Logic, intuition and statistics.

[Mohan.C]

These three logic, intuition and statistics are what I believe are the main components of making decisions.

A decision may mean like placing someone or something or it means to choose when there are different probabilities.

To decide is a art of everything be it living or a thing.

A decision is also a pathway to a desired effect. We must focus on decision making because it is a part of finding a solution when there are many probabilities. To choose.

Now I will jump ahead to the 3ways of decision making.

Logic- Logic is completely based on facts or supposedly facts. Logic does take logically a proposition for granted. Or logic is based on observed phenomenon. It can easily be said as "This is wrong and hence this is right". Logic arises from our intelligence.

Logic, pure logic has no place for emotions. And hence it is not always accepted. Logic is the science of reasoning. It needs a lot of wit. And logic asks questions or questions the propositions. But however deep it may dig it cannot scrape the ground because some things cannot be answered.

We can very much depend on logic because it does not depend on the beliefs of the society. I will not say logic is entirely a science. Logic is just the art of true or false. It is entirely dependent on the power of the person to judge. The capacity of an individual to do justice to the truth and discard the false. But it stops at a point where there is a probability of both true and false and till we remain unconvinced of the decision it remains a 'paradox'.

Intuition- Intuition can be clearly expressed as a feeling to express or to influence a decision. Intuition is mainly based on emotions. And it is based on our beliefs, our culture, heredity,brought-up etc..etc..all things that influence an emotions including music and all arts. Intuition arises from the depths of our conciousness.

Intuition does not very well reason on the subject. It just kind of guesses which is the right choice. Like I am doing right now in the entrance exams to different universities.

Intuition sometimes has a scientific basis buried down underneath. It is impossible to explain it, it must only be felt.

But we must trust our feelings. Because thoughts are what which expresses as actions. Intuition sometimes more than guesses the option. It uses logic in a more meningful way.

We cannot completely depend on our intuitions because it does not have a strong hold. Intuition goes into spirituality and is yet a bizzare concept. Understood very less or it is very difficult to understand or to believe.

Statistics- Statistics mainly focuses upon the general picture. Or to simply say it depends on the concept "Majority wins".

Statistics is the science of observation. It does not go deep into the concept. But statistics is helpful over issues concerning very large volumes. In national and international issues.

It puts up a picture of the view of the society and naturally we become dependent on these views on the matter of our choices. Hence we may well discard statistics for studying minute details.

Now, I will focus on the main aspects of all this.

Logic- Focuse on individuality. It depends upon the individual intellect.

Intuition- Focuses on a close-knit group. It is usually felt that a unusual bond exists among close-friends or close-relatives. Here intuition does help. Intuition is a spiritual quality of the concious.

Statistics- Focuses on a larger societal veiw. It is very useful in politics, geological and sociological surveys etc..etc..How, a society accepts certain changes must be studied under statistics. Hence, it is a science of observation and tabulation.

Finally,
Statistics shows us how much we can depend on choices. We may not completely depend on it seeing nothing is completely perfect. Logic, looks into the effects of each choice and understands the doorway to the effects and chooses it. Intuition, must be considered because logic or statistics does not pin-point a solution or a choice. It cuts down the probability or reduces the choices. Hence, for our final choice we must depend on intuition.

So we must use both logic and intuition. Logical intuity is a science of understanding which takes account of both science and emotions.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

These three logic, intuition and statistics are what I believe are the main components of making decisions.

Finally,
Statistics shows us how much we can depend on choices. We may not completely depend on it seeing nothing is completely perfect. Logic, looks into the effects of each choice and understands the doorway to the effects and chooses it. Intuition, must be considered because logic or statistics does not pin-point a solution or a choice. It cuts down the probability or reduces the choices. Hence, for our final choice we must depend on intuition.

So we must use both logic and intuition. Logical intuity is a science of understanding which takes account of both science and emotions.

Excellent post, Mohan___thanks for the simplicity of complexity...

regards

[Guille]

Mohan, it's a great starter your post. I want to comment in parts.

