Do you think any thought would qualify as insight if it wasn't logical? — TheMadFool

Yes, I've had to explore the organic, that which doesn't develop logically. Evolution is perhaps the best example but also morality, a product of evolution.

The bottomline is that logic is a necessary part of the definition of insight. No logic, no insight. — TheMadFool

Nah, vision doesn't use logic and the processes are essentially the same.

of our intuition that to be an insight it is necessary for it to be logical. — TheMadFool

Nah again. A problem with insight is that it is a pattern recognition mechanism and the human mind will sometimes create patterns when there isn't one or even produce tautologies. Then those insights can be examined with logic to confirm them or disprove them or show them to be logical fluff like tautologies. Obviously then insight occurs before logic. Sight does not use logic and neither does insight.

I believe in a deterministic world, where every action was caused by something else. — ep3265

That's your privilege. Einstein believed that, but then he fell by the wayside of theoretical physics as quantum physics explained that some things did occur randomly.

Being a student of biology I have a problem with that postulate. Evolution is driven by chance and precedence. Biology is not so driven by logic or at least not a logic available to humans.

Insight in my opinion is a educated guess done by a somewhat ignorant person. — christian2017

Fine, but what is the function of the neural net in biology and machines then? What does it do? I refer to its output as insight. What do you call it?

These two statements seem to be contradicting each other or if not, it clearly asserts the preeminence of logic. — TheMadFool

They do contradict each other. That is why I asked how much insight was considered as a source for philosophy. If insight precedes logic and can provide understandings that that logic can only communicate but not produce, how do you consider logic preeminent?

Although we started off by associating pattern recognition with insight, I think there's something more to it than just that. — TheMadFool

There is a lot that follows insight but like sight or a computer neural net, it is pattern recognition. In both of those cases, there are existing structures to recognize the elements, but they work together to make a whole. With sight, there is no partial perception before recognition. Before insight there may be perception that there is a flawed pattern, but I think that is still the same pattern recognition function of the neural net.

Cyber-crime is a recent development and when the first laws were drafted there were no precedents - no patterns. In such cases we would need to identify the critical and nonessential elements of cyber-crime and work from these to laws that make sense. — TheMadFool

Very good. This is a case where logical analysis would solve a problem. Cyber crimes themselves are fairly easy to spot, but then again, the first ransomware was the AIDS Trojan in 1989. I bet it puzzled the heck out of some people until they had the insight to figure out what caused it. Even if they were to analyze it and figure out the mechanism of it, it was insight that put together that it was from the floppy disk given out at the AIDS conference.

OK... And furthermore!!! I would be willing to claim that no understanding advances except through the gateway of insight. Even if you are pursuing a logical thread step by step, at some point you will get the thrill of creativity that insight gives when it succeeds. Philosophy proceeds not by logic, but by insight with logic applied to it to allow extension and communication of the understanding created by the insight. So there!

I moved this to the top even though I wrote it after the response to TheMadFool.

While logic seems to be the demonstrably best tool for philosophy, that doesn't mean intuition and other things can't be used even if they end up being ultimately judged by logic. — Qmeri

- Thank you...

Fundamentally, I don't think that most philosophers care where an idea came from. — Qmeri

What I was asking... I think they should become aware of it though.

Logic never gets it wrong — Siti

Not necessarily. It's easy to get into a tautology without realizing it. It can take quite a while to work through the logic before you find that you are comparing A to A which is useless rather than A to B which may show something new.

What on earth is a pattern anyway? — TheMadFool

I didn't say that all patterns led to understandings, but understandings do come from recognizing patterns. Patterns are how humans understand. Are they reflections of reality? Probably. Just as Hegel pointed out that atomic theory said that our perceptions of objects are relatively objective, so too an understanding of biology can lead to some objective understanding of life.

logic is basically a pattern of thinking that leads to truths. Logic is a codification of valid forms of argumentation which are basically patterns of "correct" thinking. — TheMadFool

I agree with the second part, but the point is I don't think the first part is very true. Logic is very limited (like computer programs) due to complexity. Insight is far more revealing, but then must be converted to logic. It is far more likely that insight rather than logic showed Newton the relationship between heavenly bodies and the falling apple. He then had to explain it to others logically.

What do you mean by "super patterns"? — TheMadFool

Your mention of Newton would be a perfect example if he figured them out at the same time using the data from both. That's unlikely though. The story about the apple is more likely in the sense that he had an insight... then you tend to have a cascade of insights.

