Society, Intuition and Logic

[Splendour]

Has society elevated logic over intuition because logic attempts to provide an explanation of things where intuition doesn't? Does that make logic better than intuition or is it just a natural preference of people to assume it is a higher form of intelligence because concepts are now expoundable (meaning we are able to demonstrate our own intelligence through explanations, mathematical terms and formulas and scientific theories). Does the pedagological demonstation of intelligence stroke are egos so much that it causes us to overvalue logic and undervalue intuition?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Has society elevated logic over intuition because logic attempts to provide an explanation of things where intuition doesn't? Does that make logic better than intuition or is it just a natural preference of people to assume it is a higher form of intelligence because concepts are now expoundable (meaning we are able to demonstrate our own intelligence through explanations, mathematical terms and formulas and scientific theories). Does the pedagological demonstation of intelligence stroke are egos so much that it causes us to overvalue logic and undervalue intuition?

[/ QUOTE ]Just the fact that you can share logic with others and they can understand it, makes it better then intuition.

[borisp]

What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic. Give me the well formulated version any day.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your post. I guess its in a similar vein to what I've been thinking about.

Before this book I was reading expounded more on the marvelous capability of people's intuitions I really only knew 3 things about intuition: 1) some claim it is a type of gestalt (a psychological term for putting things together from numerous random cues) 2) the ancient Yogi masters said it was the highest form of intelligence because its smarter to just know something than it is to have to break things down to understand them (if you think about it intuition doesn't cost us anything physically, but analysis some think has a wear and tear cost on your brain) and 3) from personal experiences say playing poker I can see the value of intuition.

But the book I am now reading calls intuition "the least controversial of our paranormal abilities". I'd never considered intuition paranormal but apparently it is linked to telepathy, precognition, deja vu, telekinesis, after death communications and remote viewing to name some of the few thinking abilities it relates to.

Here are 2 interesting excerpts from Dr Morse's <u>Where God Lives</u> book.

1."Here is what Richard Gregory, professor of neuropsychology and director of the Brain and Perception Laboratory in Bristol, England, has to say about intuition: "It is sometimes thought intuitions are reliable, and indeed, we do act most of the time without knowing why or what our reasons may be. It is certainly rare to set out an argument in formal terms, and go through the steps set forth by logicians. In this sense, almost all judgments and behaviors are intuitive. The term is used in philosophy to to denote the alleged power of the mind to see certain self-evident truths. The status of intuition has declined over the last century, perhaps with the increasing emphasis on formal logic, explicit data and assumptions of science."
It is precisely for this reason that all of the specific components of intuition are, in themselves, poorly understood and often dismissed or ignored. We have forgotten about intuition. It is no longer an important part of modern life, or so we think."

2. "Yet intuition is the cornerstone of personal safety. Gavin de Becker (a security expert mentioned earlier in the book) feels that intuition is your most important line of defense against personal assault. De Becker says, "Intuition connects us to the natural world and to our nature. Freed from the bonds of judgment, married only to perception, it carries us to predictions we will later marvel at.
It may be hard to accept the importance of intuition because it is usually looked upon by thoughtful Westerners as emotional, unreasonable, or inexplicable. Husbands often chide their wives about feminine intuition and do not take it seriously. We much prefer logic, the grounded, explainable, unemotional thought process that ends in a supportable conclusion. In fact, Americans worship logic, even when it's wrong, and deny intuition, even when it's right."

The book has another couple of highly interesting paragraphs relating all this to NDEs but I think this is enough to discuss.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close enough though.

[ QUOTE ]
People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it should.
Non-logical is a separate area though - "why did you jump when the bang happened?" "why do you like sausages?" "why don't you like Oprah?" "why did you call him for all your chips?" may all have non-logical answers. Iow, our response was likely not logically arrived at. We will often be able to use logic after the fact to see if our "intuitive" choice was a useful or valuable one.

The last one is tested all the time. After a person makes 100 bad calls we don't say "oh, but they are good calls because his intuition says it is" we say "he has crappy table sense."

Logic trumps intuition, even though there are times when intuition is all we have to go on. If a person starves to death because they have a hunch that sausages are poisonous we don't say " yep, gotta go with that intuition. good on ya.".

A fair chunk of a poker players pay comes from people believing their intuition is delivering good messages. good salesman tap into our intuitions, good politicians likewise.

luckyme

[kurto]

society values logic over intuition because logic is reliable where intuition is not.

In some cases, intuition may be 'a logical deduction' done at a subconcious level. In other cases, intuition is nothing more then a guess, a feeling or a random notion.

I was talking to a OBGYN about intuition recently. Apparently a lot of people have intuition about what sex a baby will be. She actually started paying attention not only to her intuition about her patients but also to the predictions of her patients.

It turns out that intuition about the sex of a baby ends up being right about 50% of the time.

You can see the value of intuition.

[Splendour]

Quote: Logic trumps intuition, even though there are times when intuition is all we have to go on. If a person starves to death because they have a hunch that sausages are poisonous we don't say " yep, gotta go with that intuition. good on ya.".

A fair chunk of a poker players pay comes from people believing their intuition is delivering good messages. good salesman tap into our intuitions, good politicians likewise.

Your answer luckyme is rife with your current modern perception and culture. In every circumstance logic does not trump intuition. Intuition sometimes goes places where logic cannot.

Another excerpt from the above cited book:

"Intuition is the power of obtaining knowledge that cannot be acquired either by inference or observation, by reason, or experience," says the Encyclopedia Britannica. "As such, intuition is thought of as an original, independent source of knowledge." Also from the encyclopedia: "Intuition is designed to account for just those kinds of knowledge that other sources do not provide." The book goes on to say that primitive man had paranormal abilites, remote viewing being one of them, that allowed him a survival advantage. They believe that remote viewing is what helped the Asians cross the Aleutian Island chain to North America.

[kurto]

Splendour... I have a number of problems with what that book said.

but first:
[ QUOTE ]
from personal experiences say playing poker I can see the value of intuition.


[/ QUOTE ]

Poker players are often making quick logical deductions and calling it intuition. They are responding to cues that they may even have trouble rationalizing. That doesn't mean its 'magic' or 'paranormal.' For instance, if a person breaks a pattern, you may subconciously recognize that something is different even if you haven't figured out what it is. You may then decide that a player is very strong because of this change. Because you can't articulate the change, you call it 'intuition' when in reality you are simply processing information readily available to your senses.

[ QUOTE ]
But the book I am now reading calls intuition "the least controversial of our paranormal abilities". I'd never considered intuition paranormal but apparently it is linked to telepathy, precognition, deja vu, telekinesis, after death communications and remote viewing to name some of the few thinking abilities it relates to.


