-07:00I still do not see you making any sense. I told yo...I still do not see you making any sense. I told you that intuitive knowledge is nonsense because you cannot justify its course of action. Thus intuition exists but only when a person has direct access to an object. Only then are they justifed in having intuitive knowledge. So it just doesn't make sense. Get it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-15791923249901019842008-09-17T21:53:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:53:00.000-07:00Great read by Mr. king atheist bertrand russell. B...Great read by Mr. king atheist bertrand russell. Brilliant man! <BR/><BR/>On intutive knowledge<BR/>http://www.dickran.net/books/russell/chapter11.html<BR/><BR/>it is so sad that people like billy goofpoop think they can spew conjecture rather than appeal to people, studies, and things!<BR/><BR/>----------->>> philosophers w/ out science ought to walk the plankAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46780798028180132262008-09-17T21:15:00.000-07:002008-09-17T21:15:00.000-07:00ok i just cant wait for barry goodwater and his gi...ok i just cant wait for barry goodwater and his girlfriend to do their own searching...lil ole me Mr. acedemically challenged bringing out the acedemic citations for intuitive knowledge<BR/><BR/>barry and alexia<BR/>----------------->>>>>>OWNED!!!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Intuition: A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Approach Matthew D. Lieberman Harvard University This review proposes that implicit learning processes are the cognitive substrate of social intuition. This hypothesis is supported by (a) the conceptual correspondence between implicit learning and social intuition (nonverbal communication) and (b) a review of relevant neuropsychological (Huntington's and Parkinson's disease), neuroimaging, neurophysiological, and neuroanatomical data. It is concluded that the caudate and putamen, in the basal ganglia, are central components of both intuition and implicit learning, supporting the proposed relationship. Parallel, but distinct, processes of judgment and action are demonstrated at each of the social, cognitive, and neural levels of analysis. Additionally, explicit attempts to learn a sequence can interfere with implicit learning. The possible relevance of the computations of the basal ganglia to emotional appraisal, automatic evaluation, script processing, and decision making are discussed.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Knowing before we know: Conscious versus preconscious top–down processing and a neuroscience of intuition <BR/><BR/>S.J. Segalowitza, <BR/><BR/>aBrock University, Department of Psychology, St. Catharines, Ont., Canada L2S 3A1<BR/><BR/>Intuition: a social cognitive neuroscience approach.Lieberman MD.<BR/>Department of Psychology, Harvard University, USA. matthew_lieberman@post.harvard.edu<BR/><BR/>intuition, neuroscience, decision making and learningEugene Sadler-SmithCentre for Management Learning and Development, School of Management, University of Surrey, UK. e.sadler-smith@surrey.ac.ukSome Personal Reflections Written Following the Meeting of the Society for Organizational Learning-UK at the London School of Economics, June 23Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73769160001883278272008-09-17T20:57:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:57:00.000-07:00Com'on barry just us your two cents. No blabbing a...Com'on barry just us your two cents. No blabbing about your own interpretations<BR/><BR/>and your girlfriend alexandira can throw in her opinion if she has one<BR/><BR/>PLEASE TYPE IN GOOGLE "intution and nueroscience"<BR/><BR/>THANK YOU<BR/><BR/>OUTAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-74315465648738090822008-09-17T20:49:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:49:00.000-07:00TO alexandria,wut an incredible waste of space you...TO alexandria,<BR/><BR/>wut an incredible waste of space your post was<BR/><BR/>How about your opinion on inutuitve knowledge?<BR/><BR/>You say you are a theist. please describe your faith or reason for your belief in god...<BR/><BR/>Barry is that you???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73936741727637876542008-09-17T20:19:00.000-07:002008-09-17T20:19:00.000-07:00After reading through this hefty thread, I feel ob...After reading through this hefty thread, I feel obligated to commend the good Dr. Anonymous on his argument for intuition as direct knowledge of the Universe. It is truly breath-taking to behold. I've been reading this blog off and on for a while now, and I must say, this truly is the most spectacular defense for the belief in the existence of God I have ever had the privilege to behold. <BR/><BR/>I first must congratulate you on your simply dynamite research. You've actually managed to find an organization of people that consider intuition to be direct knowledge. Astonishing! And because of this, therefore, you have conclusively proven that intuition is direct knowledge. And in following your example, I too have made a discovery of earth-shattering proportions that I would like to share with you.