Intuition vs Logic

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen such an incorrect definition of logic. Logic has nothing to do with metaphysics; it is the application of ordered analysis to propositions, nothing more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LoL dear friend logic is the same as intuition, logic is just when we can represent intuition. Take 2+ 2 =4 , how do you know this is correct, first you must ask your intuitiuon to answer this question because your intuition makes you understand the equation in the first place, not logic.And it is when your intuition is satisfied you can then approve of the equation. To proof further take
3 + x# = [ ~>., you will be hard pressed like me to understand this much less analyze the logic here. Your intuition is not impressed so no need to even try to represnet it again for analysis, so you say the equation is wrong or uncomprehendable.
The mistake you might be making is that you think intuition is not done by calculations as well, it is, only faster. By seeing the second equation I wrote you may say its a computer language of some sort, but 99% of the time you may simply say It does not look familiar or even valid. That is intuition, drawing conclusions from no representations or viable ones. Anybody can have an idea as in intuition, but representing it will take convincing, which requires demonstration or representation, which is where logic comes in. So you see, intuition and logic are the same, but neither more or less correct than each other.There are some things you just can't calculate precisely, e.g a business deal or the outcome of your children in school, so you sum it up with intuition, or as some may call it, logic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Eeek. Been reading some Rationalists lately?? Our system of logic is a human attempt to systematize our experience; it is nothing but our creation derived not from some 'intuition' (whatever that is...) but from our desire to organize, so as to be better able to predict. Mind you, this particualr angle is just the contemporary point of view of logical systems; there really is nothing to say that your 18th Century point of view is necessarily incorrect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like to put forward somethgn i just thought of:
To me logic is a simple success based system, where success dictates the value. As we aquire better logical systems we only accept them if they are more successful [to us] than what we had prior. Logic like evolution is success driven.

The logic of Special relativity for example is only ok if it has inherant value to us and our future. If not it is not good logic.

so I feel that success is the main motivator in our desire to be rational.

just some thoughts

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If logic has motivation (success driven) then it certainly is not neutral (objective).

 

Quantum: your analysis is correct. This is why, for all intents and purposes, deductive logic based upon 'a priori' axioms is sterile, and also why inductive logic (as evidenced in the scientific method) is fruitful.

BeHereNow: of course it's not objective. This has been known since Heisenburg, via the 'observer effect'. The method merely is an attempt to limit the subjectivity of judgements by making use of a standardized procedure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An example:

A child is holding a square peg and in fromt of him are two holes, one is round an dthe other is square.

Is the logic needed to get the peg into the right hiole subjective or objective?

Obviously the logic he uses must be succcessful if he is to get the mix right.

even if it takes a bit of trial and error.

 

Does logic define rationality? If logic is a success based system then what does that mean for the rational/irrational distinction?

Or is what I am calling rational/irrational just logical/illogical?

 

Intuition vs logic.
Intuition arrives at accurate, true, conclusions without logic and reasoning.
It arrives at correct conclusions by an irrational process, but the conclusions themselves are rational. This masks the effectiveness of the intuitive process.

In some cases a detractor may say that logic and reasoning were used, and then will recount how the conclusion could have been arrived at logically, as if this proves that is how it happened. Because reasoning could have been used, it is given the credit. The detractor claims there is no proof intuition was used.
Sometimes the intuitionally astute does not need to think through the rational process. They arrive at the conclusion first, then use reasoning to support their beliefs.

In other cases the conclusion is of a “spiritual” nature, not provable in the traditional sense. It grabs reality, but there is no way to prove this. Others deny the reality on the basis of lack of reasoning proof, or hold tightly a belief system with different conclusions. These types of proof go where logic and reasoning are lacking. Logic offers no solution.

 

Does the use of logic require language? Non-lingual conclusions feel very intuitive when I reflect on them, but they often exhibit logical properties.

 

it is infact laguage that is our biggest problem as this thread is demonstrating.

Beherenow referes to intuitive spirituality.
I refer to a naked awareness.
Skippingstones refers to a non-linguistic intuition.
I have often thought that all is premised as intuitive in some form or degree.

Learning language and use of language could be considered an intuitive excersise.

Our child attempting to fit a square peg into a circular hole is excercising his intuition as he learns the ins and outs of pegs and holes. He is learning logic and how to succeed intuitively with out necessarilly any help form any one else.

So when he grows up and has to work out "How many people will fit into a small elevator?" Is he using his intuition or something else in his working out the problem. It could be argued and I am sure it has been, that every thought, every idea, every understanding is primarilly intuitive. Thus every decision and every action is also.

However what we are tryimg to do, I think is some how define the difference between various mental and physical functions and I think that this is never going to succeed simply because it all comes down to the degree of intuition involved.

