Ahhh.... excuse me....cool skill said:
Koans are eastern philosophy. Eastern philosophy is all about koans.
The Limits of Logical Intelligence
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Koans are eastern philosophy. Eastern philosophy is all about koans.
That is very interesting. However I don't believe in "instinct" It's a learned behavior, in nature perhaps they have done similar problem solving. Learned behavior, instinct is "inate knowledge" beforehand. I believe all creatures including humans are born "tabula raza" an empty slate.
However animal behavior requires further study. When reading your post, I also recalled, the bees. I.E. Instruction given by a drone bee, to were the flower patch is located, via a dance. A bee directs other bees of the hive to the located nectar. However I think this is also a learned behavior.
Turduckin maybe is beyond our logic, to comprehend animal logic behavior. But i do think that animal behavior requires lots more study. We've barely scratched the surface of discovering their mating habit. And or their sexual preferance. Homosexual behavior in animals has been documented in many speceis. But I do recall my three dogs, Two LapsoApsos, and a Cocker Spaniel. The two smaller dogs the Lapsos could never catch food thrown at them, the Cocker hardly ever missed.
So was the Cocker smarter logically figuring out were to catch the food. Or the Lapsos, have too much hair around their eyes and could hardly see the food coming towards them?. Or the Lapsos were just dumer. LOL
Godless
However animal behavior requires further study. When reading your post, I also recalled, the bees. I.E. Instruction given by a drone bee, to were the flower patch is located, via a dance. A bee directs other bees of the hive to the located nectar. However I think this is also a learned behavior.
Turduckin maybe is beyond our logic, to comprehend animal logic behavior. But i do think that animal behavior requires lots more study. We've barely scratched the surface of discovering their mating habit. And or their sexual preferance. Homosexual behavior in animals has been documented in many speceis. But I do recall my three dogs, Two LapsoApsos, and a Cocker Spaniel. The two smaller dogs the Lapsos could never catch food thrown at them, the Cocker hardly ever missed.
So was the Cocker smarter logically figuring out were to catch the food. Or the Lapsos, have too much hair around their eyes and could hardly see the food coming towards them?. Or the Lapsos were just dumer. LOL
Godless
I'm sorry. I just cannot conceive the idea of talking about eastern philosophy without talking about koans....
Anyways... Koans are "puzzles". They are the expression of simple truths which are beyond logic. Exactly what you were talking about "metalogical"....
Anyways... Koans are "puzzles". They are the expression of simple truths which are beyond logic. Exactly what you were talking about "metalogical"....
Godless said:
I can't accept the idea of 'tabula rasa'... A creature's DNA dictates that they are hard-wired to a great extent. Humans see and process motion using a separate neural pathway from the one that sees and processes shape. Damage to the second pathway leads to a condition called 'blind sight', where someone cannot see an object, but can tell in which direction it is travelling. Variation in hard-wiring could explain why the Cocker could catch the food and the Laso's couldn't.
I've kept bees and I've seen the waggle-dance. It's a perfect example of hard-wiring. When a bee first emerges, it immediately cleans out it's cell. Then it cleans other cells. Next, it feeds older larvae, then younger. As the bee matures it moves from job category to job category in a set order until finally it becomes a field bee and works itself to death. Field bees use the waggle dance to indicate direction relative to the sun, distance relative to the hive, and the quality (better or worse) of a nectar source or new hive location. In all the observation that has been done on bee behaviour, no one has ever seen a bee give a class to another bee on how to interpret the dance. They just know it.
We perceive, know and understand the world the way we do because we are hard-wired to do it that way. A Macintosh is not a PC and an X-box is not a Gameboy. And none of them are a bee.
Learned behaviour can only happen when a creature has memory with which to record experience. Sentience can only happen when a creature can choose from among various behaviours. Judgment indicates the use of filters when choosing between possible behaviours. Logic is a specific set of rules applied to specific cognitive behaviours.
