Out-of-body experience recreated

Souls, exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

Seems to me that the experiment should be conducted on/with seasoned OBE'ers.

Originally posted by Sri Oracle
One is set off on a visual experience in which you come to terms absolutely with the negative consequences of your bad habits. To call such an OOBE a cheap parlor trick is short sighted; especially coming from our pharmacological society.

I have no problem with medication, but that's a tangental issue. In that case we are talking about using a mind altering substance to alter one's judgement. Whether that is achieved through a hallucinagenic experience such as that offered by ibogaine or by physical negative reinforcement such as that provided by disulfiram is a matter of semantics for the purpose fo this discussion, because it is a question of means rather than ends.

The point is that you are not actually experiencing anything beyond the bounds of yourself, which makes it distinct from a true Out Of Body Experience. That is not to say that such experiences are without merit, but they are of a distinctly different merit and nature. It is the contrast between philosophy and science- perception and information.

The great of appeal of the OOBE is curiousity. The barriers to knowledge are lessened. Knowledge does not come from within the self however, so an experience mimicing an OOBE which does not actually remove you from your physical limitations, but instead opens you to alternative perceptions of things your already know, or are being taught within your physical limitations.

My point is not that exercises intended to give insight are inferior to exercises intended to give knowledge, but merely that they are separate. This is a cautionary point. The fact that an OOBE can be immitated by use of mind-altering substances does not mean that one can actually attain knowledge as is purportedly possible through OOBEs by using mind-altering substances. And for that matter, it stands mentioning that such substances are not only a dangerous way to attempt gaining even insight unless one has competent guidance while doing so, but are not the only means of gaining such insight either. In so many words, although medication is not without its uses, its merits should not be taken as a vindication of drug use, nor should even legal and appropriately controlled use be seen as the only way to go.

As for the advice that stoneage nomads offer us on the matter, in Genesis and elsewhere, I am inclined to rely on sources with better track records. I'm happy for anyone who finds useful insight and guidance in religion and I'm not going to turn this thread into a religious debate, but I personally choose to include other factors into my judgement, because if there is a God, he is also responsible for the creation of bull dung and rattlesnake venom, neither of which can boast a very successful clinical history.

You have made some interesting but unsubstantiated claims regarding the nature of the universe and also supposed events which would evidence this, but unless you can present me with SWIY (Someone Who Isn't You), their academic history, the text they penned, and substantiation of the things they have written, all we're going to have on the matter is a very sophisticated, well written bout of "is not", "is too", and I'm simply not up for that. We could go on at great length regarding spiritual reality, but I place my interest in what can be measured because that's what ultimately has an impact.

Underlying perceptions and attitudes may motivate measurable actions but those inturn often seem to be the product of measurable actions. This is inherent in the discussion of the use of chemicals- it is a physical and not a spiritual catalyst which initates your spiritual experience. But here we threaten to fall into a debate older than Socrates which has vexed religion and philosophy for thousands of years and I doubt either of us will be convinced by the other.

We do however have perfectly sound chemical explanations for the things you are discussing (willow bark for instance). All that we percieve is an analog representation of reality in our brains, perhaps classifiable as a hallucination, however it is a hallucination of consequence both in the conventional and literal sense. Asprin does not give you a hallucination of non-pain, but infact blocks the perception of pain- that is to say, it disrupts the data generated in your brain by external an external stimulus. This can be a good or bad thing. In moderation, it may better adjust that information to its purpose- you have recieved the understanding that something is wrong and now you don't need it bothering you while you're trying to take part in the world. But in excess, it will remove you from the world- if you dull pain too much, you can cause great damage to yourself.