Logic is not entirelly based on facts, nor on the supposed facs. Supposed facts is all the facts we can have because supposition is preciselly the limit of thought. Anyway, logic is more about derivation. Observation (science) and interpretation (philosophy) are in charge of extracting the principles and the methods by which we study, but the actual study is done by logic. I mean, by this, that preciselly what Russell, Hilbert and others tried a century ago, to axiomatize all mathematics by logic, was stupid, and that is why Godel didn't have problems to proof not only that everything tried was wrong, but also something that most people don't notice, and which is very very very rare in science; he proved that no possible ever form of mathematical axioms based on logic would ever be correct. You also say that 'pure logic' (I put it in inverted commas because I doubt that such thing is plausible) has no place for emotions, whiles actually, when any mathematician like Russell was working with logic, was impulsed to do that by a feeling, and was impulsed to do every step he took by a feeling, cause steps are done by decisions (not by wills) and decisions are done by feelings. Logic does not depend on the beliefs of society? I think it does: we belief that 'if a then b, and if b then c, then it must be that if a then c necessarily' is true, that's why we count it as a type of argument in logic (I can't remember the name now, they all have latin names). I do agree though that logic seems to be nowhere when trying to define it as a science or an art or a philosophy. I think it's actually none of them. But part of all. Ludwig Wittgenstein said that everything is in the dimension of logic, either positivelly logical or negativelly logical (illogical), so it is like a dimension in a graph, but nothing can go out of the dimension, the world is thus trapped in it. I like thinking of science as a tree, where the root is life ( or existence, it doesn't matter the term. It is the soil which gives nutrients to the tree), the trunk is logic (cause it's basis to all of it), philosophy is the surface, the cortex (because wherever you look at a tree, there is always cortex, it is impplied in both the trunk and the branches), and the different specialities form the branches. Also, I should note that science has abandoned the classical idea of being logical as being exact science, and with QM in physics, Collision theory in chemistry, evolution in biology... The classically 'exact' science are still mathematical sciences, yes, but now they are not exact, the math is either probabilistic, or random, or even chaotic. I agree with you when you say that logic depends on the individual's ability of reasoning. I have philosophized about logic in other threads, probably some in the forum 'Philosophy of Math'.

[Mohan.C]

Guille while waiting for your ideas on intuition and statistics. I want to note that intuition can also be considered as instinct.

[Guille]

Guille while waiting for your ideas on intuition and statistics. I want to note that intuition can also be considered as instinct.

But there is a difference between intuition and instinct. The first comes from a consciouss mind, aware of the enviroment, whiles the second comes from te sub-consciouss mind, aware only of the law of natural selection impsoed by evolution (surviving, reproducing...).

[Mohan.C]

Mohan, it's a great starter your post. I want to comment in parts.

Logic is not entirelly based on facts, nor on the supposed facs. Supposed facts is all the facts we can have because supposition is preciselly the limit of thought. Anyway, logic is more about derivation. Observation (science) and interpretation (philosophy) are in charge of extracting the principles and the methods by which we study, but the actual study is done by logic. I mean, by this, that preciselly what Russell, Hilbert and others tried a century ago, to axiomatize all mathematics by logic, was stupid, and that is why Godel didn't have problems to proof not only that everything tried was wrong, but also something that most people don't notice, and which is very very very rare in science; he proved that no possible ever form of mathematical axioms based on logic would ever be correct. You also say that 'pure logic' (I put it in inverted commas because I doubt that such thing is plausible) has no place for emotions, whiles actually, when any mathematician like Russell was working with logic, was impulsed to do that by a feeling, and was impulsed to do every step he took by a feeling, cause steps are done by decisions (not by wills) and decisions are done by feelings.

That's why I said pure logic when you feel in logic it is logical intuity. That is what I think russel may be without realising it.

Logic does not depend on the beliefs of society? I think it does: we belief that 'if a then b, and if b then c, then it must be that if a then c necessarily' is true, that's why we count it as a type of argument in logic (I can't remember the name now, they all have latin names).

Logic does not depend on the beliefs of the society, but you do because you are a part of the society. Whereas logic is the part of an individual.

I do agree though that logic seems to be nowhere when trying to define it as a science or an art or a philosophy. I think it's actually none of them. But part of all. Ludwig Wittgenstein said that everything is in the dimension of logic, either positivelly logical or negativelly logical (illogical), so it is like a dimension in a graph, but nothing can go out of the dimension, the world is thus trapped in it.I like thinking of science as a tree, where the root is life ( or existence, it doesn't matter the term. It is the soil which gives nutrients to the tree), the trunk is logic (cause it's basis to all of it), philosophy is the surface, the cortex (because wherever you look at a tree, there is always cortex, it is impplied in both the trunk and the branches), and the different specialities form the branches.

Thanks for that I never imagined it that way. But the root is not life it is conciousness or instinct or intuition. Life is a part of the whole tree. I say this because life is logical and Life is intuitional. Logic is philosophy and philosophy is life. You are making them seperate. Which I have been trying to combine. Life is philosophy, logic, intuition and whatever else. But the reason I don't believe in "earth is alive" is because earth cannot derive logic it can only follow it, it can ever know what it is doing. And hence it does not have life. It has only intelligence but not concience. Intelligence is the power to interact. Concience is the power to manuever.