Given that train of thought, what is metalogic, anyway? It can't be just a different set of rules governing thought. That would still be logic in the same way non-euclidian geometry is still geometry. Metalogic by definition has to be beyond logic. Does the term 'beyond' mean 'other than' or 'better than'? If it were simply 'other than' logic, then maybe we only have to go as far as the Religion Forum to find examples of metalogic.
I guess beyon would be a certain comprehension that exceeeds logical comprehension in a higher form of understanding. Logically something cannot be on and off at the same time. There is however thought to the possibility that something can be off and on at the same time, but logic can never comprehend such.
Most people call natural phenomena such as various survival and mating behaviors "instinct". But "instinct" is a mystical term that does not exist in humans or in animals. The term "instinct" implies inborn or innate knowledge, which is a false notion. The use of "instinct" to explain behavior is to explain nothing. Moreover, the "instinct" explanation closes further investigation into that which is not yet understood or known. "Instinct" is a mystical, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific term. For, accepting that catchall term as an explanation precludes further intellectual and scientific efforts to discover the reasons for various behaviors. Accepting "instinct" as an explanation for any human behavior constitutes accepting the mystical concept that knowledge can be inborn or innately acquired without the self-efforts required for acquiring all knowledge. Likewise, all living species function through definable, understandable biological actions and reactions, not through undefinable, mystical "instincts". To explain anything as "instinct" is a default to the mystic's desire for automatic, inborn, effortless knowledge.
click
Does Man Possess Instincts? (Nathaniel Branden)
Branden denies that human beings possess instincts, and attacks the concept of "instinct" as being scientifically unuseful and non-explanatory, even when applied to non-human animals.click
Epistemology
The concept of tabula raza was rased by John Locke
click
From the moment a baby takes his first breath, he/she's learning. From the moment any creature comes to this world, it's learning. Nothing is innate. According to the laws of epistemology.
Godless
click
Does Man Possess Instincts? (Nathaniel Branden)
Branden denies that human beings possess instincts, and attacks the concept of "instinct" as being scientifically unuseful and non-explanatory, even when applied to non-human animals.click
Epistemology
The concept of tabula raza was rased by John Locke
click
From the moment a baby takes his first breath, he/she's learning. From the moment any creature comes to this world, it's learning. Nothing is innate. According to the laws of epistemology.
Godless
That's not necessarily true, Godless...
Maybe "instinct" has some connection with genetics. Something that is rooted in the genes, even if it is some sort of physical property. For instance, there are some flowers that have a really bad smell for us. But the same flower attracts flies. The smell of the flower is produced by a gene, and the pleasure of the smell in flies is produced by a gene in the flies.
It is like genes that produce certain tastes. For instance, some people hate eating brocoli. That is because they have a gene that allows them to taste a certain chemical in the brocoli. Such a gene might have been useful sometime in the past, under certain circumstances, but now it is just a different gene, which does not affect natural selection.
Maybe "instinct" has some connection with genetics. Something that is rooted in the genes, even if it is some sort of physical property. For instance, there are some flowers that have a really bad smell for us. But the same flower attracts flies. The smell of the flower is produced by a gene, and the pleasure of the smell in flies is produced by a gene in the flies.
It is like genes that produce certain tastes. For instance, some people hate eating brocoli. That is because they have a gene that allows them to taste a certain chemical in the brocoli. Such a gene might have been useful sometime in the past, under certain circumstances, but now it is just a different gene, which does not affect natural selection.
About the first link: The guy doesn't understand development. He fails to see that you don't need a specific gene for a specific behaviour.
Instinct are by definition controlled by genetic makeup ultimately. Otherwise they wouldn't be instincts but learned behaviours.
For instance, babies give off pheromones that prevents male adults to conduct violence towards them. How is that not based on genetics?
And after reading the second link I must conclude that the authors are using some old version of the concept 'gene', and then try to 'prove' by using the application of common sense that these old concept do not control behaviour.
A slightly silly intellectual exercise in a way.
Instinct are by definition controlled by genetic makeup ultimately. Otherwise they wouldn't be instincts but learned behaviours.
For instance, babies give off pheromones that prevents male adults to conduct violence towards them. How is that not based on genetics?
