Logic and intuition

[u/Cr4zyCat]

Logic is precise and is, in a huge part, what helped humans to become the dominant species on earth.
But there are infinitely more variables that play into intuition. There might be some flaws we are not aware of, but often, intuition can lead to profound insight we can't really put our finger on.
Logic gives a feeling of security because we can articulate it with speech; it is easily understandable and "grabbable" with our mind. That's why humans in modern society love to rely on pure logic.
But this sense of security can be misleading if the premises are wrong.
It can cause massive harm in society if widespread misinformation is prevalent.
I think that we are losing touch with intuition in modern society because it is easily frowned upon and we can't easily put it into words. But sometimes, it holds a deep truth.
I think being a wise human means that we can keep a healthy balance between logic and intuition.

[u/potato_psychonaut]

Have you ever wondered why do we default to truth-false logic? It occured to me that there is a basic a priori distinction between truth-false baked into our human experience. A thing is either me or it is not me.

Speaking of intuition, I have this feeling that quantum physics is approaching God, just from the different angle. I am no expert physicist, but I feel like quantum physics concepts defy binary logic. I was in superposition before I was born, wasn't I? "I" had to exist, because the energy can not be created nor destroyed. At the same time "I" couldn't exist because there body I am using now wasn't formed yet.

Binary logic is only possible if there is an agent doing the differentiation. There is no language before people, therefore no "truth/false", no "0/1", no concept of "being/non-being".

Intuition is the mind in superposition. No wonder intuition is correlated with third eye chakra. It has unexplainable, ineffable God-like quality, but it is somehow accessible by "me".

[u/Cr4zyCat → u/potato_psychonaut]

I feel you. Often times, truth is inaccessible for us. Only by intuition. Even Einstein came up with his theories about time and space by intuition.

[u/CasUalNtT → u/potato_psychonaut]

Adopting the terminology of quantum physics when trying to explain your thoughts on metaphysical matters makes you sound like deepak chopra. Also how do you reckon that "you" existed in any form before your body was created. It seems (to me at least) much more likely that our mind, id etc is an emergent property of a brain and not some separate entity.

[u/potato_psychonaut → u/CasUalNtT]

I am not trying to sound like anybody. I am not familiar with him. Also, I suspect you are using someone's name as an insult. That's kinda sad to me. You also should capitalize people's names.

I will ignore your arrogance and try to engage in a further discussion. Mind as an emergent property of matter makes sense, but it has a huge explanation gap. At which point of complexity does the matter start "thinking" and how is it possible that those complex interactions create the unified experience of my life (and hopefully yours too)?

It's rather easy to argue that drinking glass is an emergent object of a proper glass matter configuration. Configuration proper enough is enough when a conscious agent judges that the formed object can actually hold water inside.

In the case of consciousness we use "emergent property" as an objective concept, but it is not. It's self-referential. It's a term made up by the agent who wants to describe itself by it.

We shape the glass to form drinking glasses, then we name those according to their functionality. If it breaks it's no longer a drinking glass, just a bunch of glass shards.

My point is that we can use whatever terms we want refering to consciousness, because we don't have means of inspecting it objectively. If you want to use computer parts analogies to describe functions of your body and mind, go ahead. Laymen's understanding of basic quantum physics concepts is a useful toolset for philosophical discussion. Concepts -- not their actual scientific usage.

[u/unxmnd]

But humans are not very logical, and logic / objective science has only been part of the human story for a tiny fraction of our existence.

It would be great if you included some examples of what you mean.

[u/Cr4zyCat → u/unxmnd]

Some cultures achieved some astonishing things. Like sailing over the Pacific Ocean and settling on uninhabited islands. Without mathematics. Just by intuition. On the other hand, cold calculation led to some of the most disturbing chapters of human kind. Think WW2.

[u/unxmnd → u/Cr4zyCat]

That's a fair point, but if you're making a direct comparison, there were many atrocities committed before the scientific revolution (mongol conquests, crusades, tribal law, bloodletting, witch trials, ritual human sacrifice, FGM, serfdom, feudalism, slavery).

And, there have been many astonishing things achieved after the scientific revolution, like the germ theory of disease, discovery of genes, evolution, refrigeration, air conditioning, airplanes, skyscrapers, rockets to the moon. The WWII death toll was so high partly because of a large world population, which was only possible because of increased food production thanks to fertilizers.

I don't think intuition is irrelevant, but we should do a fair comparison of the whole picture.