[/ QUOTE ]

This should have been the first sign that this book is fluff.

[ QUOTE ]
"It is sometimes thought intuitions are reliable, and indeed, we do act most of the time without knowing why or what our reasons may be. It is certainly rare to set out an argument in formal terms, and go through the steps set forth by logicians. In this sense, almost all judgments and behaviors are intuitive. The term is used in philosophy to to denote the alleged power of the mind to see certain self-evident truths. The status of intuition has declined over the last century, perhaps with the increasing emphasis on formal logic, explicit data and assumptions of science."


[/ QUOTE ]

The key to me is, "we do act most of the time without knowing why or what our reasons may be"... that doesn't mean that there are not REASONS and that we are making short hand deductions that may or may not be logical. But I quoted that SOMETIMES intuitions are reliable. Along with that comes the notion that SOMETIONS intuitions are unreliable. It really depends on what criteria your mind is using to make its decisions. Its not magic or paranormal. Your mind is making deductions all the time LIKE a logician would make. The problem is that it often uses illogical foundations. Hence why intuition is often wrong.

Intuition is important at times because it is often faster then formally laying out a logical argument. It is reactive. That is why he stressed its importance in survival. The problem is that intuition doesn't easily differentiate between when its reacting logically to realistic cues and when its just guessing and has little value.

Intuition certainly still has its place. But I would question anyone who labels its value above reason and thinks its paranormal.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Your answer luckyme is rife with your current modern perception and culture. In every circumstance logic does not trump intuition. Intuition sometimes goes places where logic cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regardless of whether it does or doesn't, it is logic we use to verify whether the intuition was useful/worth using/whatever. You haven't addressed my point. Please try.
Your claim that 'remote viewing' got the indians to america is a logical claim ( an incrediblby poor one, but who's being picky). essentially, "see, they used remote viewing and they got here, so remote viewing was 'right'". If they used remote viewing an ended up like lemmings, merely going over the cliff, we would logically conclude, "well, that intuition sucked".
Logic is the tool we use, just as you did above, to test intuition.

luckyme

[Splendour]

Actually Kurto people don't realize that while they are drawing logical conclusions some of the time they are actually using their intuitive senses almost constantly. Its just that people attach a greater consciousness to logical than to intuitive thinking. Under the 16 basic Jungian personality types there are Sensing Personalities and Intuitive Personalities. I believe the Intuitives are in the minority around 25 percent of the population while the Sensing is around 75 percent.

So you've got to wonder are some people's intuitions more reliable. If you look at psychological mediums and some poker spooks like Ted Forrest this would seem to be the case.

Here's an interesting contrast of Sensing and Intuitive:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Kurto people don't realize that while they are drawing logical conclusions some of the time they are actually using their intuitive senses almost constantly. Its just that people attach a greater consciousness to logical than to intuitive thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying though is that often times intuitive thinking IS logical. Its just not happening at the forefront of conciousness. Oftentimes, I may act intuitively at the spur of the moment. But, when asked to analyze, I can often deduce what factors led me to act a certain way. I can formally deduce what was happening 'intuitively.'

I can also sometimes deduce why my intuition was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
So you've got to wonder are some people's intuitions more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect they are. And there's probably a logical reason for it. Poker is an easy example. A good poker player may claim he uses intuition. In reality, he's played 1000s of hands, noticed patterns in people's behaviours and acts accordingly. He may not be able to articulate what he knows intuitively... but make no mistake, that intuition is simply a sharp mind reacting to the information about poker and people that its collected over many hours of playing.

Some people have poor intuition because they're making incorrect conclusions based on the information available or misinterpreting cues.

There's no need to bring in the paranormal.

[Splendour]

Well somewhere in all the logical and intuitive thinking stuff there is some type of variable for comprehension and for speed which I don't no if there's any data that measured this. There probably is somewheres. They study everything these days.

Intuition definitely seems faster it's just not as clearly comprehensible or as easily articulated as logic. I doubt logic trumps intuition because you use intuition more, intuition is used for personal safety and intuition and logic are used in conjuction so they're codependent. Its just you use logic for difficult problems that you spend the most time thinking about so we tend to obsess over the importance of logic.

Edit: then again isn't a hypothesis an inductive or intuitive type of thought that science then tries to prove is false. You start with the intuitive and end with the logical. Is that a correct interpretation of the testing of a scientific hypothesis?

If so then intuition is possibly more linked to creativity than logic is.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If so then intuition is possibly more linked to creativity than logic is.


[/ QUOTE ]

and the airplane that we decide is right, of all the hundreds that people had intuitions about, is the one that actually flies. That's a logical analysis. That's how you decide which plane is right isn't it. "good planes fly" "this plane flies" "therefore it's a good plane."
Or do you insist it's a good plane because you had such a strong intuition about it that you can ignore the scrap head on the prairie?

It's logic that we use to weed out all the crazy stuff that intuition throws our way. Sure, intuition is linked to creativity, but not nearly as much as people think ( do I have to put in the Edison quotes ).

luckyme

[Splendour]

I see what you're saying. We use logic alot to test things, but I'm starting to see logic and intuition like a pair of oxen. They can be yoked together and most of the time they are, but you can also take them apart to carry on different functions. Reminds me of men and women. Men carry the occasional really big job while women run around constantly with the little jobs. Society would be lost without either one, but how does the disparity of our perception of the value of each affect society? There's probably a billion problematical answers to that question.. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a post written by someone who doesnt understand exactly what logic is. Can you give me an example to show me I'm wrong, tell me what you have in mind with this?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic. Give me the well formulated version any day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: Logic trumps intuition, even though there are times when intuition is all we have to go on. If a person starves to death because they have a hunch that sausages are poisonous we don't say " yep, gotta go with that intuition. good on ya.".

A fair chunk of a poker players pay comes from people believing their intuition is delivering good messages. good salesman tap into our intuitions, good politicians likewise.

Your answer luckyme is rife with your current modern perception and culture. In every circumstance logic does not trump intuition. Intuition sometimes goes places where logic cannot.