And after reading the second link I must conclude that the authors are using some old version of the concept 'gene', and then try to 'prove' by using the application of common sense that these old concept do not control behaviour.
A slightly silly intellectual exercise in a way.
Last edited:
About the limits of logical Intelligence. I don't know if there limits to logical intelligence, but I do know that our brain is not hardwired perse for logical intelligence. It is hardwired to adapt and survive daily situations. That is why it can be easily fooled. Needless to say, our brain is exceptionally limited in its application. There is certainly an end to our capacity for logical thinking.
1) We should be clear that, "beyond logic", should not just include everything "without logic".
2) there are behaviors in some creatures that have had no previous exposure to the situation which is too consistent to be described without using the word "instinct", but if somebody wants to insist that is not the case, it really doesn't affect the question of "beyond" logic, so i leave that to someone who cares about that subject today.
3) a swan can be black and white. I painted a white swan black just the other day, you tell me whether it is black or white. It just depends on your frame of reference.
4) since our frame of reference is limited to making impossible decisions, like whether my swan is black or white, based on preference, there should also be a place beyond logical thought in our minds- this is perhaps the place where great insight arises when you back off of a question, as exemplified by the experiences of many people who are credited with "genius" ideas.
5) How, and where to access this metalogic? (a word that has been used before BTW, in that godel, escher, bach book, the author applies the prefix meta to a bunch of stuff)
Hell if I know.
2) there are behaviors in some creatures that have had no previous exposure to the situation which is too consistent to be described without using the word "instinct", but if somebody wants to insist that is not the case, it really doesn't affect the question of "beyond" logic, so i leave that to someone who cares about that subject today.
3) a swan can be black and white. I painted a white swan black just the other day, you tell me whether it is black or white. It just depends on your frame of reference.
4) since our frame of reference is limited to making impossible decisions, like whether my swan is black or white, based on preference, there should also be a place beyond logical thought in our minds- this is perhaps the place where great insight arises when you back off of a question, as exemplified by the experiences of many people who are credited with "genius" ideas.
5) How, and where to access this metalogic? (a word that has been used before BTW, in that godel, escher, bach book, the author applies the prefix meta to a bunch of stuff)
Hell if I know.
That's not true. Based on how many children get raped by adult males!.
Babies getting drowned by their own mother, babies being beaten by babysitters, etc..If genes did somehow control human behavior, are the perpetrators some how "mis-fire" on the wiring?. Or are they acting on their true nature?. They must of had that "killer gene" hug?
*A gene, a stretch of DNA, does not produce a behavior. A gene does not produce an emotion, or even a fleeting thought. It produces a protein. Each gene is a specific DNA sequence that codes for a specific protein. Some of these proteins certainly have lots to do with behavior and feelings and thoughts: proteins include some hormones (which carry messages between ceils) and neurotransmitters (which carry messages between nerve ceils): they also include receptors that receive hormonal and neurotransmitter messages, the enzymes that synthesize and degrade those messengers, many of the intracellular messengers triggered by those hormones, and so on. All those proteins are vital for a brain to do its business. But only very rarely do things like hormones and neurotransmitters cause a behavior to happen. Instead, they produce tendencies to respond to the environment in certain ways.click
Interesting article.
The Human Genome Project:
Genes don't control behavior. From the researchers themselves!.
Godless
This sounds more like a question about metaphysical.cole grey said:
Nobody is talking about preception. What are you getting at?cole grey said:
This is more of a question of definition and perception than logic.cole grey said:
Psychic phenomenon or animal esp is a metaphysical question.
In logic, there are questions of paradoxes, contradictions, and quantity.
Godless said:That's not true. Based on how many children get raped by adult males!.
How many babies get raped by adult males? 99.9%, 75%, 50%? Or could it be that this is a marginal phenomenon (statistically)?
No, they don't!!!Godless said:
But they control circumstances that influence behavior!!!