Also, I should note that science has abandoned the classical idea of being logical as being exact science, and with QM in physics, Collision theory in chemistry, evolution in biology... The classically 'exact' science are still mathematical sciences, yes, but now they are not exact, the math is either probabilistic, or random, or even chaotic. I agree with you when you say that logic depends on the individual's ability of reasoning. I have philosophized about logic in other threads, probably some in the forum 'Philosophy of Math'.

Thanks for the post it was a lot of help.

[Mohan.C]

But there is a difference between intuition and instinct. The first comes from a consciouss mind, aware of the enviroment, whiles the second comes from te sub-consciouss mind, aware only of the law of natural selection impsoed by evolution (surviving, reproducing...).

Then, I think we should include both intuition and instinct.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Then, I think we should include both intuition and instinct.

Guille and Mohan, I think that natural logic is both intuitional and instinctual, much more than principled, and herein lies the problem. The modern world must look carefully and deeply at the many forms and definitions of logic to truly determine what the meanings really are. Realize, we have every type from Aristotle's principled logic to Brouer's intuitionistic logic, plus some one hundred thirty-five others___and then there's also psychologic and music logic... We make most mistakes of interpretation on this one issue alone___this must change...

regards

[Guille]

Guille and Mohan, I think that natural logic is both intuitional and instinctual, much more than principled, and herein lies the problem. The modern world must look carefully and deeply at the many forms and definitions of logic to truly determine what the meanings really are. Realize, we have every type from Aristotle's principled logic to Brouer's intuitionistic logic, plus some one hundred thirty-five others___and then there's also psychologic and music logic... We make most mistakes of interpretation on this one issue alone___this must change...

regards

I was searching on the internet when I came along this interview to Micahel Hardt: http://www.theminnesotareview.org/ns61/hardt.htm he isn't a postmodern thinker totally, but his main idea is joining marxism and poststructuralism. In a part of the interview he says that there he has no problems with contradictions in the world, just as I do. For example, there are two types of loves (he says): the passive and the active one, one which doesn't act and is influenced from external forms and another one which is isolated. He says they are two manifestations of the same love, and that happen in all loves (when one is there, the other too). Also, he says that the proletarian is 'wthin but against' capitalism. He explains that the proletarian is part of capitalism, and pushes it to it's limit, to thinks which are not dealing with market and production, to covering wills and liberties etz, that is, to pull capitalism out of itself. So within and against is another contradiction but true. We can say that this is the logic of contradiction, and that it is the only logic of logics; the logic about logics, not like the others which are logics about something else (math, music, science, mind...), as if logic always tried to escape from itself.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I don't disagree with this Guille, but all the logics must be brought into the same house of cards, and all must be argued to a much sounder ground... I noticed earlier you mentioned you were stuck as where to go with anun; may I suggest what I just stated, and realize that the largest conceptual systems' logic must be a major part of the analogous universology, along with all logics being contradicted and argued to better grounds. The advantages of systems' logic is its already existing mathematical foundations; although much of this math needs repair, it is still a very useful start to unite a completed picture of conceptual intentionality, emotional materialism and analogous universalism... And, like it or not, economics is the most complete universological system to start with to reach our truly attainable goals___a much better argued economics, based on John Nash's much truer equilibrium math and models... Of course there are many other disciplinary approaches at our disposal also; it's just that IMO economics would seem the easiest, as it is the most complete, as to math and systems' maturity... BTW, Leon Walrus was a physicist and mathematician before becoming an economist of initial economic equilibrium fame... If you have any better ideas of what universological system or systems to use, to unite and make your and my ideas more coherent, let me know... I just feel very strongly that some form of systems' universology is direly needed, to complete the picture...

regards

I was searching on the internet when I came along this interview to Micahel Hardt: http://www.theminnesotareview.org/ns61/hardt.htm he isn't a postmodern thinker totally, but his main idea is joining marxism and poststructuralism. In a part of the interview he says that there he has no problems with contradictions in the world, just as I do. For example, there are two types of loves (he says): the passive and the active one, one which doesn't act and is influenced from external forms and another one which is isolated. He says they are two manifestations of the same love, and that happen in all loves (when one is there, the other too). Also, he says that the proletarian is 'wthin but against' capitalism. He explains that the proletarian is part of capitalism, and pushes it to it's limit, to thinks which are not dealing with market and production, to covering wills and liberties etz, that is, to pull capitalism out of itself. So within and against is another contradiction but true. We can say that this is the logic of contradiction, and that it is the only logic of logics; the logic about logics, not like the others which are logics about something else (math, music, science, mind...), as if logic always tried to escape from itself.