Another excerpt from the above cited book:

"Intuition is the power of obtaining knowledge that cannot be acquired either by inference or observation, by reason, or experience," says the Encyclopedia Britannica. "As such, intuition is thought of as an original, independent source of knowledge." Also from the encyclopedia: "Intuition is designed to account for just those kinds of knowledge that other sources do not provide." The book goes on to say that primitive man had paranormal abilites, remote viewing being one of them, that allowed him a survival advantage. They believe that remote viewing is what helped the Asians cross the Aleutian Island chain to North America.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL at your examples of poker players, salesmen and politicians. Do you get what you are implying? In each of those situations, the person who is relying on intuition is being fleeced. And you use that to conclude that intuition is good and important. Yeah, I mean, sure, I want YOU to rely on intuition. Heck, I'd rather you just relied on suggestion, that makes my job even EASIER.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually Kurto people don't realize that while they are drawing logical conclusions some of the time they are actually using their intuitive senses almost constantly. Its just that people attach a greater consciousness to logical than to intuitive thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm saying though is that often times intuitive thinking IS logical. Its just not happening at the forefront of conciousness. Oftentimes, I may act intuitively at the spur of the moment. But, when asked to analyze, I can often deduce what factors led me to act a certain way. I can formally deduce what was happening 'intuitively.'

I can also sometimes deduce why my intuition was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
So you've got to wonder are some people's intuitions more reliable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect they are. And there's probably a logical reason for it. Poker is an easy example. A good poker player may claim he uses intuition. In reality, he's played 1000s of hands, noticed patterns in people's behaviours and acts accordingly. He may not be able to articulate what he knows intuitively... but make no mistake, that intuition is simply a sharp mind reacting to the information about poker and people that its collected over many hours of playing.

Some people have poor intuition because they're making incorrect conclusions based on the information available or misinterpreting cues.

There's no need to bring in the paranormal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course some peoples intuitions are more reliable. I guarantee you that if you give me a genetics or anatomy or medicine question that I've never heard of before and do not know the answer to but ask me to take a quick guess, my intuition is going to be better than yours. Similarly, there are many areas in which your intuition would easily trump mine. Thats because intuition is trained. A physicists intuition for physics problems is much better than mine.

Havent you guys noticed how much better your poker intuition has gotten over the years?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying. We use logic alot to test things, but I'm starting to see logic and intuition like a pair of oxen. They can be yoked together and most of the time they are, but you can also take them apart to carry on different functions. Reminds me of men and women. Men carry the occasional really big job while women run around constantly with the little jobs. Society would be lost without either one, but how does the disparity of our perception of the value of each affect society? There's probably a billion problematical answers to that question.. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition is just shoddy logic. It is the rough draft, the first instinct, the random guess. You can often rely on solely intuition because your brain is pretty awesome and your rough draft is very often right. But if you want to go a step further and drastically improve your accuracy, you codify your intuitions and use a systematic approach to decision-making.

And we call that logic.

[Splendour]

Actually I think we left out some quotes. luckyme's quote starts with "a fair chunk and I think you're mixing his quote up with mine.

My point is that the intuition is an under appreciated area of intelligence that may also be more developed in some people and/or unconsciously under utilized by people in general. Probably the people with the best intuition parameters, the ones with the best intuitive sorting capabilities have the highest intuition.

[kurto]

I think, Vhawk, that this is hitting 95% of it:
[ QUOTE ]
Intuition is just shoddy logic. It is the rough draft, the first instinct, the random guess. You can often rely on solely intuition because your brain is pretty awesome and your rough draft is very often right. But if you want to go a step further and drastically improve your accuracy, you codify your intuitions and use a systematic approach to decision-making.

And we call that logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what may seem 'magical' is that people have the ability to make rational decisions at a level they're not aware of. Some people can consistantly make accurate judgements about something using what they might call 'intuition' without understanding how they're coming to the decision.

I think the OPs problem is trying to say one is better then the other when, in reality, they serve different functions and should be valued differently.

Intuition is a snap deduction. It may or may not be based on relevent criteria. As you've said, only in hindsight can one determine if the intuition was useful. But intuition is useful in that it is often reactive to subtle cues that one may not yet have formally articulated. It may allow someone to sense danger even though you haven't put your finger on what cues are scaring you.

To type anymore I'll drift into rambling... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, Vhawk, that this is hitting 95% of it:
[ QUOTE ]
Intuition is just shoddy logic. It is the rough draft, the first instinct, the random guess. You can often rely on solely intuition because your brain is pretty awesome and your rough draft is very often right. But if you want to go a step further and drastically improve your accuracy, you codify your intuitions and use a systematic approach to decision-making.

And we call that logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what may seem 'magical' is that people have the ability to make rational decisions at a level they're not aware of. Some people can consistantly make accurate judgements about something using what they might call 'intuition' without understanding how they're coming to the decision.

I think the OPs problem is trying to say one is better then the other when, in reality, they serve different functions and should be valued differently.

Intuition is a snap deduction. It may or may not be based on relevent criteria. As you've said, only in hindsight can one determine if the intuition was useful. But intuition is useful in that it is often reactive to subtle cues that one may not yet have formally articulated. It may allow someone to sense danger even though you haven't put your finger on what cues are scaring you.

To type anymore I'll drift into rambling... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Logic is better than "the first 0.5 seconds of a logical decision" when you are judging solely based on accuracy and consistency. If you are judging based on "ability to avoid getting eaten by a bear" I think I'll take intuition.

[Splendour]

Why do you want to put up a shrine to logic? Is that your personal disposition talking?

Next time you're at a poker table you'll probably see both logic and intuition at work and in those funny little bluffing situations where you're flying in the dark I'd rather be holding onto a little intuition not just logic.

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.

So build your shrine but remember that codification is a boundary setter. Usually progress is about breaking the limits not setting 'em in stone.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.



[/ QUOTE ]

Splendour -- if Ivey's eyes are darting about looking for INFORMATION. He then uses that information to make a LOGICAL decision. You even acknowledge that he's looking for SUBTLE CLUES. One doesn't take clues and GUESS. You use clues to make good judgements.... ie, you reason.

Intuition USES LOGIC. The problem with intuition is that it happens quickly, therefore, it doesn't also deduce based on good premises.

LOGIC/REASON IS like intuition but much slower for it takes the time to make sure that the reasoning is sound. Where intuition makes snap judgements quickly that may or may not be accurate.

When you need a quick decision, intuition is what you listen to. But its not the best way to make a decision when you have the time to work it out.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want to put up a shrine to logic? Is that your personal disposition talking?

Next time you're at a poker table you'll probably see both logic and intuition at work and in those funny little bluffing situations where you're flying in the dark I'd rather be holding onto a little intuition not just logic.

Take a look at Phil Ivey again sometime. His eyes darting all over the place. They don't dart for logic. They dart for all those subtle little cues he's trying to pick up that he feeds into his gestalt apparatus, his intuition.

So build your shrine but remember that codification is a boundary setter. Usually progress is about breaking the limits not setting 'em in stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep referring to intuition and logic as if they are diametrically opposed or somehow competing with one another and you arent even listening to me when I explain that intuition is a subset of logic. Yes, at the poker table I will see both intuition and logic, which is exactly the same as saying at the poker table I will see shoddy logic, mediocre logic and superb logic (actually I wouldnt sit at a table with much superb logic going on).