If we are able to differentiate between the passive state and the pro-active state we may see some progress. To be purely a reciever of information and not a manipulator of information. To see what is there and not what we want to be there......and so on....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

humans are illogical by thier nature.
theres nothing we can do about it, jsut go with the flow and do what's needed when neccisary.

 

"do what's needed when neccisary"
Ah, there's the rub.

 

another thought:

When we compare a basket ball with a surfboard, how do we know they are different?
When we compare an apple with a watermelon how do we know that they are different? What faculty are we using to discern the difference, do you think?

On a religious note:

In the Garden of Eden it has often been thought that when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge the gained the ability to think for themselves.

I see a certain parallel in that it is the thinking that keeps us from the truth and yet allows us over many generations to understand the truth.
But essentially it is our thinking [use of logic ] that separates us from a truely passive awareness of the oneness of everything.

So in the Garden of Eden incident Mankind gained sentience and by default separation from his true nature but with the sole purpise of understanding his true nature. The pain of separation from his truth driving him to learn how to be one with the truth again. [By understanding the truth about nature - esp. his own nature]

Just my thoughts to date....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"how do we know they are different?"

Or should we say "How do we know they are the same?"?

There are similarites, there are differences.
From the outside we see the difference, from the inside we see the sameness.

 

Philosophers and psychologists say that it's impossible to recieve information without putting it through some kind of filter, making it subjective to each individual.
Am I right that you are saying that it is only when we try to recount the information that we make it subjective?

When one is sitting beside the ocean with a still mind, it does feel that we are purely recievers of information, but are we still applying our filters to what we are recieving? You can still become habituated to the constant drone of the machinery in the distance.

 

Good post SkippingStones...good post....

I think it all comes down to the degree of filtering.

For instance if you sit by the ocean in a love rapture, Panthenistic worship, the ocean and the sky, the people on the beach the vegitation and even the over flowing rubish bins become objects of extreme beauty.

If you sit there with no emotion and are flat in your mood etc your perception of that beauty is greatly diminished.
So to answer your question would be to say that a limited amount of filtering is inevitable, however does that filtering render the entire experience subjective? That is another question.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The absolute state of objectivity could be stated as unconsciousness, but the paradox is that in that state we have nothing to be objective about...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

However if we can get past the play on words and some how get closer to the thresh hold of objectivity by stilling our questions and manipulations of information we get to see and experience a greater reality to our perceptions.

 

Moving away from objectivity/subjectivity somewhat:

I was bored in class today and stumbled on an interesting distinction between intuition and logic.

When removed from the context of the actual content and further application, some thoughts/realizations are totally new, exciting, and the act of having them is uplifting and leads to optimism. Also, they are very language based once realised.
Other thoughts/realizations have the "I already knew that.." feeling, are reminders, point to lapses or defects in the person's memory and thought, and are depressing, or sometimes reassuring. They are less language based and more of a "seeming".
(The reference to emotion is to help you recognize what I'm trying to describe.)

At first glance, the first kind seem logical because of their emphasis on language, however they arrive by intuitive means (emphasis on the newness, or "out of the blue" feel). An example of this is my noticing this distinction while I was sitting in class today.
The second kind seem intuitive because of they are more feeling based, yet they arise from logical reasoning (deductions, incorporating realization into a rational system, etc). An example of this is remembering that you didn't buy gas and so now you can't go dirtbiking this afternoon.

Now, I haven't had time to really sit down and try to define these better but I wonder how the act of memory recall influences our ideas of what is intuitive or not. Often when we reason, we draw forth memories to form patterns in a way that seems very illogical.
Can that concept of pattern finding help us form a better definition of intuition?

Also, if you can help clarify my distinction it's all yours.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, you’re mixing your metaphors there.
An interesting mixing of Judaic-Christian with the Zen.
It works in an odd sort of way, even though it feels all wrong.
“pain of separation” a little extreme for my tastes, as is “driving him to learn”.
Lots to disagree with, but everything can be explained if not taken too literally.
I’ll go along with it, but I wouldn’t want to defend it.

 

An "Objective observation" is not necessarily oxymoronic. "Objective" may have two meanings, based on different uses.

One is independent of the mind or senses. In this sense, nothing we now is objective as it depends upon reasoning (which involves neurological, a.ka. mental, processes) or based on experiences (which depend on senses which can only be interpreted by a brain, mind).

However, the secondary meaning, as use would indicate, is something free from bias. In this sense, objective observation isn't an oxymoron.

I would also like to state that intuition is not objective under your (the first) definition. Intuition is the subconscious merely making inferences prior to the conscious mind making inferences. Therefore, it depends on the mind or brain. Under your radical thesis, it is subjective.

Sorry if I am bringing up a “dead thread” but this thread is what drew me to this forum.