Dialogue

[Interbane]

TH: "How many corpses do you require, Interbane? In the "CBS poll on superstition" thread I gave you an example of empirical intuition -- the case of the torn meniscus -- and you did not realize the import."

Repost it here, let's take a look at it.

TH: "They weren't testing what I experience."

And by what objective litmus test do you verify the validity of your own experience?

The talk of deception is interesting. If you think intuition is infallible, or nearly so, consider our ability to detect lies. Do you propose that you can detect any lie ever told to you due to the infallibility of your intuition? Take it a step further and consider differences in content. Is an intuitive conclusion that someone is lying to your face different than an intuitive conclusion on some obscure philosophy? What if the content was mixed, where you draw an intuitive philosophical conclusion based on perception of something in your environment?

TH: "...but one always has intuitive knowledge when one is dealing with a deceiver, the problem being to become aware of it. "

This is the second time you've mentioned deception, and you've made comparisons to card sharks in the past. You're so convinced you're correct that when faced with clear reasoning that contradicts your beliefs, you'd more readily assume the person is a liar than think he could be right and you could be wrong.

[Thomas Hood]

TH: "How many corpses do you require, Interbane? In the "CBS poll on superstition" thread I gave you an example of empirical intuition -- the case of the torn meniscus -- and you did not realize the import."

Repost it here, let's take a look at it.

A few months ago I had an encounter with a local administrator, who told me that she had torn the meniscus in her knee. I anticipated that she would have knee surgery and felt strongly that she should not, and did what I could to dissuade her from having surgery, although at the moment I could not say why. A few weeks later my sister, who had been with me at the time, told me that the woman had died suddenly. "A blood clot from knee surgery?" I ask, and my sister told me that's what they thought it was.

Now note, I had been acting on intuition, a non-rational belief. In afterthought I can identify some of the specific signs that led me to the belief, basically signs of low vitality, but at the moment I could not and my belief was dismissed.

When I was 16, I heard a laugh, but did not see the laugher. I asked, " Who was laughing?" and was told it was X. The laughter was odd, but I could not conceptually explain it. About two weeks later X was mentioned at Sunday dinner. I was in a contemplative frame of mind, and suddenly the meaning of the laugh bubbled up into consciousness. "X is a cruel person," I said. My parents were impressed by X's financial success, and they proceeded to berate me for speaking unkindly of X -- similar to the critical thinkers thinking I needed to be punished for speaking unkindly of critical thinking. In both cases, an attempt was made to extort an apology. I knew what I knew, and none was forthcoming. About six weeks later, X -- bless his heart -- torture murdered an acquaintance, and spent his next 17 years in the state penitentiary. He died about 2000.

Now note: 1. My knowledge was intuition. 2. It was conceptually incommunicable. 3. It was proven true by the course of events. 4. It was a judgment of character, not of facts.

In my opinion the argument between theist and atheist is irrelevant because based on partial evidence.

Tom

[Interbane]

Those are good examples of intuition Thomas. I have a couple myself, one quite similar to the laughing maniac. However, they're anecdotal and not evidence of anything beyond personal belief(the intrinsic bias does qualify these as knowledge.) For those two instances you've cited, how many other instances have you forgotten? These two memories I'm sure were emotionally stark when they happened, and have been recollected many times since the events. Your examples have nothing to say on the infallibility of your intuition.

"The availability heuristic is a phenomenon (which can result in a cognitive bias) in which people predict the frequency of an event, or a proportion within a population, based on how easily an example can be brought to mind.

Simply stated, where an anecdote ("I know an American guy who...") is used to "prove" an entire proposition or to support a bias, the availability heuristic is in play.

In these instances the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally "available," the single example is considered as representative of the whole rather than as just a single example in a range of data."

This isn't to say your examples aren't useful. They provide good examples of how powerful intiution can be. Yet there's a problem with your classification of intiution, it's not knowledge, as you're claiming. There is a lot of information coming at you at any given moment, the majority of which your consciousness is not aware of. Your unconscious, however, is available to sift the data and provide feedback. Even though you're not aware of it, your brain is unconsciously processing information in the same way you process it consciously, the difference is that you're not aware of it until there's relevant information or something that's "flagged". When your brain made the connection that the vital signs on the person with the meniscus were terrible, the thought "popped" into your conscious. When your brain made the connection that the subtle vocal tones in the laughing man's voice were cruel, the thought "popped" into your conscious. Both of these thoughts were preceded by or followed by the "feeling of knowing", this is a mental emotion every bit as real and potent as any other emotion.