Maybe you don't quite understand how genetics work. Think about it as the presence or abscence of a gene wheter than the presence of one gene and the presence of another opposite gene....Godless said:Babies getting drowned by their own mother, babies being beaten by babysitters, etc..If genes did somehow control human behavior, are the perpetrators some how "mis-fire" on the wiring?. Or are they acting on their true nature?. They must of had that "killer gene" hug?
I understand influence to a certain extent. However the issue I'm against is that genes control behavior.
Spurious, what difference does it make how many babies get raped?. The fact that it happens renders the assumption of some genetic effect that supposedly protects them null. If it happens once. Than that means that the genectic scent did not work. Thus the adult male/or female may be wired differently or that the scent did not work for the perpetrator. Thus it was a "choice" to commit such a crime, and it had nothing to do with genetic makeup!.
Godless
Spurious, what difference does it make how many babies get raped?. The fact that it happens renders the assumption of some genetic effect that supposedly protects them null. If it happens once. Than that means that the genectic scent did not work. Thus the adult male/or female may be wired differently or that the scent did not work for the perpetrator. Thus it was a "choice" to commit such a crime, and it had nothing to do with genetic makeup!.
Godless
cool skill said:
cool skill said:
What you define as "logical" is a result of your perceptions.
Your perceptions are limited, so your logic is limited.
There are things beyond, past, your perception. What one person perceives as a contradiction, may be a simple reality to someone else - the blackwhite swan for example.
There are ways to think beyond your (perceptual) logic. (consciously???)
Obviously, there is no function of logic which can be called "meta-logical", so hopefully that is not what you are trying to describe.
Cool Skill,
There is an issue of semantics going on here.
"Beyond physical" is not exactly the best way to describe metaphysical. In fact, it's more about things underlying the physical rather than being 'beyond' it. Onefinity has already mentioned the origin of the word. Aristotle wrote a series of books. Some were grouped together under the term, "The Physics" and the books following these were grouped together under the term, "Metaphysics". This grouping was, I believe, performed not by Aristotle himself, but by later scholars.
Anyway, the Metaphysics were divided into three sections: Ontology, Theology, and Universal Science.
I believe that by modern definitions, theology has moved into it's own field and metaphysics now consists of ontology and universal science which are closely related in my mind. In a nutshell, they are concerned with properties of the physical. The redness of the apple. The roughness of sandpaper. Etc...
Physics are about physical objects. Metaphysics are about the physics of physical objects. Meta-metaphysics are about the metaphysics of the physics of physical objects. And so on.
Logic is the same way.
Metalogic is about logic. Meta-metalogic is about the metalogic of logic.
As Turdurcken has mentioned, Godel, Escher, Bach is a definite must read on this subject.
As to the question:
Logic suffers from problems that are unavoidable. A system based solely on formal logic is subject to the principle exposed in Godel's Incompleteness Theorum and in Turing's Halting Problem. Or. More commonly and intuitively understood by most, the Blue Screen of Death.
Paradox is the common mechanism where this is demonstrated as has been mentioned several times already. Let's examine a couple of paradoxes.
Anyway. Let's consider another paradox which, on the surface, appears to be the same but has quite different results.
Ok. So. We have a sentence that exists and we are evaluating it within the rules of a formal system. It can either be true or false. But which?
Let's consider that it's false. If it's false, then that means that it is provable within the system. Which means that it's true. Which means that it is unprovable. This is a blatant self-contradiction.
So. We're left with this:
a.) The statement is true in a consistent system but unprovable.
b.) The statement is false in an inconsistent system.
So we're left with a question as to the state of the system. Consistent or inconsistent? Which is interesting, because the question can be posed as a sentence. "This system is consistent." Which is basically the same as "This well-formed sentence is unprovable within this system." And we're back at square one, but at a deeper level.
We've gone from logic. To metalogic. And deeper? Lies metametalogic. And metametametalogic.
This is a 'strange loop' and can go infinitely deep. To a machine, a creature ruled by a formal and consistent system, there is no escape except for preprogrammed escape clauses programmed with this exact loop in mind. The ensuing state of the machine without the escape route would be the Blue Screen of Death. Infinite recursion.