PS. Every conclusion you come to and every point you are trying to make in this post is a logical one. Why are you so enamored with logic? Why do you use logic to make your points? Get over your logic obsession!

[Splendour]

I think I already mentioned that intuition and logic work together in my oxen post above addressed to luckyme.

I'm not pushing a position on logic/intuition as much as I am examining the nature of intuition and why society doesn't recognize it's important role throughout history.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker players are often making quick logical deductions and calling it intuition. They are responding to cues that they may even have trouble rationalizing. That doesn't mean its 'magic' or 'paranormal.' For instance, if a person breaks a pattern, you may subconsciously recognize that something is different even if you haven't figured out what it is. You may then decide that a player is very strong because of this change. Because you can't articulate the change, you call it 'intuition' when in reality you are simply processing information readily available to your senses.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you just described is modern psychology's understanding of intuition. Quickly processing subtle environmental cues is the process of intuition. I can't stress how important it is for a person to understand neo-cortical neurology to better understand any neurological phenomenon. The design of the neocortex is hierarchical in nature, and the higher the activity, the more the thought is understood by the individual (or so its thought, at least). Lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy are more sensitive to small changes in the environment because they are less subject to interpretation from other areas of the neo-cortex. That's precisely why logic can actually be inaccurate.

The neo-cortex is a feedback system, and the higher parts of the hierarchy are more reliant on feedback from other levels than the lower, as they receive no direct information from sensory input. The lower levels, however, receive input from both the higher levels (there is actually more connections going from the top to the bottom then there is going from the bottom to the top) and sensory organs. If you've ever watched that special on the man with 'The highest IQ in the world' that is a perfect example of how having excellent logic can be detrimental to one's ability to perceive reality accurately. My guess is that if you looked at his brain it would have a low cell count in the lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy.

Also, its important to mention that some people would naturally have better intuition than others. It all depends on the individuals particular neo-cortical arrangement. It's my guess that having a high amount of direct sensory to low-hierarchy connection/cell count AND having low-hierarchy to the highest levels of neo-cortical hierarchy connection count would result in individuals with phenomenal intuitive abilities.

I mean, there needs to be more research though. This whole field is very fuzzy, and very misunderstood. They need to start dissecting people's neo-cortex after they die (from causes that were not a result of brain trauma or degenerative diseases), while attaining as much personal information about these people while they are still alive and healthy.

*EDIT*

To whoever said intuition is just shoddy logic, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Intuition is so much more than 'shoddy logic'. For some people it's more reliable than actually being logical. For others, its a lot less reliable. It really varies from individual to individual.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
the ancient Yogi masters said it was the highest form of intelligence...intuition...is linked to telepathy, precognition, deja vu, telekinesis, after death communications...

[/ QUOTE ]
umm, yeah, good points

[vulturesrow]

Did anyone in this thread read Blink?

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a post written by someone who doesnt understand exactly what logic is. Can you give me an example to show me I'm wrong, tell me what you have in mind with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How do you know your mother loves you? Would your relationship with her be enhanced by viewing it primarily through the lens of objective analysis? Or would such an approach miss something fundamental about the experience?

Interpersonal relationships are often rightly dominated by illogical (or "non-logical") thought. Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally, but logic simply can't grasp the nature of friendship and love; faith and intuition come much closer.

I don't know how often that kind of mistake is actually made -- there probably aren't many virtual androids out there who are determined to be completely objective about their friends and family.

2) A more common error can be seen in debates here and elsewhere on the internet: people go too far with their logical analysis and start trying to prove their axioms. They fail to give any credence to emotion, intuition, faith, etc., and so never consider the source of the building blocks for all of their arguments. Instead they get tangled up in some complex tautology involving logic and epistemology that just kills the discussion, because trying to explain where they went wrong is just [censored] impossible.

This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[VarlosZ]

Splendour, apparently, is talking about something very different, so don't conflate his arguments with mine.

[Splendour]

Thanks for your post. It was very informative.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poker players are often making quick logical deductions and calling it intuition. They are responding to cues that they may even have trouble rationalizing. That doesn't mean its 'magic' or 'paranormal.' For instance, if a person breaks a pattern, you may subconsciously recognize that something is different even if you haven't figured out what it is. You may then decide that a player is very strong because of this change. Because you can't articulate the change, you call it 'intuition' when in reality you are simply processing information readily available to your senses.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you just described is modern psychology's understanding of intuition. Quickly processing subtle environmental cues is the process of intuition. I can't stress how important it is for a person to understand neo-cortical neurology to better understand any neurological phenomenon. The design of the neocortex is hierarchical in nature, and the higher the activity, the more the thought is understood by the individual (or so its thought, at least). Lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy are more sensitive to small changes in the environment because they are less subject to interpretation from other areas of the neo-cortex. That's precisely why logic can actually be inaccurate.

The neo-cortex is a feedback system, and the higher parts of the hierarchy are more reliant on feedback from other levels than the lower, as they receive no direct information from sensory input. The lower levels, however, receive input from both the higher levels (there is actually more connections going from the top to the bottom then there is going from the bottom to the top) and sensory organs. If you've ever watched that special on the man with 'The highest IQ in the world' that is a perfect example of how having excellent logic can be detrimental to one's ability to perceive reality accurately. My guess is that if you looked at his brain it would have a low cell count in the lower areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy.

Also, its important to mention that some people would naturally have better intuition than others. It all depends on the individuals particular neo-cortical arrangement. It's my guess that having a high amount of direct sensory to low-hierarchy connection/cell count AND having low-hierarchy to the highest levels of neo-cortical hierarchy connection count would result in individuals with phenomenal intuitive abilities.

I mean, there needs to be more research though. This whole field is very fuzzy, and very misunderstood. They need to start dissecting people's neo-cortex after they die (from causes that were not a result of brain trauma or degenerative diseases), while attaining as much personal information about these people while they are still alive and healthy.

*EDIT*

To whoever said intuition is just shoddy logic, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Intuition is so much more than 'shoddy logic'. For some people it's more reliable than actually being logical. For others, its a lot less reliable. It really varies from individual to individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quickly, explain what you think logic is. I'm interested to know because so much of your position rests on this definition and from reading your post it seems like you have no idea.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you call intuition is what I call poorly formulated logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not necessarily accurate. Maybe what you call intuition is in fact poorly formulated logic, but most people use it to refer to something different (though there is some overlap, of course).

