Logic or Instinct....

I was learning about the mind and how it works in one of my psych class earlier this week and i was interested if any one has thought about how our mind works in terms of logic and instinct. I mean dont the two kinda oppose themselves, as one is a quick natural reaction to an event, while the other is a thought proccess. I mean, will one provail in the future in terms of evolution???...Since instincts are made for "wild animal", which we used to be, will it eventually fade away, becasue we realyl dont need instincts in terms of running away from a predator and wat not. Will logic provail???...

Could instinct be the subconscious analysis of the situation and then assesing what to do, as opposed to logic being the conscious action using the same process?

In that way a gambler following his hunch is really working off the same behaviours as one assessing the odds, and making a logical bet.

So they are both the same....

I really dont understand your concept...i mean the hunch that a gambler gets is a natural thing, i mean he didnt think about it....and accessing the odds is a thinking proccess...one happens without thought and the other one is "thought" really...i dont see how they are the same

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
mean dont the two kinda oppose themselves, as one is a quick natural reaction to an event, while the other is a thought proccess. I mean, will one provail in the future in terms of evolution???...Since instincts are made for "wild animal", which we used to be, will it eventually fade away, becasue we realyl dont need instincts in terms of running away from a predator and wat not. Will logic provail???...

Our instincts and intuitions are constantly suppressed by science. Science, which is a form of logic expression, attempts to explain everything. There is of course many things that logic will not explain, for example, paranormal phenomena, like ghosts, aliens, and Remote-Viewing.

Logic is seen all around us with the technology we have, so we are giving up our instincts to technology, which does the work for us and takes away the purpose of those instincts. For example, is there really any need to fear lions, tigers and bears anymore? No, there isn't because we live inside hardened walls and have guns and cars. So, logic is taking precedence currently while our intuition and instincts remain dormant. Of course, we are still lucky that we can tap the instinct and intuition we have, otherwise, we'd become nothing but robots.

What I mean is that a hunch is the analysis of the odds, on a subconscious level. Logic is the analysis of the odds on a conscious level.

The difference is only that one happens below the level of conscious thought, whilst the other involves it.

Originally posted by Netchicken
What I mean is that a hunch is the analysis of the odds, on a subconscious level. Logic is the analysis of the odds on a conscious level.

The difference is only that one happens below the level of conscious thought, whilst the other involves it.

Ahhh now i see!!!!....wow i cant beleive i didnt grasp that earlier. Thats actually very logical to think it works like that, now that i think about it....

Originally posted by Netchicken
Could instinct be the subconscious analysis of the situation and then assesing what to do, as opposed to logic being the conscious action using the same process?

In that way a gambler following his hunch is really working off the same behaviours as one assessing the odds, and making a logical bet.

So they are both the same....

That is a good interpretation of what a hunch might be, but I think instincts work in other ways.
When a baby is born it instinctively knows to suck at a mothers breast. A newborn monkey is instinctively afraid of snakes even if it has never seen one. I don't think that a newborn monkey sub-consciously thinks that a snake might be poisonous and may inject venom into him and then eat him. He is just afraid.

As for the logic vs. instinct thing. That is something that is explored in the Star Trek series with the Vulcans. They don't use emotions, they only think logically. I think perhaps what you are thinking about it emotions and not necessarily instincts.

Instincts are necessary. Without them a baby wouldn't be able to survive without medical intervention. A baby cannot think logically, it doesn't have the mental capacity. It relies on instincts.

Instinct is like hard wired genetic logic. Nature put out alot of variables. Babies that nurse, and babies that don't. Monkeys that run from snakes and monkeys that try to eat them. Literally every combination of possiblity is attempted in nature. It's like a logic problem. Only what works survives, breeds and gets saved on the hard drive.

To put it simply, instincts are for survival. Yes, they are essentially hard-wired, and must be in order to ensure that the subject doesn't have to arbitrarily decide when to eat, drink, run, fight, mate, take shelter, etc. I know that unless I didn't feel hungry, I would never know when to eat. I also could not, as a child, eat dirt or sour weeds growing in the yard if I didn't feel the instinctive urge to. These instincts, then, are essentially just feelings which create desire, and which must be satisfied in some form.

Logic is something not only we use, but virtually all animals use. Logic is simply a method of reasoning based on known (previously experienced) cause-effect relationships. Because all our actions are driven by desire, we can effectively use logic to satisfy those desires. But in satisfying our desires, should we follow our instincts, or should we follow our logic? Or does our logic tell us that instinct is more reliable? It's up to you.

The primary difference between humans and other animals is that we not only apply logic, but we can also analyze and study it. That is, we can think in abstract ways and study our own thoughts and behavior. Animals simply apply logic; some to a greater degree than others (i.e. a higher capacity for learning).

So instinct can be seen as sort of giving us/animals a head start in the game of life. However, with humans, we can transcend our instincts. We don't have to fight every time we feel threatened or angry. We don't have to mate or procreate every time we feel sexually excited (horny). We don't have to eat every time we feel hungry..etc..etc.

There is an interesting relationship between experience and logic. Experience always comes first. And from experience we form our logic. And finally, from logic, we form our beliefs. (One might say that when this belief becomes internalized, it becomes "faith.") Without experience, there can be no conscious logical thought. Even a hunch/gut feeling is an experience, from which then we must draw on our logic to determine our next course of action. Should we blindly follow the hunch, or not? Of course our logic is heavily colored by the collective of our life experiences. (This collective experience does, of course, include the experiences borne from one's mental bent and capacities.) Every belief, then, is logical to the beholder of that belief because every belief is a function of logic, which in turn is a function of experience. The crazy fellow down the block who believes in unicorns didn't just decide to blindly believe in unicorns. To him, the existance of unicorns is very logical because it is based on his life's experiences.



If so, then who/what is doing the analysis? Is what we call the "subconscious" a part of us that can experience the future before our conscious mind does? Does the conscious mind lag? It would appear so. It would certainly explain the metaphysics behind prophetic dreams and visions. It would also explain deja vu. Somehow also, not only are hunches prophetic in nature, but they also tend to follow our desires and/or our needs. But who knows, perhaps it isn't really our "subconscious" or any part of us. Maybe it's another intelligent "entity" that is impinging upon our conscious faculties in order to guide us along a pre-determined "path." Or maybe it's our past-life experiences coming back to haunt us. I don't have a clue. But it's all very intriguing, to say the least.

That last paragraph is missing the quote by Netchicken which I was commenting on, which reads:

"What I mean is that a hunch is the analysis of the odds, on a subconscious level. Logic is the analysis of the odds on a conscious level."

There's a very good recent book that addresses this: Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Tablet." It reviews both the evolutionary evidence and the other evidences and discusses the science and the philosophy behind a lot of it. You can find a copy at your school library (or request one.)

Quite a good read.