But, a man, a creature ruled by an informal and inconsistent system (although it is capable of containing pockets of formality and consistency) is able to stop the loop anytime he wishes. He is able to informally deduce a satisfactory answer or he can determine that an answer is unreachable.
A man can guess.
A machine can't.
Now. As to the preprogrammed escape clause.
This leads into Godels theorum. For any formal system, there is a formula that can't be proven in that system. This is its Godel Formula. To try to prove this formula would lead to this infinite recursion and halting problems. But. The designer of that system can figure out what the Godel Formula for the system is and design it so that the Formula exists within the system as an Axiom. But. In so doing, he's changed the system. And so now we're dealing with a new formal system with a Godel Formula of it's own. And this too slips into an infinite recursion.
Infinities everywhere.
When you find infinity, you know that you're bashing your head against the system itself. For instance, our number system is unable to deal with division by zero. This is not necessarily because division by zero is impossible, but rather it's an artifact of the system. The same goes for things like dividing 10 by 3. It only leads to an infinitely repeating decimal because of the design of the system.
Anyway. Besides GEB, another interesting read on this subject is John Lucas Against Mechanism. (Here's his home page.
And, in Sciforums, another thread on basically the same subject was started long ago even though it sort of petered out without a satisfactory conclusion: Humanity as the Principia Mathematica-Inspired by Godel.
Now. For some biological discussion.
There is a disorder (which I forget the name and would have to go digging deep in a stack of magazines and books to find the exact reference) in which portions of the brain which provide emotional stimulus are damaged and the afflicted people have no emotional predilection for a specific outcome. What they do, then, is build tally lists in their minds. Lists of pros and cons to any particular action. Some actions are, of course, easily decided upon. The pros far outweigh the cons or vice versa and the decision is made. But, there are many decisions that are not so clear-cut. And in these situations the people freeze. They can't choose. They can't act. They can only sit there and build tally lists that grow and grow and grow.
I imagine that there is also a form of stack overflow error in this condition. When the list grows too long, earlier entries are lost and repeated. In this way, the list can keep growing indefinitely.
We also enter into a loop within a loop here. The decision to stop adding to the tally list and come to a decision could also be subject to its own tally list and its own decision on when to stop adding to the tally list and come to a decision which would have its own tally list...
We cannot exist in a world of pure logic.
From Durant:
Now for some quotes:
In this instance, I'd think that a better term would be nonlinguistically than intuitively. Autists are unable to explain how they do what they do. But, what they do is generally not conceived to be illogical. Just not typical. Individual autists are unique in their disorder, but many of them (that are somewhat able to convey what they do) think visually. Thinking in pictures.
Many autistic tricks depend upon rote memorization.
I'd say, yes.
Logic is dependant upon its symbology. There is a part of the mind that speaks. And there are far more parts of the mind that don't. Logic is worked out in stages through the medium of language (whatever language). Intuition occurs on a deeper level and is presented to the speaking mind as a feat accompli. It is then the task of the speaking mind to explain to itself why the 'irrational' intuition is rational.
Sometimes it succeeds. Sometimes it fails.
Intuition is invaluable to logic in that it points the way. One follows hunches. Sometimes the hunches play out. Sometimes they don't. But without the hunch, then you need some type of system to delineate the order of investigation. Alphabetical. Or whatever.
Exactly. Infinity is often a consequence of the shortcomings of purely logical systems. We then use intuition to lead our explorations to explain the inconsistency.
Black holes, for instance.
Quantum entanglement defies intuition. It is dependent upon logic. It is logically derived even though its conclusions can be termed illogical by intuitive processes.
Yeah. It's so limiting that our western society is far inferior to eastern society. I mean. Man on the moon? Pshaw...
The mind stumbling trying to explain? That's what the mind excels at. And from such rationalizations, filtered through rigorous discipline, leads to the wonders in which we live today.
Or you can just go with the rationalizations with no rigorous treatment which leads to ESP carnivals.
No entirely emotional, but emotion is surely a leading part to it. There are more hidden systems in the brain than emotion though. Someone's mentioned blindsight. This is an excellent example of an alternative system other than emotion.
