Log in

No account? Create an account


« previous entry | next entry »
Jun. 29th, 2003 | 03:04 am

I go by a personal theory of 'functional equivalence'. It doesn't matter what intuition is 'made of', as long as the language I use to describe it is consistent. So it feels supernatural to me, and seeing it that way helps me be more aware of my intuition, which is a good thing. If you peeled away the layers, you'd find at the base that I believe there is some 'natural' mechanism by which the 'supernatural' occurs. But, as with martial arts, explaining at that level of detail, we'd never 'get it'. You'd be one of the blind men arguing about the elephant. You'd have a hard time being able to *act* on the (quite useful) intuition, nor could you break bricks with your bare hands.

The whole body is the brain; there are neurotransmitters drifting through all parts of the body, and doing who knows what extra functions. Some of our bodily organs produce neurotransmitters in response to certain conditions. Particularly the gut. Believe me, your intestines are doing some serious 'thinking' all day long, and the 'gut feeling' you get, that's a component of intuition.

Um, sorry if I'm agreeing with you at excessive length. I like to hear myself think. :)

Link | Leave a comment | | Flag

Comments {3}

(Deleted comment)

Chef Monkey

Not really supernatural

from: chefmonkey
date: Jun. 29th, 2003 11:20 pm (UTC)

The statement (IMHO) to take at face value is that he thinks there's ultimately a natural cause for the items he considers "supernatural."

I had a long, long, incredibly long e-mail discussion almost a decade ago with him on the topic of "supernatural" (spawned by an offhand reference to angels). Although mind changing is always an option, at that point in time, drilling down to the foundation led me to to conclusion that his view of "supernatural" was more a description of the incredibly complex things that normal, concrete, well-understood, scientifically explainable phenomena can combine to create. But it's just too complicated to explain that way.

To add some perspective: drilling down from the level of "supernatural" to "well explained phenomena" was about as long a journey as would be drilling down from "first person shooter" through "object oriented programming", "CPUs", "hardware logic gates," and "field effect transistors" to finally arrive at "magnetic repulsion of electrons".

Okay, it makes sense to me, but I fear that I may have just rambled way off into the weeds. Sorry.

Reply | Parent | Thread


Re: Not really supernatural

from: sea_of_change
date: Jun. 30th, 2003 12:09 am (UTC)

I know who you are.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Chef Monkey


from: chefmonkey
date: Jul. 2nd, 2003 11:25 am (UTC)

Perhaps when you get back from California, you can explain who I am to me. Been trying to figure it out for years.

Reply | Parent | Thread