Society, Intuition and Logic

[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.

[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

[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 ]
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?

[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.

[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

[vhawk01]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[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.