Experiences not generated by external stimulus, or generated by alteration of a stimulus, cannot be treated in the same manner as those generated by a stimulus and interpreted normally. By way of analogy, you are essentially claiming that the image depicted by a broken television, or by a television suffering severe interference, is as valid as that depicted by a working television. In most cases, perhaps, because television is in large part fiction. However what if you are watching the news. Perhaps interference creates a distortion of the president's head which approximates the back of his head being blown off. Now you are perceiving a world where the president has been assassinated, when infact he is alive and well and ruling. You have placed a barrier between yourself and society by placing your faith in a distorted or wholly unwarranted perception, and if anything, you have gone deeper within yourself, not beyond yourself.

So, if I were going to have an OOBE (I've tried without success- I've discovered some interesting tricks of perception that I can achieve through meditation and they make me happy, but I haven't overcome any of my natural limitations) I would want a legitimate one far more than one that is merely an induced illusion of one, because I think I'd get far more out of it. I think that inducing the illusion is taking a step out of reality rather than into it, and is inherently dangerous.
Or in a nutshell, "drugs are bad, mmmkay?"

As for "how the following paragraph floats with the staff'- I'm participating in the thread and I have to be neutral, so that's up to "SWIM" (for the sake of clarity, not SWIY, or rather, a different SWIY than the one you spoke of earlier). I can however offer you friendly advice, that if you always stay on topic and never recount, promote, advise, or conspire on illegal subjects, you'll be in the clear, and in your shoes, I would be very attentive about my proximity to that line, because there is a right and a wrong way to discuss these matters regardless of which side you take.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I have no problem with medication, but that's a tangental issue.

[]it is a question of means rather than ends.

[]The point is that you are not actually experiencing anything beyond the bounds of yourself, which makes it distinct from a true Out Of Body Experience.

Atman is Brahman. What is outside of the self when indeed all that exists is SELF?

Shankara
Names and forms are like bangles and bracelets, Vishnu (God) is like gold [that constitutes the bangles and bracelets]
[]
The yogi endowed with complete enlightenment sees, through the eye of Knowledge, the entire univers in his own Self and regards everything as the Self and nothing else.

Any OOBE is an experience of SELF from a vantage point other than the typical "behind the eyes self" that most of us think of as self. Medication is not the tangental issue but rather the principle issue. One can equally enter OOBE through mental modifications (medications) of the mind: logical or meditative in means, ie placing yourself within your hand as a "puppet" or exploring the astral as a flying bird before or during sleep; or through external means such as an entheno botanical or a cgi reality. As someone who has personally experienced OOBE trance and pulled information back from those trances I can state with sincerity that the means are equally worthy paths to the ends. Though that is not to say that dropping a tab of acid is going to induce OOBE trance of merit in anyone; rather that one must be seeking and then MUST use a (any known) "means" to open the gateway which they wish to pass. Logical meditative exercise is all that is necessary once you know how to key the gateway, and my previous post alluded to such keying. I recently posted to the research forum thread on ESP with a meditative technique which can begin ot open OOBE trance.

Knowledge does not come from within the self however, so an experience mimicing an OOBE which does not actually remove you from your physical limitations, but instead opens you to alternative perceptions of things your already know, or are being taught within your physical limitations.

Shankara
It is only because of ignorance that the Self appears to be finite. When ignorance is destroyed, the Self, which does not admit of any multiplicity whatsoever truly reveals Itself by Itself.

The butterfly is the flower; the flower is the butterfly. The knowledge gained from a subjective experienced induced by either digital substance or psychoactive substance DOES come from within the superself, as melded with the said substance. You are what your food eats. You are your experience. To know God is to experience God. To know anything, truly, is to experience it. To mimic an experience is to practice... and indeed practice makes perfect. Would I be able to quickly meditate myself to OOBE now had I not experienced induced OOBE before?

While obtaining my bachelor's in the 90's I was involved in an underground gaming phenomenon spawned from a game called "Quake"; a 3d first person shoot 'em up game like wolfenstein or duke nukem. Anyway, I designed levels for Quake "death matches" on a program called quake level editor. Essentially you create 3D worlds in which to interact with other people. You control lighting, doors, moving platforms, etc. Once you are done designing a level you could invite your friends to battle in your new cgi arena. I found the creation of such worlds to be quite similar to any OOBE I had experienced in the past.