The result is that if feels as if you suddenly "know", as if by divine inspiration. I'll gladly read and discuss the books where all this information comes from(sorry, I'm not simply making it up.) So intuition isn't knowledge, as you claim, but rather a combination of a cognitive function(reasoning) and a mental emotion. This reasoning has the same limits as your conscious reasoning, and therefore the same faults and biases. It can be mystifying and impressive, but it certainly doesn't mean your brain is suddenly omniscient!

TH: "How many corpses do you require, Interbane?"

Was this your attempt to win "debate points"? By throwing in an emotionally loaded rhetorical question? Such comments are far enough off base that they're funny Thomas. They also show how desperate you are, like a cat backed into a corner. Or perhaps you're convinced you're right(even though you're wrong) no matter how many times your position is refuted.

Leo Tolstoy:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him"

[Frank 013]

TH
I knew what I knew, and none was forthcoming. About six weeks later, X -- bless his heart -- torture murdered an acquaintance, and spent his next 17 years in the state penitentiary. He died about 2000.

Thomas, why on earth should we believe anything you say at this point?

You have repeatedly shown us that your credibility in such matters is ZERO and that you will twist the truth and even the meaning of words and definitions to suit your needs.

You have been deceitful Thomas and you have lost all respect and credibility with me.

I suspect that your above “example” is also a made-up, fabrication, told in a lame attempt to elicit an emotional response from members who do not know what a troll you have become.

Interbane was kind enough to go along with your account of events because they actually support his position better than yours, but at this point without some (very credible) confirming evidence I (and others) are dismissive of your personal claims and your biased research.

Maybe your intuition has been accurate in the past, I suspect that most people have similar experiences, but as interbane mentions, that is a result of a person’s working subconscious and any information gleamed in that way must be looked at critically because it is often times inaccurate.

You yourself have even mentioned that you try to back up your intuition with solid data… that is critical thinking Thomas…

Your misplaced distrust of critical thinking is a perfect example of trust in intuition gone horribly wrong, and if your intuition of topics and individuals on this site has been any indication of your intuitive accuracy, it is sorely lacking.

Apparently you know what you know… but in the case of atheism and critical thinking what you “know” is terribly wrong… your inability to see this is either blind faith in your initial intuitive response (which is likely a negative knee jerk reaction because of your religious indoctrination) or plain delusional bull headedness.

In either case unless you are willing to look at the information fairly you are doomed to wallow in discredited, biased, stupidity and ignorance.

You have made your bed and now you have to sleep in it… little troll.

Later

[geo]

I suspect that your above “example” is also a made-up, fabrication, told in a lame attempt to elicit an emotional response . . .

Actually, Thomas' anecdote doesn't seem farfetched to me. As Interbane says the subconscious picks up on all kinds of stuff. It's how the brain works. The brain is a wonderfully complex piece of machinery and we may never understand all of its intricacies. If someone chooses to believe these subconscious siftings of data as evidence of spirit or soul or whatever, that's fine. But certainly there's no empirical data to support this cosmic connection.

[Chris OConnor]

Your entire last post was excellent, Interbane.

[johnson1010]

Spirit is universally and empirically present

This is entirely incorrect. As you may recall TH, this was shredded by everyone who examined it.

http://www.booktalk.org/do-you-consider ... t6550.html

Even goldfish have been proven to posses longer memory than this.
You can't expect this assertion to carry any weight.

But a person like myself who is only slightly alert will have many intuitive experiences

Another badge of honor. Maybe you should try waking up?

If you put your whole brain to it, you might start making sense!

[Frank 013]

Geo
Actually, Thomas' anecdote doesn't seem farfetched to me. As Interbane says the subconscious picks up on all kinds of stuff. It's how the brain works.

It doesn’t matter weather TH’s story is plausible or not… I agree that it is actually possible… and of course it does not support Thomas’ point at all.

I am simply saying that because of Thomas’ past behavior I am no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in such matters.

Thomas has shown us that he is willing to fabricate evidence to prove his point and I no longer trust him. His Nazi atheist story and his supposed intuitive accuracy are both now completely suspect in my mind.

Unless Thomas starts bringing up credible, non-biased material for consideration I see absolutely no reason to trust anything he says as factual.

Later

[Interbane]

Frank: "Unless Thomas starts bringing up credible, non-biased material for consideration I see absolutely no reason to trust anything he says as factual."

Emphasis mine. That's not going to happen without critical thinking skills. I don't think Thomas knows what the word bias means.

[Chris OConnor]

Oh shit. We're about to argue over the definition of bias.