I don't know why you brought up the notion of suddenness into insight

- Actually, it probably does take a lot of time, but it is not processing you can perceive. If you go through a logical process in your mind, you are very aware of it. You are no more aware of the process leading to insight than you are to sight, It also takes repeated insights. The insights build, but they are not in a form that human memory is good at retaining. Then visual memory is quite limited as well. At some point though, the person can retain the insight enough to start converting it to words. Also, there will be uncertainties to it which can be logically resolved. Those processes are automatically triggered and you can sometimes be aware of them, but they also can be out of the mind's sight or you can work on them consciously. First though must come the insight. Without it, there is nothing for the logic to try to resolve. Now consider that I said I had an insight that the pursuit of perfection (Perfect Forms) described by Plato was what resulted in the weird nature of God described by the Medieval Catholics (how many angels dancing on the head of a pin). I logically leveraged that to say that I think my friend was looking for perfection (multiplying by infinity) in his diatribes about machine intelligence (the singularity). The first understanding took insight, the second was a logical extension of the first... the apple falling, heavenly bodies orbiting...

The problem is that insight is very slippery and does not lend itself to verbal description. For most people, it is quite rare and even for the people that experience it, it certainly isn't common. On a lark, I wrote a book about it, When Barbara Explained Genius, because of a question about if from the Templeton Organization. This is all related to the first question, how much is it understood that insight is far more likely the source of understanding even if that understanding must be converted to logic. Now Michael Polanyi did discuss Heuristic Knowledge and Emergence which was also a description of insight. I was just surprised at the statement that Philosophy can only proceed by logic. Is insight widely understood in the world of philosophy? It doesn't seem so.




.

I don't think insight is intuition. Is the operation of AI image recognition by a neural net intuition? I think not. Intuition is problem solving using moral instincts... but not too many people understand instincts, moral instincts, etc.. and that includes most biologist types like me. Insight cannot be communicated without being converted to [words] that can be evaluated by logic. Insight is explained with [words] and is either converted to logic already or is in the process. Intuition is explained as "I feel that" and usually is not followed by seking a logical explanation. Insight and intuition are very different things but since insight can use any data, it can use intuition. I suspect it would work the reverse as well, but they are two different things.

As far as I know, insight is never or rarely built on logic. Logic is a different part of the brain. Logic can only be done with some kind of cultural artifacts such as language or maths. Insight, like sight, is something that can occur without any known language. It is not a leap of faith into the unknown. It is a conversion of the unknown to the recognized.

I've also had to explore where logic doesn't apply, that is the "organic". Evolution is organic, it is just what has happened and worked. It is not logical except perhaps to an Arisian but certainly not logic available to a human. Evolution includes a huge component of luck. There are a few places where logic cannot be applied to the problems I work on, but right now I'm trying to solve a few philosophical problems. I suppose I'll paraphrase what I said - I think understanding is primarily advanced by insights from the neural net, which are not based on logic. Logic only follows as the insight is converted to cultural artifacts (such as language) that can be communicated and then it can become philosophy. The question is whether it is recognized in philosophy that many understandings came from insight and then became philosophy. Human ability with logic is very limited or else it would be easy to write the logic of complicated computer programs but instead the complexity very quickly becomes a barrier. I don't think philosophy would have gotten very far at all without insight. Insight provided by the neural net of the brain existed long before language or philosophy. As far as I know, language, including maths, are the only tools of logic available to philosophy. There cannot be philosophy without language, but there can be insight and understanding without philosophy or language. There can also be logic without language, but it is slower (watch horses solve problems).

--

Insight would, in this context, be the ability to identify such elements, separate the wheat from the chaff and once that's done you can hope for a more productive engagement. — TheMadFool

-- ... Uhhhh, no. I mentioned the pattern recognition of the neural net, biological or machine as a pattern recognition function. I guess it removes what is not part of the pattern, but the point is it "sees" the pattern. It just ignores the clutter. Focus on the pattern is absolute. I should have compared insight to sight because they are the same mechanism, a neural net, and vision is more familiar. With sight, you just look and it sees the pattern or it doesn't. Vision research shows that you see the outlines, then the elements, then the location of the elements in the outline, etc., but it's all pretty fast and automatic. If you don't see the pattern, it's usually easier to blink and start over than to work on it. Even if you concentrate on something to figure out parts of what you are seeing, it will still be the neural net that suddenly picks up the pattern and shows it to you.

I don't know how related insight is to pattern recognition but the latter brings to the table a very powerful tool to philosophical investigations because of how the recognition of a common pattern between two entirely different problems will enable the solution to one applicable, at least in principle, to the other. — TheMadFool

-- Such a fascinating view, and sometimes applicable, but usually secondarily. There is the flash of insight that recognizes a single pattern. Any recognition of related patterns and relatedness can only follow, but yes, it does. An insight leads to other insights. It can be quite a high, the ecstasy of understanding.
Interesting, I've recently been looking at what happens when a person seeks to understand perfection. They are like a computer asked to multiply by infinity. Some can pull out of it, some not. I can extrapolate that that describes an element of the Catholic concept of God and in concepts of a rather annoying friend of mine, but it isn't pattern recognition that shows the similarity. It's logic. I don't think insight is great for "super patterns".