My point is not that exercises intended to give insight are inferior to exercises intended to give knowledge, but merely that they are separate. This is a cautionary point.

The fact that an OOBE can be immitated by use of mind-altering substances does not mean that one can actually attain knowledge as is purportedly possible through OOBEs by using mind-altering substances.

OOBE is not immitated but rather initiated by the "substance" of experience. Once you have reached trance you have reached trance. The danger lies in establishing a belief that a particular "substance" is the only means by which to enter OOBE; and that said substance is something external to Self. Because, indeed the "substance" is only manifest in your reality as the [behind the eyes] self is seeking a key to find the Inmost Self.

As for the advice that stoneage nomads offer us on the matter, in Genesis and elsewhere, I am inclined to rely on sources with better track records.

I look you into the eye intently and state: We are all indeed stoneage nomads my brother, do not delude yourself elsewise. To do so is the most dangerous mistake you can make.

If there is a God, he is also responsible for the creation of bull dung and rattlesnake venom, neither of which can boast a very successful clinical history.

Actually bullsh!t is a disinfectant and some guy named Allan Bieber uses the toxins from rattlesnake venom to study the human body.

Every thorn has it's rose.

The Virtues of Venom, by Diane Boudreau chainreaction.asu.edu...
Sacred Cow Dung www.hinduism.co.za...

but now we're on tangents.

but unless you can present me with SWIY (Someone Who Isn't You)

We'll let the tale of SWIM die as the only remaining text he penned has since melted into unhappy overheated hardrive land; and though I could recount through OOBE... you'd likely discount my recollection to recent study of the subject.

We could go on at great length regarding spiritual reality, but I place my interest in what can be measured because that's what ultimately has an impact.

I place my interest in what is beyond measure because that is what is ultimately real; all else is illusion. All form, all color, all size and weight... illusion made manifest through ignorance; names placing divisions amid the divinity. I am all of "it"; such is reality.

This is inherent in the discussion of the use of chemicals- it is a physical and not a spiritual catalyst which initates your spiritual experience.

No matter what catalyst one chooses to enter "spiritual experience" there is some physical manifestation prior to. This may be as simple as locking one's hands in prayer, dunking one's head under water (baptism), or assuming asana posture and carring ones hands in gesture of buddhist mudra... either way it is a physical catalyst undertaken by an ignorant aspirant in the midst of "denying ignorance"; along the path of Self Knowledge.

Asprin does not give you a hallucination of non-pain, but infact blocks the perception of pain- that is to say, it disrupts the data generated in your brain by external an external stimulus. This can be a good or bad thing. In moderation, it may better adjust that information to its purpose- you have recieved the understanding that something is wrong and now you don't need it bothering you while you're trying to take part in the world. But in excess, it will remove you from the world- if you dull pain too much, you can cause great damage to yourself.

CGI does not give you a hallucination of viewing "over your own shoulder", but infact blocks the perception of "viewing from behind the eyes". It disrupts data generated in your brain by external stimulus (sight perception).


continued...

edit for quotes

[edit on 25-8-2007 by Sri Oracle]

By way of analogy, you are essentially claiming that the image depicted by a broken television, or by a television suffering severe interference, is as valid as that depicted by a working television. [] You have placed a barrier between yourself and society by placing your faith in a distorted or wholly unwarranted perception, and if anything, you have gone deeper within yourself, not beyond yourself.