Logic is tremendously valuable, but the OP isn't complete nonsense. People do sometimes try to use logic when it's not relevant, and "illogical" shouldn't be the universal pejorative that it is now.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a post written by someone who doesnt understand exactly what logic is. Can you give me an example to show me I'm wrong, tell me what you have in mind with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) How do you know your mother loves you? Would your relationship with her be enhanced by viewing it primarily through the lens of objective analysis? Or would such an approach miss something fundamental about the experience?

Interpersonal relationships are often rightly dominated by illogical (or "non-logical") thought. Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally, but logic simply can't grasp the nature of friendship and love; faith and intuition come much closer.

I don't know how often that kind of mistake is actually made -- there probably aren't many virtual androids out there who are determined to be completely objective about their friends and family.

2) A more common error can be seen in debates here and elsewhere on the internet: people go too far with their logical analysis and start trying to prove their axioms. They fail to give any credence to emotion, intuition, faith, etc., and so never consider the source of the building blocks for all of their arguments. Instead they get tangled up in some complex tautology involving logic and epistemology that just kills the discussion, because trying to explain where they went wrong is just [censored] impossible.

This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say. This reminds me of how everyone thinks atheism and logic are "cold" and "cool" and "calculation" and "heartless."

:sigh: Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output. I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

You guys seem to think logic is like a synonym for calculus or something.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

luckyme

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

Quickly, explain what you think logic is. I'm interested to know because so much of your position rests on this definition and from reading your post it seems like you have no idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic and intuition are both (kind of) the same neurological function, but rely on different inputs and happen within different areas of the neo-cortical hierarchy. Logic is the phenomenon that occurs in the higher levels, which receives information from the lower levels but not directly from sensory inputs. The information higher levels receives is processed through the lower levels, so it is not PURE sensory information, it is interpreted and simplified sensory information.

Just think of the neo-cortex as a general learning algorithm. The same kind of stuff is happening everywhere, just different input is influencing every different level.

I hope that answers your question.

EDIT

Sorry, I have to add on to this thought. The reason why I suspect logic is a function of higher levels within the neo-cortical hierarchy is because of the type of cells that exist within the higher levels. Cells in the higher levels are generally fewer in number, but much larger in size. These cells also have a vast amount of connections running to all levels of the hierarchy. These cells are thought to represent conceptual thought. The highest levels of the neo-cortex is what distinguishes our cortex from those of other mammals, which is why some are led to this conclusion. Logic, for the most part, requires conceptual and symbolic thought which is what these large cells can provide.

[Aver-aging]

LOL. Sorry, I have to add another piece of information in for some people.

Things like crossing the street, using a tool, or using a remote can become intuitive activities even though our brain initially used logic and deduction to figure out how to do these things when we were young.

The reason for that phenomenon is that after a while, actions and thoughts that had to rely on the highest levels of the neo-cortex are able to move down, because neurons in the lower levels start recognizing the pattern more easily as they encounter it more. The motto "Neurons that fire together wire together" applies in this situation. That is why initially we have to use logic, but later these activities become simple intuitive acts that require little to no concentration to perform.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
That is why initially we have to use logic, but later these activities become simple intuitive acts that require little to no concentration to perform.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only intuitive if you get it right the first time you ever see and handle a remote. Otherwise it's a learned action like walking. Nothing to do with 'intuition'.

luckyme

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is why initially we have to use logic, but later these activities become simple intuitive acts that require little to no concentration to perform.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only intuitive if you get it right the first time you ever see and handle a remote. Otherwise it's a learned action like walking. Nothing to do with 'intuition'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are using a different definition of intuition than I am.

1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.
5. Philosophy.
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.
6. Linguistics. the ability of the native speaker to make linguistic judgments, as of the grammaticality, ambiguity, equivalence, or nonequivalence of sentences, deriving from the speaker's native-language competence.

It seems to me that you are using the fifth definition of intuition, while I am using the first four. Intuition, particularly in the psychology community, is not defined as an act that is invented out of nowhere. In fact, actions and thoughts are never created from nothing. That's just silly. All action and thought is based off of something. Even our first actions and thoughts as infants are based off of innate genetically programmed behaviors. I think you would be hard pressed to find a psychologist that thinks otherwise.

Here is another way of putting it: Logic is conscious neurological behavior influenced by interpreted input. Intuition is unconscious neurological behavior influenced by interpreted input AND direct sensory information.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[kurto]

now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

You mean the TRUTH that I was going to be harmed and that's why I ducked from the shadow of an airplane 10,000 feet above my head?

Or the TRUTH that the railway tracks do go together in the distance?

Learning to ride a bike may became a conditioned reflex but it never reveals any TRUTH or FACT as claimed by definition #1.

Whether something is true or a fact is what we'll determine after the event in those quick-reaction cases, by logical analysis. Once we determine that "hey, I got it right!" we still can't go back and "it is right because I intuited it". It's the logical test ... "did the plane hit me?" that determines the truth of the intuitive action.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll have to excuse me, I don't come from a philosophy background so I don't really get your point. Please explain some more.

And on closer inspection, I overlooked the second part of the first definition. I think it's fair to say that I am using the third and fourth definition.

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
now that I'm thinking this through... based on this definition-
"1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension."

I'm thinking this doesn't exist that much. I don't think most people magically come up with a truth. There is a reasoning process happening in the brain. They make snap judgements, educated guesses, etc. Or they are reacting to information... but its not intuition. I would argue that there's always a reasoning process... it just happens at a lower level and is therefore quicker but oftentimes less accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intuition in the traditional sense doesn't really exist. The definition needs to be modified with current information coming from neurologists and psychologists. The information isn't out of nowhere, and there is always a reasoning process. Just sometimes that reasoning process is understood by the individual, and sometimes it isn't. Intuitive processes are by no means more or less accurate then conscious logical deductions. We rely on these intuitive processes for almost everything we do. Only every now and then do we need to really sit down and think something through. Usually we just react, and often that's all we have to do.

How I see reasoning is also different too. Reasoning implies a conscious effort. Intuition does not.

[tame_deuces]

I think you touched on an important point Varlosz (if someone else has said similar stuff I apologize). I don't think you can separate 'intuition'(whatever that is, it seems purposefully hazy to me) from logic.

Logic to me atleast, is an abstract way of thinking. Quite like law academics or maths, which are very pure applications of the rules of logic. You create a system of thought based on axiomatic rules or false, true or (in some cases) maybe. But we will still always be that hazy thing we are, and to some extent bound by this. Logic or not.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reoccuring problem in numerous threads started by Splendour.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course logic speaks to emotion, what a silly, propagandized thing to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

What an odd choice of words.