<BR/><BR/>http://www.geocentricity.com/<BR/><BR/>I found an organization that believes the works of Tycho Brahe, a 16th Century Danish Nobleman, are true and that the Earth is, in fact, the center of the Universe. And because I have the awe-inspiring power to post a link to their their website, enabling you all to peruse the fabulous "Tycho Brahe Geocentricity Shop," Geocentricity, the thesis that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is true.<BR/><BR/>Next, let's move on to your stellar use of quotations. It seems you've discovered the lynch-pin in winning this argument: Googling famous people who have talked about intuition before. Good God Man, what a find! And it doesn't even matter if the quotations even have even the most minuscule modicum of relevance whatsoever: So long as they say "Intuition," your point is proven. Again following in your footsteps, I too have made a discovery of my own from a quotation I read when I was in 10th Grade:<BR/><BR/>"God does not Play Dice"<BR/><BR/>-Albert Einstein<BR/><BR/>Ergo, Gambling is Immoral. Man, taking unrelated authors' words out of context really relieves all the heavy lifting of making a coherent point. You and me should run for office some day.<BR/><BR/>Next, we'll take a brief interlude since I'm fairly certain you've stopped reading this and are currently looking for some Oppenheimer quotes expounding how much of an Asshole I am (A Claim I wouldn't DREAM of refuting. Ask anyone. I'm a colossal dick.) While we wait, I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about Bacon. Mmmmm Bacon. Gosh it's good. Thank God for Bacon.<BR/><BR/>Continuing on...<BR/><BR/>As if your Googling of quotations wasn't inspired enough, you've also taken the time out of studying for your Introduction to Psychology course to thoughtfully include some random articles with the word "Intuition" in them that you Googled as well. How Gracious! Never mind the fact that none of them had anything to do with the topic at hand. A cursory glance at the actual content of the articles would have been sufficient to tell you that. The one on Math is about what is taken as proof of the possibility of certain mathematical constructs, the Neuroscience link involved the means by which we develop and enact our intuition, and the "Psychology Today" article, while closer, really only focuses on our intuition's ability to read social ques with a fair degree of accuracy, not uncover direct knowledge of deep metaphysical truths. What's important here is that they had the word "Intuition" in the title, and in an argument about the justification for a belief in the existence of a Supreme Being, that's all that counts. <BR/><BR/>While your argument may be bordering on infallible, there is one correction I feel compelled to proffer up. You said, and I quote:<BR/><BR/>"Uh Bryan why do you ad nausum the same old tired line when people"<BR/><BR/>Ad Nauseum is not a verb. Never has been. Never will be. It is an adverb modifying how something is done. So if I were to say "You incorrectly use the word 'Ad Nauseum' ad nauseum," I would be grammatically correct. Later, you used it as an adjective:<BR/><BR/>"instead of your tired ad nauseum make believe bullshit conjecture, how aobut..."<BR/><BR/>Its close, a good effort, and worthy of commendation, but still not quite correct. But don't worry Sport, You'll get `em next time.<BR/><BR/>You Truly are an astonishing Academic. I, and I'm sure I can speak for all of my fellow theists, am delighted that you have stepped up to be our spokesperson. I can think of no finer mind to defend the intricacies of our belief in God than you sir. <BR/><BR/>Kudos.<BR/><BR/>-AlexAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-12721412309310357332008-09-17T19:28:00.000-07:002008-09-17T19:28:00.000-07:00hey barry goodfella,are there other types of knowl...hey barry goodfella,<BR/><BR/>are there other types of knowledge or is there just one type for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21383518777213843972008-09-17T19:27:00.000-07:002008-09-17T19:27:00.000-07:00Hey bayesian buffoon thanks for saying nothingthan...Hey bayesian buffoon thanks for saying nothing<BR/><BR/>thanks for playing<BR/><BR/>come againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64368714487461847192008-09-17T13:19:00.000-07:002008-09-17T13:19:00.000-07:00> How about if you read my first comment again ...> How about if you read my first comment again and try to do it with improved comprehension?<BR/><BR/>>> <I>I still don’t see a name. just a moniker. Why are you hiding?</I><BR/><BR/>Your comprehension is still poor.<BR/><BR/>> Do you happen to have any examples of that?<BR/><BR/>>> <I>intuition is not only accepted by psychologists and biologists but many mathematicians and philosophers. try Google or take a college course. try being a little self sufficient</I><BR/><BR/>Apparently you don't understand what an "example" is.