Robert F. Smith Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I think "inspiration" is probably the subconscious brain at work. Does that mean that inspiration is intuitive, and that intuition is the same thing as systematic logic or reason? Most people consider those two modes of thought (reason & inspiration) to be different, but maybe you have a view which unites them.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 27, 2017 Posted July 27, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Does that mean that inspiration is intuitive, and that intuition is the same thing as systematic logic or reason? Most people consider those two modes of thought (reason & inspiration) to be different, but maybe you have a view which unites them. I think that's a question for a cognitive scientist.
Jeanne Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 On 7/25/2017 at 0:27 PM, ksfisher said: I don't find that apostles are reluctant to testify of spiritual experiences at all. Conference talks are full of examples of such. If you are speaking specifically about a reluctance to speak about visitations of the Savior, I imagine that it is He that has asked them not to share these things with the world in general. Why would the Savior ask one not to share? The greatest mission of the church is to testify of Christ and a testimony of Him.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I think that's a question for a cognitive scientist. Ducking the question?
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Ducking the question? Right. Just like you ducked when I asked about the premises you were referring to on the racial ban thread or when you refused to admit that your views don't line up with the brethren on the moral facts issue? (I'm not asking you to revisit these issues either) Anyway, Robert, my knowledge of cognitive science is rudimentary at best. So, maybe you could enlighten me?
hagoth7 Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 10 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I think "inspiration" is probably the subconscious brain at work. You're half right.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Right. Just like you ducked when I asked about the premises you were referring to on the racial ban thread or when you refused to admit that your views don't line up with the brethren on the moral facts issue? (I'm not asking you to revisit these issues either) Anyway, Robert, my knowledge of cognitive science is rudimentary at best. So, maybe you could enlighten me? I also don't do cognitive psych/science. However, your suggestion seems to be that reason/logic are the same as intuition/inspiration -- call them what you will. You might want to fake that up with those who set odds for betting/gambling/guessing games -- in which the house tends to win, and the players tend to lose. 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I also don't do cognitive psych/science. However, your suggestion seems to be that reason/logic are the same as intuition/inspiration -- call them what you will. You might want to fake that up with those who set odds for betting/gambling/guessing games -- in which the house tends to win, and the players tend to lose. No, my belief is that inspiration in the religious sense is more likely from inside the person claiming inspiration and not from an outside deity. It's usually a product of wishful thinking and closer to the opposite of reason/logic.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: No, my belief is that inspiration in the religious sense is more likely from inside the person claiming inspiration and not from an outside deity. It's usually a product of wishful thinking and closer to the opposite of reason/logic. I have no problem with that approach, and it agrees generally with what you strangely avoided dealing with: That reason/logic is quite different from intuition/inspiration. That is why scholars normally distinguish between science and religion. They are widely acknowledged to be sharply different modes of thought. If you agree, you should be up front about it. Being cagey isn't the same thing as having a real discussion, Pete.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have no problem with that approach, and it agrees generally with what you strangely avoided dealing with: That reason/logic is quite different from intuition/inspiration. That is why scholars normally distinguish between science and religion. They are widely acknowledged to be sharply different modes of thought. If you agree, you should be up front about it. Being cagey isn't the same thing as having a real discussion, Pete. With all due respect Robert, maybe discussion would be easier with you if you stopped trying to paint people as this or that and just took comments at face value. I made some comment, you tried to paint me as having expert level knowledge in order to strike it down, and then call me cagey when I won't play along?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 28, 2017 Posted July 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: With all due respect Robert, maybe discussion would be easier with you if you stopped trying to paint people as this or that and just took comments at face value. I made some comment, you tried to paint me as having expert level knowledge in order to strike it down, and then call me cagey when I won't play along? I was only suggesting that real give and take in a discussion is a positive thing. You didn't seem to want to engage the issues directly, Pete, even though you seem quite capable of doing so. I have no problem with naturalistic interpretations of everything in the universe, since I myself share that approach. Anyway, you are not obligated to be forthcoming on anything at all. Be as cagey as you wish. I just don't think that it advances the discussion.
Recommended Posts