Society, Intuition and Logic

[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.