What I want for you to understand is that by viewing the world from the perspective of "behind the eyes" you are placing names and forms, distinctions, upon that which in its essence is singlular. All that is outside of your "behind the eyes self" becomes external to who "you" are. When I fashion a clay pot out of river mud is it not still just a lump of river mud? Day to day perception from behind the eyes is the broken television. To be able to move your point of perception to any place in the God given universe is the state of "working television". So, to induce OOBE, by any means, is to call the TV repair man. turn on, tune in, drop out

So, if I were going to have an OOBE (I've tried without success)

You would be surprised at the OOBE's that you've actually had but failed to note as OOBE's. As a simple example, when you play a game of chess you keep yourself often 3,4 maybe 5 moves out... Your "experience" of what your (intelligent) opponent "should" do 4 moves out is OOBE. Do you see that? Or when your truck's not running... and you imagine where the little doohickey isn't jibing right with the dehopper under your valve covers... that's OOBE. Of course there are much more profound and pronounced uses for and states of OOBE; ultimately to experience "I and I" are One; samadhi.

I think that inducing the illusion is taking a step out of reality rather than into it, and is inherently dangerous.
Or in a nutshell, "drugs are bad, mmmkay?"

The goal in induction is to leave as little "bad taste" in your mouth as possible while still entering an OOBE realm. Ultimately you want to use your "substance" as one uses a kataka (sp?) nut to distill water. Add the nut powder... stir... degenerate aspects of your reality fall to the bottom along with the nut powder and fresh water can be decanted off the top. Too much kataka nut and the nut powder will transfer to the clarified water. Drug abuse is bad, mmmkay?

I would be very attentive about my proximity to that line, because there is a right and a wrong way to discuss these matters regardless of which side you take.

No doubt.

This shaman's gettin tired... going on 1 AM. Gotta work in the morning.

I am not this body,

Sri Oracle

It would seem that our perspectives are so fundamentally different that in certain aspects we will have to resign ourselves to disagreement.

I'm sure we've all heard the story about the blind men who debated the nature of an elephant while feeling different parts of the creature. Well in some regards, we would appear to be feeling entirely different animals.

So, I will not do you the annoyance of heaping the dogma of empiricism upon the things you have said which are inextricably tied to matters of spirituality. We each have our views based on certain underlying assumptions, and while each is well supported within its own context, each would crumble if the foundational assumption were incorrect. In short, I won't do as non-theists often do, which is get quite ironically "holier than thou" about my frame of reference on the subject.

I will however continue on the subjects where we are discussing it similar terms and thus can perhaps reconcile our views somewhat.

The most striking is the notion that when I construct an image for myself of things which I am not infact seeing, that I am having an out of body experience. I take the point of this to be that by doing so, I am transcending myself and experiencing realities beyond myself without actually leaving myself, which would vindicate the notion of using chemical agents which alter brain function to do the same thing as being a true OOBE.
My argument is that because I am capable of being consistently and grievously incorrect when doing this, in direct proportion to my prior knowledge of the subject, that I am not infact transcending myself, but am perhaps, at best, transcending time through recall of events where I was in a position to see the subject acting in a similar manner. In otherwords, I am gaining nothing from outside myself in real time, but am turning inwards, entirely reliant on my own limited knowledge.

If I've never played chess with the person in question, I can make a mistake. I can always count on my brother build a wedge centered on his queen's pawn, develop the queen's knight and the queen's bishop, and then chase my queen around the board ineffectually until I take one of the pawns, allowing him to develop the king's bishop, and giving me the opening to break my queen through on the king's side, taking two pawns, a rook, and a knight, placing him in check and either forcing his king to move or forcing him to bring back and pin his bishop, which usually wins me another pawn and control of the center.
But what if I'm playing with somebody else who runs the same opening but who will develop his queen instead of his kings bishop and then castle queen's side when I attack the center? Well happy birthday to him, because I've got the wrong bishop developed and no rooks developed yet, and plus he's taken me out of my element- he'll probably beat me because I'm not all that great when I'm not slaughtering the same opponent every week. It goes to show the hazards of going within rather than truly without and ending up wrong.

Similarly in the car example, I may envision a loose rocker arm and have it end up being an ignition timing problem and end up spending a lot more time than I had to on a job that shouldn't take 15 minutes- and god help me if it's an electric car or a rotary engine, because all of my ample experience with cars that refuse to run right has been with your garden variety piston-driven engines- almost exclusively carbuerated chevy smallblocks infact... I get pissed off if I encounter so much as a transverse mounted engine with EFI because wish as I may and curse as I might, I can't transcend my lack of experience with those.