However, I would call emotion and logic sister levels in that they both work with the products of the sensory cortexes. They apply labels and meanings to the products of the senses.
Ok. Long enough. My eyes are swimming. There were many other things said in here worthy of commenting on, but maybe later.
There is an issue of semantics going on here.
"Beyond physical" is not exactly the best way to describe metaphysical. In fact, it's more about things underlying the physical rather than being 'beyond' it. Onefinity has already mentioned the origin of the word. Aristotle wrote a series of books. Some were grouped together under the term, "The Physics" and the books following these were grouped together under the term, "Metaphysics". This grouping was, I believe, performed not by Aristotle himself, but by later scholars.
Anyway, the Metaphysics were divided into three sections: Ontology, Theology, and Universal Science.
I believe that by modern definitions, theology has moved into it's own field and metaphysics now consists of ontology and universal science which are closely related in my mind. In a nutshell, they are concerned with properties of the physical. The redness of the apple. The roughness of sandpaper. Etc...
Physics are about physical objects. Metaphysics are about the physics of physical objects. Meta-metaphysics are about the metaphysics of the physics of physical objects. And so on.
Logic is the same way.
Metalogic is about logic. Meta-metalogic is about the metalogic of logic.
As Turdurcken has mentioned, Godel, Escher, Bach is a definite must read on this subject.
As to the question:
The answer is... absolutely.
Logic suffers from problems that are unavoidable. A system based solely on formal logic is subject to the principle exposed in Godel's Incompleteness Theorum and in Turing's Halting Problem. Or. More commonly and intuitively understood by most, the Blue Screen of Death.
Paradox is the common mechanism where this is demonstrated as has been mentioned several times already. Let's examine a couple of paradoxes.
"This sentence is false."
We have a paradox. If the sentence is false, then it must be true. But if it's true then it must be false. Paradox. But. A useless paradox with no solution. There is no answer that can be intuitively known except that the statement is nonsense and should not be taken seriously. (Which, I suppose is an example of intuitive reasoning. And which is also beyond the capability of a machine without explicit programming detailing exactly this circumstance.)Anyway. Let's consider another paradox which, on the surface, appears to be the same but has quite different results.
"This well-formed formula is unprovable in the system."
The 'well-formed' part of the sentence stipulates that it cannot consist of the same paradox of the former type. It cannot be self-contradictory such as "A equals not A." And note also that true or false is not used, rather the term 'unprovable'.Ok. So. We have a sentence that exists and we are evaluating it within the rules of a formal system. It can either be true or false. But which?
Let's consider that it's false. If it's false, then that means that it is provable within the system. Which means that it's true. Which means that it is unprovable. This is a blatant self-contradiction.
So. We're left with this:
a.) The statement is true in a consistent system but unprovable.
b.) The statement is false in an inconsistent system.
So we're left with a question as to the state of the system. Consistent or inconsistent? Which is interesting, because the question can be posed as a sentence. "This system is consistent." Which is basically the same as "This well-formed sentence is unprovable within this system." And we're back at square one, but at a deeper level.
We've gone from logic. To metalogic. And deeper? Lies metametalogic. And metametametalogic.
This is a 'strange loop' and can go infinitely deep. To a machine, a creature ruled by a formal and consistent system, there is no escape except for preprogrammed escape clauses programmed with this exact loop in mind. The ensuing state of the machine without the escape route would be the Blue Screen of Death. Infinite recursion.
But, a man, a creature ruled by an informal and inconsistent system (although it is capable of containing pockets of formality and consistency) is able to stop the loop anytime he wishes. He is able to informally deduce a satisfactory answer or he can determine that an answer is unreachable.
A man can guess.
A machine can't.
Now. As to the preprogrammed escape clause.
This leads into Godels theorum. For any formal system, there is a formula that can't be proven in that system. This is its Godel Formula. To try to prove this formula would lead to this infinite recursion and halting problems. But. The designer of that system can figure out what the Godel Formula for the system is and design it so that the Formula exists within the system as an Axiom. But. In so doing, he's changed the system. And so now we're dealing with a new formal system with a Godel Formula of it's own. And this too slips into an infinite recursion.