<BR/><BR/>Prof. McCormick, I think it's time to give banning a try.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65862345611029967332008-09-17T12:17:00.000-07:002008-09-17T12:17:00.000-07:00I don't know where you get that I've "back stepped...I don't know where you get that I've "back stepped" and redefined anything. I think I've clearly just asked <I>you</I> to define it and show the relation to intuition, just like anyone who defines a system of knowledge relates it to our rational faculties, perceptual faculties, etc. As for appeals to authorities, they do not make an argument for you. Appealing to a scholar's work, concepts, proofs, reasoning, etc. comes as an adequate, or proper, appeal to that "authority." You have not done that, you simply say "he says it and therefore he's smart so it must be true." It's the tired trick Christians are seen doing by saying "all these scientists believe in God, therefore God is rationally justified." It's a "WTF?!" move.<BR/><BR/>In regard to the unconscious processes going on, they come as providing information, or bringing information "to the surface." This does not entail the communication of chimps is invaluable. The question is whether or not <I>it is knowledge</I>. Do you seriously not see the difference? <BR/><BR/>Look at it this way, even if we say the unconscious processing of information to some conclusion is a "hit", how do we know? That requires us to check it against the world. I may have an intuition that the solution to my math problem is X, but I don't know that it was even correct until I have proven X. It makes, to stretch the word, the intuition an epiphenomenon of this conclusion since to derive the truth of X I couldn't depend on intuition alone. If we don't have to prove X, then it comes out that our intuition <I>may</I> be correct, but is now <I>epistemically inaccessible</I>! What a queer result. The solution you, and non-cognitivist that believe intuition equates to knowledge, provide? "It just <I>is</I> knowledge." Really? Prove it. What's your justification for that claim beyond stating it axiomatically as if it's just a basic belief we all need to accept. You might as well say "God is right and beyond qualification, you just need to accept it." To be blunt, that kind of belief system is just retarded, and it is completely unconvincing to say we're wrong and have no justification to not accept this "dee dee dee" belief.<BR/><BR/>To be even more painfully clear, you equate intuition to knowledge, yet leave knowledge undefined. Until you can adequately define knowledge and show it fits in with your definition of intuition, you've basically said x=y, but haven't even stated wtf y is. Even if we say x is a valid statement to make in the system, you still have to prove y is, and that, in fact, x does equal y.<BR/><BR/>So I'll ask again and will not respond to you until you can further this trite discussion by answering. What is your definition or conception of knowledge and how does it equate to intuition as you have defined it? <BR/><BR/>If you go the chimp route and say intuition is just unconscious, biological, processing of information, then how does that equal knowledge? That would be the next step you need to take as that will be my first response regardless of what you say knowledge is. If it falls out of your answer to the first question, all the better. And note, I don't care that for some reason you can't contain yourself from throwing around insults needlessly in almost every one of your comments, but if we're all going to be intellectually honest, then man up and provide an argument like a rational human being and quite relying on your ad hominem approach (i.e., making your insult <I>the</I> argument). Otherwise, I can only conclude you're not a rational human being capable of such discourse and no one here will continue to play your childish games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-41218985706769498472008-09-17T11:02:00.000-07:002008-09-17T11:02:00.000-07:00“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the ratio...“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”<BR/><BR/> ~ Albert Einstein<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Oh no i am appealing to an authority again! Spank me! I am so very bad to appeal to authorities...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-46266717471553657402008-09-17T10:58:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:58:00.000-07:00Cool tom! are you sincere in your disposition or a...Cool tom! are you sincere in your disposition or are you just merely saying X is false? <BR/><BR/>For example i can say tom does not exists or that sqaure circles do exists but niether proposition i actually believe to be true. thus i have not offered a rebuttal but am merely poking fun...<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>please be honest here sir.