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.

[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.

[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-p...-intuition.asp

[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

[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