Granted, "logic doesn't speak to emotion" is, as phrased, a much too broad declaration. The two are interrelated, as emotions will have an impact on logic, and logical conclusions will have an impact on one's emotions. However, this:

[ QUOTE ]
Logic is a process. Emotion is input. Logic takes your input, processes it, and gives you an output.

[/ QUOTE ]

. . . is an arbitrary view. One could just as accurately define logic as mere input for an emotional output. Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?

[ QUOTE ]
I could think my mother loves me because she says she does, I know that historically most mothers love their children, she feeds me, she buys me clothes and takes care of me, lots of things. Or I could know that my mother loves me because she smiles at me and makes me feel good and hugs me and I can see loving looks on her face. These are emotional responses. BUT IT IS STILL LOGIC. I am LOGICALLY coming to the conclusion that, based on these emotional inputs, my mother loves me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if you were to examine your relationship with your mother logically, that's about what it would look like. People seldom actually do that, though, because it's not that helpful. Given any sufficiently specific definition of "love" I'm sure you could take those hints and deduce that your mother "loves" you, but it doesn't reveal anything about the relationship itself. It usually just helps you lay out the words used to describe that relationship in a more consistent manner ... which is great, but it's still doing a very poor job of illuminating the nature of relationship. It's far too intangible, ineffable.


Meh, I get the feeling that no one in this thread is doing a good job of defining his terms. We're probably not getting anywhere until that's rectified.


EDIT: Ok, that's a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is somewhat related to (1), in that it probably springs from people's failure to realize two things: logic doesn't speak to emotion, and emotion is relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

The girls that fall in love with abusers and child-molesters, etc. Would you say their intuition/emotion served them well? On what basis would you be able to say that? Would you base that on logical analysis or just wait for an emotion to come by with the answer?

Emotion tells us how we feel about something, it can't judge whether that feeling is getting a correct evaluation of the situation. People that get taken advantage of, even by a mother, can claim their emotions/intuitions were 'right' if they want, but the scars should prove otherwise, even though it's a mere logical conclusion.

It's "the wife is the last to know" or "my son wouldn't do that" situations that help illustrate this. Outsiders can see the manipulation of a gold-digger, say, because they are using logical analysis.

I like carrots, brunettes and convertibles. I get 'hunches' at the poker table that I act on ( people reading ones, not "my flush is rivering" ones). None of that is immune to logical analysis and in fact that is how I will judge whether my emotions are screwing me or not. If carrots constipate me, brunettes swindle me and convertibles cause bug-throat I may still be stuck with the 'liking' but now avoid the activity.

We can't help how we feel but we don't have to pretend that the hunches, intuitions or feelings are some mysterious source of deep wisdom. Slugs and barnacles react to their environment too, and some trout would have done better if the did a bit more hmmmmming before they snapped at the fly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but this doesn't address what I've actually said. For example:

[ QUOTE ]
Of course some aspects of those relationships should and will be analyzed rationally. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me an example.

[vhawk01]

I really do feel like I'm arguing against some stereotyped, pejorative definition of "logic" that is really common among idiots but is a little surprising on SMP. Its like what happens whenever we talk about science. For some reason people think science is the part of reality that deals with beakers and animals and lab coats. Science is a process, logic is a process. Science is primarily based on logic, it just has a few axioms built in. Other than that its basically the same CPU.

[bunny]

I dont think it's to do with ego, I think it's to do with utility. If you can logically demonstrate something then it is 100% certain to be true. Unfortunately, the class of assertions we can logically demonstrate is small due to limited knowledge.

So, although intuition has the advantage that it can apply to anything it suffers from the big disadvantage that logic is the only way to know if you're right or not.

[Taraz]

Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm...it is not an "arbitrary" view that logic is a process. Logic cannot be an input for anything. You can input whatever you want into a logical framework, and depending on what you put in, you will get some result. But logic cannot be the input. Its pretty important that you understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the outputs of logic can be fed into another process. Probably what he meant.

I don't like the view of emotion as a process. Emotional inputs affect logical outputs to a high degree, but the reverse isn't true.

"Logic" and "thought" aren't the same thing. Thought does affect emotion (albeit not, IMO, to anywhere near the extent that emotion affects thought). However, I don't think the process of logic actually affects emotion much - I think it affects thought, and thought can then affect emotion, so it's indirect. On the other hand, it seems that many assumptions used in logical processes come directly from the emotions - they're unexamined and almost instinctual.

A lot of people go nuts about this stuff. There's this new kind of philosophy cropping up of the opposed realms of art and science. You have your right versus your left brain, you have nature versus technology, you have emotion versus thought, you have intuition versus reason. Only, these pairs are neither exclusive nor opposed.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

[Splendour]

I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are great at responding to physical threats, meeting physical needs, and interacting socially. Our intuitions in these areas tend to be good. Our intuitions in the areas of science, math, and philosophy tend to be awful.

Some people like to argue that intuition is the correct approach for determining whether God exists, whether humans have free will, and whether the universe was designed. I think that's the position relevant to this thread. And I don't think it can be supported.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I specifically didn't like the characterization of intuition as "shoddy logic" (cough, vhawk, cough /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) Intuition is pretty non-logical and is quite useful in certain scenarios. Clearly learning the structure of the natural world is not one of these scenarios.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I had another question today which probably should have its own thread but the question grew out of this thread.

The question is: Is Genius more like Logic or Intuition?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a false dichotomy, I would say geniuses use both quite well. With that said, I doubt I would call anybody a genius who had poor deductive skills.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we all agree on what we are talking about?

The 'logic' we are referring to a longer, conscious process of figuring things out. It involves analyzing the situation in some sort of detail.

'Intuition' refers to snap judgments that we make. This is probably occurring on a subconscious level and does not involve stopping and reflecting on the choices.

While logic is normally the better way to go, there are actually many cases where this "intuition" is superior to logic. Any practiced motor skill actually gets worse if you think about it. You are much more precise if you just move. Also, lots of visual judgments work better on the intuitive level. Sometimes something just "seems wrong" but we can't articulate why.

Whoever mentioned the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell was on the right track. He deals with many examples where our snap judgments are the best judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement. Similarly, I think kurto and vhawk have referred to intuition as a kind of "snap-logic". I think the logical amongst us will be better (ie more accurate) at utilising this form of "intuition" than those to whom deduction is more alien.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really do feel like I'm arguing against some stereotyped, pejorative definition of "logic" that is really common among idiots but is a little surprising on SMP.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "logic"? Like I asked earlier: "Your formulation seems to define non-logical epistemologies out of existence -- as fodder for the ultimate and inevitable logical process -- and what does that get us?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is simply that there are some kinds of information that logic does a relatively poor job of illuminating. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Give me an example.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave you two. One you explained away with (apparently) an unusually broad definition of "logic" -- a point more about the words involved than the concept itself -- the other you ignored completely.