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7704827240334678632008-09-17T10:54:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:54:00.000-07:00here is some more good stuff barney,Intuitive know...here is some more good stuff barney,<BR/><BR/><B><BR/>Intuitive knowledge is the irresistable and indubitable perception of the agreement of any two ideas without the mediation of any other. This is the clearest and most perfectly certain of all degrees of human knowledge. It accounts for our assent to self-evident truths and serves as the foundation up-on which all other genuine knowledge must be established. [Essay IV ii 1] Intuition is most common in our knowledge of identity and relation among clear ideas, but (following Descartes) Locke also supposed that each thinking being has an intuitive knowledge of its own existence. [Essay IV ix 3] </B><BR/>http://www.philosophypages.com/locke/g04.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-26941685964967408872008-09-17T10:43:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:43:00.000-07:00Recently I had a strong religious experience and I...Recently I had a strong religious experience and I obtained a glimpse into the Ultimate Reality. It turns out that theism is false.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05614641518805431869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-47732264065895006802008-09-17T10:21:00.000-07:002008-09-17T10:21:00.000-07:00Hey barney rubble,How many fallacies are you gonna...Hey barney rubble,<BR/><BR/>How many fallacies are you gonna accuse me of? sounds like you are desperate. And whats wrong with appealing to authorities? when did that become bad? dont you appeal to<BR/>some authority in your thinkng???<BR/><BR/>You do realise that not all the stimuli that enteres your brian gets treated by higher cognitition? the flight or fight reponse is such am example. the signal goes to the amglya which has no idea WTF logic or reasoning is. you just cant resolve your position which says only humans can have knowledge becasue we just can. while the information in the chimps communication is invaluable.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You also failed to address the nueroscience link or the psychology today article that shows the widely acceptence of intution as knowledge ie implicit memory, automatic thinking...<BR/><BR/>Listen barney, your stuff is so very tired. you back step, attempt to redefine what you said and conclude that you were always right. ist quite annoying<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>RE: Eric<BR/><BR/>you make no sense friend. you are disagreeing with the translation. your comment is irrelevent in that matter.<BR/><BR/>try disagreeing with kant rather than saying he didnt mean what he said.<BR/>because kant did in fact meant what he said<BR/><BR/><B> space and time<BR/>Kant gives two expositions of space and time: metaphysical and transcendental. The metaphysical expositions of space and time are concerned with clarifying how those intuitions are known independently of experience. The transcendental expositions attempt to show how the metaphysical conclusions might be applied to enrich our understanding.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason </B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-32799695275709409722008-09-17T06:46:00.000-07:002008-09-17T06:46:00.000-07:00Our anonymous friend quotes Kant, thus:"All human ...Our anonymous friend quotes Kant, thus:<BR/><BR/>"All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas."<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately this does not support our friend's claims regarding the epistemic status of intuition, as Kant is not using the term (g. Anschauung) in the same sense as that under discussion.<BR/><BR/>We now return you to our regularly scheduled slugfest.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-35918246471323858782008-09-16T21:13:00.000-07:002008-09-16T21:13:00.000-07:00It is sad when one's only argument reverts to argu...It is sad when one's only argument reverts to <I>argumentum ad hominem</I> and appeal to authorities. I never said there is no intuition, nor disagree with your quotations; in fact, I use it quite often as a mathematician. The dispute is not the existence of this thing called intuition; it is about <I>knowledge</I>. Unless I am caricaturing the argument, it seems to follow as:<BR/><BR/><I>a</I> concludes that p by <I>a</I>'s intuition; therefore, a knows that p. <BR/><BR/>On the surface of it, this is an unjustified statement. You have not provided any support for how intuition entails knowledge nor how what one concludes by intuition is knowledge proper. Consider one can reason from some premises to a conclusion, i.e., P├C, but does this make C knowledge, too? Once again, how? <BR/><BR/>I think it rests on what you are suggesting knowledge is. You rely on defining "intuition is knowledge." Fine, unless you want to be absolutely vague or circular, how do you define knowledge to make this a substantial fact? Even if I grant you that intuition is direct knowledge (again, I affirm there is intuition, but it is not knowledge) then what is knowledge? Intuition is merely "direct access" to it? Okay, that still doesn't explain what knowledge is since my reasoning "indirect access" to it doesn't make my conclusions knowledge. It seems <I>you</I> have redefined knowledge without explicitly specifying it and expect us to buy into this rubbish. My point is that even if I grant you intuition as knowledge, it is not the I'm trying to redefine knowledge, I'm saying it doesn't coincide with what we might call knowledge. So how do you fix that problem? What is knowledge?