On Friday, November 23, 2012 7:35:09 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> Yes,intuition comes from Platonia, whereas
> a dream might come from a bad choice of food,
> or a nasty comment somebody made.
> Intuition brings in something new and presumably
> good and rational, but with a dream you are often only
> forced into a fruitless search for a solution
> to your discomfort, grasping at irrational
> straws. At least that's my experience.
I think this is too simplistic of a view of what is really going on. Within
a dream you can have intuition also. You can arguably have every kind of
experience in a dream that you can have while you are awake (though some
categories of experience are uncommon). Indeed only actually waking up
provides a vantage point from which the unreality of a dream can be clearly
We were talking about imagination though, which implies the capacity to
consciously direct inner experience while intuition is decidedly undirected
by the conscious mind. Your distinction makes some sense on the surface, as
far as there is a notion of truthfulness to the contents of intuition which
is not necessarily present in imagination, however there is no question in
my mind that while great evil has been done in the service of dreams and
false promises, they are generally served by intuition just as well, with
brutal dictators and psychotic killers often guided by an extraordinarily
intuitive gift for military and political strategy. The logic of a
sociopath is a form of intuition, whereas intuition is not a form of logic.
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
> ----- Receiving the following content -----
> *Time:* 2012-11-23, 08:11:42
> *Subject:* Re: imagination
> On Friday, November 23, 2012 4:23:49 AM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
>> Hi Bruno Marchal
>> 1) I suspect that when you refer to imagination, it is the
>> same as what I call intuition. They're related, but I don't
>> think they're exactly the same. I see intuition as coming
>> from Platonia and spreading wider than the individual to
>> all possible solutions. In essence, you do not imagine these
>> solutions, they become evident to you.
> Imagination and intuition are different.
> Imagine a blue chair. Works right?
> Have an intuition that someone is going to ring your doorbell. Didn't
> work, did it? You can't make yourself have an intuition, intuition comes to
> you unbidden from beyond your conscious attention. Imagination produces
> results in the form of images and other ideal gestalts, both voluntarily
> and involuntarily, just as we can choose to control our breathing to some
> extent or allow it to happen outside of our conscious attention.
>> 2) Maybe I misundertand you, but I especially don't see how the machine,
>> has any advantage over the person with regard to 1p. As I see it,
>> 1p is a blind spot, machine or person. Godel holds for both a
>> person and a machine.
> 1p is only a blind spot from a 3p perspective. Everything that has every
> been experienced is only 1p as far as we know. This is actually one of the
> main points where my model improves the conventional understanding. Neither
> 1p nor 3p can be proved against the other. The more relevant dichotomy is
> between spatially extended public exterior sense and temporally intended
> private interior sense. Both are really 1p, but the former faces a 3p which
> may or may not be primitively 'real'.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at