Infinities everywhere.
When you find infinity, you know that you're bashing your head against the system itself. For instance, our number system is unable to deal with division by zero. This is not necessarily because division by zero is impossible, but rather it's an artifact of the system. The same goes for things like dividing 10 by 3. It only leads to an infinitely repeating decimal because of the design of the system.
Anyway. Besides GEB, another interesting read on this subject is John Lucas Against Mechanism. (Here's his home page.
And, in Sciforums, another thread on basically the same subject was started long ago even though it sort of petered out without a satisfactory conclusion: Humanity as the Principia Mathematica-Inspired by Godel.
Now. For some biological discussion.
There is a disorder (which I forget the name and would have to go digging deep in a stack of magazines and books to find the exact reference) in which portions of the brain which provide emotional stimulus are damaged and the afflicted people have no emotional predilection for a specific outcome. What they do, then, is build tally lists in their minds. Lists of pros and cons to any particular action. Some actions are, of course, easily decided upon. The pros far outweigh the cons or vice versa and the decision is made. But, there are many decisions that are not so clear-cut. And in these situations the people freeze. They can't choose. They can't act. They can only sit there and build tally lists that grow and grow and grow.
I imagine that there is also a form of stack overflow error in this condition. When the list grows too long, earlier entries are lost and repeated. In this way, the list can keep growing indefinitely.
We also enter into a loop within a loop here. The decision to stop adding to the tally list and come to a decision could also be subject to its own tally list and its own decision on when to stop adding to the tally list and come to a decision which would have its own tally list...
We cannot exist in a world of pure logic.
From Durant:
"....we pretend to be constucting edifices of impartial thought, when actually we are selecting only such acts and agreements as will give dignity to some personal or patriotic wish" --The Mansions of Philosophy.
Now for some quotes:
Superliminal said:
In this instance, I'd think that a better term would be nonlinguistically than intuitively. Autists are unable to explain how they do what they do. But, what they do is generally not conceived to be illogical. Just not typical. Individual autists are unique in their disorder, but many of them (that are somewhat able to convey what they do) think visually. Thinking in pictures.
Many autistic tricks depend upon rote memorization.
I'd say, yes.
Logic is dependant upon its symbology. There is a part of the mind that speaks. And there are far more parts of the mind that don't. Logic is worked out in stages through the medium of language (whatever language). Intuition occurs on a deeper level and is presented to the speaking mind as a feat accompli. It is then the task of the speaking mind to explain to itself why the 'irrational' intuition is rational.
Sometimes it succeeds. Sometimes it fails.
Intuition is invaluable to logic in that it points the way. One follows hunches. Sometimes the hunches play out. Sometimes they don't. But without the hunch, then you need some type of system to delineate the order of investigation. Alphabetical. Or whatever.
Nasor said:
Exactly. Infinity is often a consequence of the shortcomings of purely logical systems. We then use intuition to lead our explorations to explain the inconsistency.
Black holes, for instance.
Ecclesiastes said:
Quantum entanglement defies intuition. It is dependent upon logic. It is logically derived even though its conclusions can be termed illogical by intuitive processes.
Watcher said:
Yeah. It's so limiting that our western society is far inferior to eastern society. I mean. Man on the moon? Pshaw...
Gendanken said:
The mind stumbling trying to explain? That's what the mind excels at. And from such rationalizations, filtered through rigorous discipline, leads to the wonders in which we live today.
Or you can just go with the rationalizations with no rigorous treatment which leads to ESP carnivals.
No entirely emotional, but emotion is surely a leading part to it. There are more hidden systems in the brain than emotion though. Someone's mentioned blindsight. This is an excellent example of an alternative system other than emotion.
However, I would call emotion and logic sister levels in that they both work with the products of the sensory cortexes. They apply labels and meanings to the products of the senses.
Ok. Long enough. My eyes are swimming. There were many other things said in here worthy of commenting on, but maybe later.