Finally, I will say that I am greatly amused by your resourcefulness in finding virtue to dung and venom (though frankly lab results would convince me better than the word of a man who has translated an ancient religious text with respect to dung), and I think you'd be quite a sight to see in the debate forum- you should definately join the next tournament if you are interested and have time.

That being said, despite the rose, the thorn remains, and I find it prudent to seek out the rose with the smallest possible thorns, so I generally shy away from pharmaceutical solutions to a problem when other alternatives are available. Some of the substances that have come up previously in this thread have considerable thorns, and I have seen the wounds they can inflict. The day that I choose those substances over meditation will be the day I disinfect my hands with dung instead of soap before sitting down to a meal.

It's not really an OOBE... more like OOBI - Out Of Body Illusion.

My post from one of the non-news threads:

Well that certainly is disappointing.

Here I was hoping they had managed to induce a trance-like state using the input from the goggles, and through that state had obtained an OOBE.

Nope...

physorg.com
Both Ehrsson and another research team... used video cameras and virtual reality goggles to show volunteers images of their own bodies from the perspective of someone behind them. The researchers also touched the volunteers’ bodies, both physically and virtually.

The volunteers in Ehrsson’s study viewed images recorded by the cameras through their headsets. In Blanke and colleagues’ study, the video was converted into holograph-like computer simulations.

Still pretty cool... providing sensory input in a virtual environment can only go so far. Tricking the brain into actually relocating the conscious perspective is an important step towards true immersion.

Now they just need full body sense suits (I'll refrain from expanding on this idea...) and faster gyros. I suggest they save eating and drinking for later.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
It would seem that our perspectives are so fundamentally different that in certain aspects we will have to resign ourselves to disagreement.

So agreed; for now at least... one day we'll both get a hold of the whole darn elephant. I do enjoy the discourse though Vagabond.

... are inextricably tied to matters of spirituality. We each have our views based on certain underlying assumptions, and while each is well supported within its own context, each would crumble if the foundational assumption were incorrect...

I believe the paradigms we approach OOBE from are:

Sri: OOBE is an everyday phenomenon; whenever I empathize with another being, entity, or even when I empathize with the "plight" of an object (bent lifter rod, persay)... I experience OOBE. OOBE can be induced naturally (mentally) or artificially (drugs/cgi/ritual).

Vagabond: OOBE requires intense mediation and is not an accurate source of data unless you are a skilled practictioner and the OOBE was "naturally" induced.

My argument is that because I am capable of being consistently and grievously incorrect when doing this, in direct proportion to my prior knowledge of the subject, that I am not infact transcending myself, but am perhaps, at best, transcending time through recall of events where I was in a position to see the subject acting in a similar manner. In otherwords, I am gaining nothing from outside myself in real time, but am turning inwards, entirely reliant on my own limited knowledge.

The first time I tried to pitch a baseball I was lucky if I could throw a strike from the pitchers mound. It took years of practice and faith in my ultimate ability before I could curve a ball past a skilled batter.

There are three forms of truth (I believe this is in the koran somewhere... correct me)

1) Recognized authoritive scripture
2) The voice of a prophet
3) Intuition

www.wilywalnut.com...

Aristotle said truth comes in 4 forms

1) Scientific reasoning.
2) Practical reasoning.
3) Philosophical reasoning.
4) Intuitive reasoning.

Of these , he maintained that only intuitive reasoning revealed Universal Truths because it was the direct apprehension of truth, free from faulty logic or false reasoning.

Spinoza says there are 3 sources of knowledge:

Opinion
Reason
Intuition

Spinoza: home.earthlink.net...
[ 3. Knowledge of the Third Kind, Intuition (direct, non-inferential knowledge)]

Besides these two kinds of knowledge, there is, as I will hereafter show, a third kind of knowledge, which we will call intuition. This kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the absolute essence of certain attributes of God to the adequate knowledge of the essence of things.