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-23913426594512905152008-09-16T20:23:00.000-07:002008-09-16T20:23:00.000-07:00Hey billy here is anotherAll human knowledge thus ...Hey billy here is another<BR/><BR/>All human knowledge thus begins with intuitions, proceeds thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. <BR/><BR/>Immanuel Kant <BR/><BR/>thats right! you got to listen to the german dude with the funny haircut!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-60932362427543247792008-09-16T20:15:00.000-07:002008-09-16T20:15:00.000-07:00here ya go barney goodyrich...a scientist, a philo...here ya go barney goodyrich...a scientist, a philosopher, and the guy who made the most expensive coffe maker<BR/><BR/>“The only real valuable thing is intuition.” <BR/> <BR/>Albert Einstein <BR/> <BR/>Intuition and concepts constitute... the elements of all our knowledge, so that neither concepts without an intuition in some way corresponding to them, nor intuition without concepts, can yield knowledge. <BR/><BR/>Immanuel Kant<BR/><BR/>Mathematical reasoning may be regarded rather schematically as the exercise of a combination of two facilities, which we may call intuition and ingenuity. <BR/><BR/>Alan TuringAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-77980671477295077332008-09-16T19:58:00.000-07:002008-09-16T19:58:00.000-07:00P.S. barry goodrichinstead of your tired ad nauseu...P.S. barry goodrich<BR/><BR/>instead of your tired ad nauseum make believe bullshit conjecture, how aobut you challenge their assumptions? i read your post and am surprised to see nothing but hot air. How about making a point? try referring to implicit memory or automatic thinkng processes. hell even your lover boy professor even admits to intution existing. he just thinks theist arent justifed in using it to establish their faith.<BR/><BR/>i am begininng to think you have already been hit upside the head witha mop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-3181805756604506072008-09-16T19:44:00.000-07:002008-09-16T19:44:00.000-07:00who the hell is carlos?You sure like talking over ...who the hell is carlos?<BR/><BR/>You sure like talking over people but your horrible aobut addressing others points.<BR/><BR/>refer to the links MR. verboseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-44751182522418518582008-09-16T15:36:00.000-07:002008-09-16T15:36:00.000-07:00Carlos, you still don't seem to understand a word ...Carlos, you still don't seem to understand a word I said in my post. Yes, you provided a link to a definition you assent to. I also explained how what they said established intuition as a faculty no different than reason. So now you have two things. Your claim that information, or communicating information, is knowledge and that merely obtaining a conclusion is knowledge. Do you assert that when one reasons to some conclusion their conclusion is knowledge or not? By what you have affirmed (see above) you seem to be forced to accept that or disaffirm intuition. But if you affirm merely reasoning to a conclusion is knowledge, then you're going to have to accept many queer results that whatever one reasons to is knowledge, like A→B, A, therefore B, and you can fill it in with <I>anything you want</I> and it is knowledge. You might say that I am avoiding the fact what fills these variables is important, that semantics is important, but I already showed above you neglect semantics altogether so I wont repeat myself again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-73636858299504963042008-09-16T12:16:00.000-07:002008-09-16T12:16:00.000-07:00sorry to the professor for spamming his blog but y...sorry to the professor for spamming his blog but your mindless followers really need to get a clue about whats going on with the rest of the world<BR/><BR/>Controlled vs. Automatic Thinking and Behavior<BR/><BR/>http://socialpsych.wordpress.com/category/controlled-vs-automatic-thinking-and-behavior/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4182012056019390692008-09-16T12:11:00.000-07:002008-09-16T12:11:00.000-07:00for the calculator brain guy just in case his batt...for the calculator brain guy just in case his battery runs low<BR/><BR/>math<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism<BR/><BR/>nueroscience<BR/>http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:nAFnX0dDq7cJ:www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Intuition.pdf+intuition+and+neuroscience&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=usAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com