[VarlosZ]

Just so it's clear what I'm talking about, by "logic" I'm referring to a wholly or somewhat deliberate thought process that uses axioms, evidence, and conclusions drawn from such to reach one or more ultimate conclusions. By "intuition" I'm referring to a primarily emotive response, though it need not be a 'snap-judgment.'

To go back to my previous example, it's the difference between knowing how your mother feels about you because you weighed the evidence and drew the appropriate conclusion, and knowing because you just feel a certain state of being to be true. In this case, the latter epistemological process tends to give a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the relationship that the former.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's true. I would say in those cases intuition is often less useful if you go against the logical conclusion. Sometimes logic doesn't give you a good answer and you have to rely on your intuition though.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont think the speed of decision is the essential distinguishing factor between logic and intuition, although I agree it is often the case. I think a logical approach involves only accepting what can be deduced from prior, accepted axioms or theorems. I understood Splendour to be labelling intuition "everything else".

I consider it at least possible to mull things over and still form an intuitive judgement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's true. I would say in those cases intuition is often less useful if you go against the logical conclusion. Sometimes logic doesn't give you a good answer and you have to rely on your intuition though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie.
which source of knowledge is considered 'right' or 'true'. His personal intuition or our objective analysis?

Don't you get tired of seeing the mother on TV saying, "My Jimmie would never do that" often just as they run the juice through him. or the neighbors saying of the child molester, "he was such a great guy." or seeing your friends or relatives getting conned by salesmen, politicians, gold-diggers, gigolo's, and the normal assortment of misreading peoples intent and motive.

Sure, our intuition in some situations is better than a coin flip, in others it's our worst enemy and in all the final judgment on whether the intuition was working for us or not will be by a logical analysis and we don't even have to know the intuitive mechanism to do the evaluation.

Related to this is a standard approach I use -- If I want to know the reasons BeckyLou did something I don't ask BeckyLou, I ask her friends and relatives, and it's not that I consider BeckyLou a liar I merely consider her human. Our intuitions of others maybe shaky but our intuitions about ourselves are often worse.

aside - like most people I have overconfidence in my reading ability, but I do have a decent enough public track record to be called into negotiations to act as the people observer, to identify the hard and soft spots in the opposition position for example. My approach to my own reads is - Trust but Verify.

luckyme

[Splendour]

quote: "That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie."


Ha gotcha. Both can be right. His mother could be insane and love him and think she has to kill him for some insane purpose and at the same time need the money for some other insane purpose.

But I did find your "verify your reads" as very insightful advice with some practical value. Instead of just reading I may need to incorporate some verification techniques into my game. Thanks for the tip!

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
quote: "That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie."


Ha gotcha. Both can be right. His mother could be insane and love him and think she has to kill him for some insane purpose and at the same time need the money for some other insane purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

That's skipping over the question of whether we are talking about the same mental state when we are referring to 'love' -
a) a normal persons love for me.
b) an insane persons love for me.

Equivocation seems to be a general problem for you.

luckyme

[Splendour]

quote: And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

Why can't there be concurrent situations and he's only getting the read from one from conditioning but due to timing and other things, maybe he's in denial, he doesn't get that she just lost it. It doesn't make the first read wrong it just complicates things. Look at that lady in Texas that killed 4 or 5 kids. The schizophrenic nurse. Her husband knew she was sick and the family probably thought she loved them they just didn't know her illness had stepped up the ladder into the psychotic stage.

[tame_deuces]

What do you mean by intuition exactly?

If you mean quick, fast thinking then we need that. We're biological computers in more need of quick'n'dirty than we are in need of continous quality. 'Snake! AH! BAD!' , 'Sugar....mmmm...'.

Being somewhat right most of the time is more than good enough for much of life purposes. But when you dwelve into the abstract knowledge models it won't cut it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
quote: And his intuition about his mothers state is so great that he caught the 'she loves me' part and missed the "then again, she is INSANE".
These are 'reads' he should trust?

Why can't there be concurrent situations and he's only getting the read from one from conditioning but due to timing and other things, maybe he's in denial, he doesn't get that she just lost it. It doesn't make the first read wrong it just complicates things. Look at that lady in Texas that killed 4 or 5 kids. The schizophrenic nurse. Her husband knew she was sick and the family probably thought she loved them they just didn't know her illness had stepped up the ladder into the psychotic stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again - do you think you are referring to the same mental experience/state when you compare an insane homocidal persons love of you to an normal persons love of you. you would actually claim " yep, they both love me. oh, and one wants to kill me in a barbaric way" ?

would that make the use of the term 'love' not as comforting as VarlosZ seemed to want it to be for us?
"She loves you."
" Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"
luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was the standard play too.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"She loves you."
"Yikes, hellllp, I'm outta here"

[/ QUOTE ]

When is this not the correct play?

[/ QUOTE ]

There must be exceptions or it'd be a heritable trait by now.

luckyme

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by intuition exactly?

If you mean quick, fast thinking then we need that. We're biological computers in more need of quick'n'dirty than we are in need of continous quality. 'Snake! AH! BAD!' , 'Sugar....mmmm...'.

Being somewhat right most of the time is more than good enough for much of life purposes. But when you dwelve into the abstract knowledge models it won't cut it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite honestly I'm not sure what I mean by intuition anymore. There may be multiple levels to it. I found the myers-brigg personality thing interesting. I think I'm in the intuitive category and a lot of the folks on here are sensory so that's why everyone likes to joust with me. En garde! Hopefully you don't kill me or make me fly the coop before learning something.

A lot of mathematical, scientific people would probably be likely to be more prone to sensing than intuitive so what I say would come across as illogical to them especially in this type of linear internet format.

As I'm doing this thread I keep having this thought of a friend who visited London/Wales and toured Windsor Castle. They told me that the English thought of themselves as more intelligent than the Welsh, but they considered the Welsh to be more intuitive. There could definitely be genetic links to aspects of personality and personality and intelligence are bound to related in ways that we are just beginning to understand.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
uite honestly I'm not sure what I mean by intuition anymore. There may be multiple levels to it. I found the myers-brigg personality thing interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theoretical scientists tend to be INTPs.
Experimental ones tend to be INTJs.

Most on here are N's of various sorts. The S's stand out.

Intuition in the MB sense would refer more to the way things frame themselves for us. N's tend to see the mortar. S's tend to see the bricks.

luckyme

[madnak]

Scientists and mathematicians are actually more likely to be intuitive on the MBTI. People in general are much more likely to be S than N. IIRC ~70% of people are sensing. I'd wager a significant amount that SMPers are more intuitive.