Can we admit a reverance amongst the koran, the vedic, aristotle, and spinoza of the very concept of "intuition"? I assure you this reverance carries through the religious/philosophical spectrum; though I haven't the time to continue siting.

To experience more effective OOBE, you must for one, practice... but more importantly hold a higher faith in the ultimate ability of your (our) intuition. Your own internalized knowledge is limited only by the mental limitations your ego places upon it. Omniscience is born in faith that "I CAN know all" Indeed, you can always find where your car keys are without ever getting your but off the couch... often just as quickly as if you frantically turned your house on end. In the same way, you can always find anything; the deeper into the rabbit hole you wish dig however, the more intense your trance state must be. At the very peak of OOBE trance your body may physically shake or twitch, your eyes fall into REM, you moan and begin to speak tongues... Note, you must have a physical sanctuary to house your physical body as you enter such realms for your general protection.

I suggest "The Mind of Light" by Sri Aurobindo

If I've never played chess with the person in question, I can make a mistake.

"I can always count on" That is an assumption. There is no truth in assumptions. Assumptions create facts and then treat them as truths, upon which to build reason.

From wiki definitions of assumption and intuition:

An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, in other words, that is treated for the sake of a given discussion as if it were known to be true.

Intuition [is the] ability to sense or know immediately without reasoning.

Assumption implies post reasoning. Reasoning is a cognitive function based upon logic. Intuition/OOBE is in a very different category.

Similarly in the car example, []wish as I may and curse as I might, I can't transcend my lack of experience.

I believe you can transend your lack of experience by having the experience occur mentally. Imagine you are deserted on a small island... your only way off is to start an engine with efi issues; the catch is you get 1 try to turn the key. Desperation can be a trigger to OOBE/intuitive experience... so, if need be, create the mental desperation to enter the gateway. Perception is everything. Women can lift cars if their baby is trapped beneath. What would jesus do? OOBE What would a master mechanic with specialty in EFI repairs do? OOBE "I AM a master mechanic with specialization in EFI"

"I can't" must become I can. "I am not" must become I AM. From "I am" can you spawn OOBE trance gateways.

Say to yourself, "I AM A PAST MASTER. When I was last here, in my past life, approached with this situation... I handled it masterfully in xyz manner."

Finally, I will say that I am greatly amused by your resourcefulness in finding virtue to dung and venom

Simple... google search "virtue dung" google search: "virtue venom"

and with regard to the disinfectant nature of dung...

google search "dung cow disinfectant"... who knows, you may find yourself making a cow dung and spring water solution to spray down those voc emiting walls in your home. You certainly wouldn't be the first cave man to do so. Careful... If you're in The States your neighbors may have you admitted to a loony bin.

I think you'd be quite a sight to see in the debate forum- you should definately join the next tournament if you are interested and have time.

I do enjoy a good debate... I was going to sign up for the 2007 debate, but I got there after the 3rd backup was already decided. I s'pose I can take the role of court jester next round. Let me know where and when; then I'll see if I can get the wife to grant me the time.

The day that I choose those substances over meditation will be the day I disinfect my hands with dung instead of soap before sitting down to a meal.

I have washed my hands there; it is a magically pure place.

I am,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by Sri OracleI believe the paradigms we approach OOBE from are:

Vagabond: OOBE requires intense mediation and is not an accurate source of data unless you are a skilled practictioner and the OOBE was "naturally" induced.

I'd like to elaborate on that just a bit for the sake of clarity.

Oddly, I'm more or less agnostic about the possibility of OOBEs. They may be possible, or they may not be possible.

If they are possible, I believe that the mechanism upon which they will have a physical explanation which reconciles with science (albeit possibly requiring further scientific knowledge than we currently have).