I'm a little bit confused by the OP linking "insight" (whatever that is) with "pattern recognition", which is sometimes, it seems to me, the opposite of "insightfulness". For example: — Siti

Insight, to me is that flash of understanding we have. Not logic, not analysis, but the almost instant function of recognition of the mind. It is not unique to humans either nor just to highly intelligent humans, though it's highest function is what is typically called genius.

One person sees a face, another sees a natural rock formation. Which observer has "insight" and which is recognizing patterns? — Siti

That is sight, not insight. As I said, it is extremely similar to insight. It is the opposite of apophenia. It is the perception of one thing, an integral object.

I guess any such insight would have to be shown to conform to logic before it could be established as a "philosophical advance". Wouldn't it? — Siti

Quite true. Insight existed long before language, but until it is converted into cultural tools such as language or mathematics that can be communicated, it's not useful and is even hard to remember. Once converted to cultural tools, the insight can be communicated and also then evaluated logically. It can also then transmit the understanding that the insight created in the first place. I just wonder how often in philosophy, after an understanding has been explained with cultural tools (language) is it recognized that it was not logic that led to the understanding. It only led to the communication and verification of the understanding. I only ask because I've repeatedly read that philosophy is only advanced by logic and reason, but I think understanding is primarily advanced by insights from the neural net, which are not based on logic. Logic only follows.







,

" I submit only a problem for folks" - That seems to be the problem. I have a buddy and he's a fanatic on a couple subjects - religion and free will. He is "opposed" to both, which is fine, but he's obsessed! I mean 20 years of arguing obsessed even when you ask him to go away. I'm into studying my biology. I have weird views, but I'm not nuts about it. The link goes to an article that follows up some discussion with him and sort of says that Gods were good concepts until someone applied "perfect" to one of them and a lot of bad things happened. Maybe Plato wasn't a nut case, but the people that took his ideas and ran with them seem to be.
I can go with math being called perfect if you want, but they warn you up front not do multiply by infinity or divide by zero. ... More pertinently, there are answers to those problems. "Perfect" can throw a person like my friend into an endless loop.
... Per my friend, he's also obsessed with replacing humans with machines because they are so superior to humans. "It must happen".

Cool, my Christmas cookies would be safe from him...

This is great. You see, I came to this forum for this discussion, that is Plato's Forms. I wrote something about them and I was wondering what others might think of the idea.

First may I ask though, in my readings of philosophy I think I have picked up from some sources that they felt that Plato's concept of Forms is considered by some to have been a major mistake that messed up philosophy for a long time after. Apparently his thinking on them was eventually rejected by Hegel based on the Atomic Theory (that was actually older than science) that objectively described all material objects, suggesting that everyone must be experiencing the same reality and basically the same way. This is the first question and what I came here to ask - Are Plato's Forms considered a problem in philosophy?

Now I am basically following that opinion but for a different reason. I'm just a simple biologist. I work on the idea that humans left the tribal ecology we were most adapted to when we created the farms and cities of civilization and now we need to adapt genetically and strategically to a new ecology that I refer to as civilization. I covered how we needed to adapt genetically and am working on how we can adapt strategically. I saw a problem and I think it relates to how we think ... going back to Plato's Forms. You see, he was looking for perfection. An engineer would know better and warn to" never let perfect be the enemy of good enough". This seems valid based on how evolution works. It never "tries" to achieve perfection. It operates on what works. So I see a problem when looking for how humans can survive into the future if their strategy is to contaminated by a quest for perfection. That is not necessarily the best way to survive. For some people it is like asking a computer to multiply by infinity. I wrote an essay on this that I feel is too long for this forum. You might find it interesting though so I'll put a link to it - What About God . It basically is about this topic but in the context of Gods such that it says that Gods before the current Christian concept of God were never like that because Plato's Philosophical ideas of Perfection were never applied to the. Most God's never had that standard applied and the result was ... weird when it was applied.

Anyway, here is the preface to that essay if you are interested.

I'm afraid that this essay cannot easily be understood without explanation, but it is extremely important. An engineer might say "do not let perfect be the enemy of good enough". Biology and evolution has operated that way as well. "Perfect" is an odd word and concept. There are basically two ways that the human mind can interpret "perfect". It can be real like a flawless work of art. It can also be imaginary like Plato's concept of Perfect Forms. The trouble is that for a human to think of anything like Plato's concept of "perfect" is very like a computer multiplying by infinity. It doesn't work. Some computers can pull out of it, some cannot let go of the problem. For humans it is the same. Some can pull out of it but for some it becomes an endless loop and it warps the rest of their view of reality. Plato's teachings became a basic part of Western thought, philosophy and religion. The concept of "perfect forms" contaminated philosophy until Hagel pointed out that the atomic theory showed that different people's perceptions of reality were the same. While this issue is discussed elsewhere in this story, this essay is mostly about how Plato's concept of "perfect" created an unusual view in religion that effects us to this day. In terms of a strategy of survival, it is probably a bad idea in the future. It really does need to be understood.

I appreciate any answers or thoughts. Thanks, Mikey