But we aren't discussing the MBTI. The Jungian concept of perceiving functions has little bearing on the idea of "inuition" as we're using the term - and particularly as opposed to logic. The reality is that logical people tend to be intuitive, logic and intuition go hand in hand. I touched on this earlier. It's a myth that logic and intuition are opposed.

[Splendour]

Lol..I can't even remember my own personality type anymore, but I had the I and J...that's all I remember. I need to look it up one of these days. But there's suppose to be thousands of variants on the 16 types anyways depending on the degree to which each of the basic 4 subtypes is tweaked.

I know the intuition and logic work together. I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am. You're not any more curious about ideas than me you just like a lot of structure. I have a friend that likes to tell me that I overanalyze things and I took a test once a Kiplinger's Personal Finance Quiz and it ended up I'd answered it like a man. The financial goals of men and women apparently are very different and that's probably 1 reason why married couples fight over finances alot because ingrained personality traits are almost impossible to overcome. Women crave security. Men crave independence.

Now I know I just went off on a tangent. I'm intuitive so I jump around a lot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kurto]

I was really enjoying and following this thread until people switched from English to single letters.

My understanding of letterspeak if very limited... I know the basics like "I love BLTs"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya think?

luckyme

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think people are mostly logical in this forum to a higher degree than I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

ya think?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Be nice! /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[madnak]

Acronyms. (http://www.acronymfinder.com/) IIRC is "if I remember correctly" or "if I recall." MBTI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator) is the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory/Indicator, a personality test that uses eight traits (Introversion, Extraversion, Sensing, iNtuition, Thinking, Feeling, Judging, and Perceiving).

LOL is laughing out loud, and SMP is Science, Math, and Philosophy (LDO).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol..I can't even remember my own personality type anymore, but I had the I and J...that's all I remember.
...............

Now I know I just went off on a tangent. I'm intuitive so I jump around a lot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Look up INFJ .
/end tangent

luckyme

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lol..I can't even remember my own personality type anymore, but I had the I and J...that's all I remember.
...............

Now I know I just went off on a tangent. I'm intuitive so I jump around a lot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Look up INFJ .
/end tangent

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I was sort of thinking that. You are right. Thank you.

[madnak]

Christ, Splendour shares my MBTI type. What in the hell are the chances of that? Nobody shares my type...

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
That touches on the aspect I've been pointing to. let's use VarlosZ's situation - He knows intuitively that him mother loves him ( darn, I wish he'd have thrown in something about apple pie). We discover that she's been slowly poisoning him to collect insurance and arranging a sell him to the gypsies and keeping the pie.
which source of knowledge is considered 'right' or 'true'. His personal intuition or our objective analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Again - do you think you are referring to the same mental experience/state when you compare an insane homocidal persons love of you to an normal persons love of you. you would actually claim " yep, they both love me. oh, and one wants to kill me in a barbaric way" ?

would that make the use of the term 'love' not as comforting as VarlosZ seemed to want it to be for us?

[/ QUOTE ]

I must have done a poor job of explaining what I mean, because you still don't know what I've been saying. Part of that is your fault, though: I've mentioned mothers and love, and you've read way too much into those examples. When have I implied anything about love being comforting? Where does that intersect with anything I've said? And your apple pie reference is cute, but 100% irrelevant.

If it makes it easier, forget motherhood and love. Pick any interpersonal relationship, and any potentially related emotion. What does it feel like to be angry with a friend? Can logic do a better job of capturing that information than "intuition"?

[VarlosZ]

Here, go back to what I said here:

[ QUOTE ]
To go back to my previous example, it's the difference between knowing how your mother feels about you because you weighed the evidence and drew the appropriate conclusion, and knowing because you just feel a certain state of being to be true. In this case, the latter epistemological process tends to give a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the relationship that the former.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part does not mean: "gives you more accurate information about your mother," which is what you seem to be rebutting. It means that there are aspects of the relationship and its attendant emotions which are too intangible to be captured by language, let alone logic.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If it makes it easier, forget motherhood and love. Pick any interpersonal relationship, and any potentially related emotion. What does it feel like to be angry with a friend? Can logic do a better job of capturing that information than "intuition"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it feel like to be angry?
How did that get into comparing sources of knowledge about the external world. You 'knowing' your mother loves you is a claim about your mother. You feeling anger is a state you are in.

I was going to raise that point earlier and state that 'knowing my mother loves me' is often just a claim about you and not about her but since that rather brushes aside your position it didn't seem fair. Now, your 'being angry' example seems to indicate you are merely concerned with internal reports of things we are experiencing and not making claims about external facts.
??

My position is we can and do make judgments on others state of mind, intentions, motives on an intuitive basis, some of us are better at it than others in some areas and worse in some. "worse and better" refer to being right about the conclusions we reach. "See, he was trying to screw me."

'being angry' doesn't fit this at all. 'Knowing' your friend is angry by subtle clues would, and how often you are right is how we'd test it, when that is possible.

luckyme

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]

I was going to raise that point earlier and state that 'knowing my mother loves me' is often just a claim about you and not about her but since that rather brushes aside your position it didn't seem fair. Now, your 'being angry' example seems to indicate you are merely concerned with internal reports of things we are experiencing and not making claims about external facts.
??

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see how that would be confusing; I apologise. In fact, I'm talking about both internal reports and external facts. (Or, if you prefer, I'm talking about neither; language is fun.) The example I gave yesterday afternoon was about interpersonal relations -- not just your state of being or the other person's, but the relationship between the two.

At the risk of once again getting bogged down in specifics, a simple thought experiment: imagine you're from a race of intergalactic androids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_%28Star_Trek%29), and you're tasked with detailing every possible facet of human society. Now use your logic to describe what "friendship" is, spaceman. While you could describe it's apparent external effects, your approach to knowledge would severely limit your ability to understand the thing itself.

[ QUOTE ]
What does it feel like to be angry?
How did that get into comparing sources of knowledge about the external world.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really what I was had in mind before, but there is a way in which that question speaks to knowledge of the external world: we extrapolate information from our own subjective experiences. What does it mean for my friend to be angry, and what are the likely psychological implications of his anger? Logic can tell you that his experience is probably a lot like yours, but that still leaves you reliant on a non-logical process for your information about the outside world.

[ QUOTE ]
My position is we can and do make judgments on others state of mind, intentions, motives on an intuitive basis, some of us are better at it than others in some areas and worse in some. "worse and better" refer to being right about the conclusions we reach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds fine to me.