I suspect the answer would be some combination of an unrecognized level of memory (collective or inherited perhaps), telepathy, or physical senses beyond the recongized five which we lack the feedback to develop use of under normal circumstances and as such would not be selected for by evolution. Another possibility would be that there is an aspect of human consciousness less restricted than the flesh- forgive me for sounding new-age but an "energy body"- which can travel without the flesh and percieve without dependence on flesh.

Of course that's all strictly hypothetical. It rests on the assumption that time and space must be overcome, and therefore an OOBE would literally require one to transmit some physical presence to the target of the experience or recieve something physical from the target at a distance, in contrast to the idea of being able to simply have knowledge in situ based on time and space being strictly illusory.

The first time I tried to pitch a baseball I was lucky if I could throw a strike from the pitchers mound.

True, but this was a question of controlling your body- developing the neural pathways to move your muscle exactly as you desired. Light never reflected off of a batter who wasn't there, causing you to pitch before the batter had come to the plate. For something to be a reliable sense, the data that it recieves must always be accurate, even if the computation of that data once received is not.


As for the various types of knowledge, I would contend that on some level they all boil down to various levels of reason. Prophecy and scripture are reasoned on the basis of an assumption that there is an all knowing God who tells us things in certain ways, therefore when information comes to us in those ways, it can be reasoned that said information is accurate. Philosophical reasoning operates on similar exercises in posing plausible what-ifs against assumed truths. Intuition and opinion are subconscious applications of reason without exhaustive checking of facts and with relatively cursory processing.

For instance, you last looked at your clock at 6 PM, and at some point after that you dozed off watching TV. You are expecting a pizza delivery at 7 PM. Your wife usually gets home from work at 9 PM. You are awakened by a knock at the door. Depending on how tired you feel, you might intuit that it is 7PM and the pizza is arriving, or you may intuit that you must have slept for several hours and missed your pizza, and that's probably your wife at the door. You open the door, and it's neither of the above- the children nextdoor have accidentally thrown their football into you back yard and want permission to retrieve it. You glance at your watch- it's only 6:15.

Then there is scientific reasoning, which attempts to does the same thing as all of the others- trying various circumstances based on foundational assumptions. It is equally fallible if the foundational assumptions are incorrect or if the circumstances are incorrectly percieved. The only difference is that science attempts (though often enough fails) to guage the accuracy of the assumptions and the perception of the circumstances.

All however have the same basic components- the reciept and proccessing of information. I don't believe that any of the useful methods of gaining knowledge is capable of functioning without an input.

I recognize that many define the word intuition differently from what I have said, however definitions are tricky things. They are an explanation of what seems to be happening from people- an analog representation of things, and not the things themselves. This makes definitions open to debate.

As for the chess example, the assumption is the point. My "intuition" of what the opponent will do is based on an assumption that past experiences are valid. It is impossible for me to know what my opponent will do, either with or without reasoning. It is possible for me reason intuitively (that is to say, make a inference without having to apply any conscious critical thinking) that my past experiences are valid, and act accordingly. So I have a foundational assumption (past experiences are valid) and inputs (seeing something similar to what I have seen before) being processed into "knowledge" (that my opponent will do the same thing as before) which is only as accurate as the assumption and the input.


As for the engine discussion, I have a pretty sound experience with something like that in having attempted to test out of a math prerequisite. I'm a reasonably smart guy, so of course I went into the test saying, to myself, "it doesn't matter that I haven't worked with algebra or trig since I was 15 years old (and completely ignored the class then), this is math, everything you have to do to answer the problem is a natural consequence of what is on the paper in front of you, and it was all discovered as a natural consequence of the lower maths I've already mastered- I'll look at it for a few minutes then I'll ace the test cold". It would have been better if I had found the time to go to the library and get external information to prepare, because tomorrow I'll be starting that prerequisite course that I challenged.

With that in mind, I'll go get my laundry done and I look forward to continuing this later. How you dress while blowing the grading curve can be the difference between being hated for it and making some cash and friends on tutoring.