I used "native" here like this:
Children raised in the wild, by other animals, utilize the rudimentary type of logic specific to that species, such as that found with wolves or monkeys . . .. . . so do you not think that if human logic were inherent or innate that they would have human logic in use instead of that specific to monkeys or wolves when being raised by wolves or monkeys?
Please provide a sample of that apparently very different "monkey" logic.
EB
Logic in other species is distinct from that of humans in that it is rudimentary, lacks conceptual understanding thing s like asking questions of reality or themselves or each, lacks language expression in order to relay details in clearer, shorter sense of both time and in order to bridge gaps in other animal's understanding f an event they were not present for. Its not that other animals don't possess the ability, if learned, to understand their environment and use it to their benefit. Parrots, ants, monkeys, dolphins, orca (that are also dolphins), horses and even badgers have used something, either an object or made tool, in order to find their way out of holes, traps, or to use as rudimentary weapons.
Human logic uses symbols, allows for analogies and allusions, and is expressed and therefore learned differently than with other beings. If human logic is innate, no child raised by other species would know how to imitate, communicate with and learn fro those species how to express anger in their own specific way, how to hunt and climb in the way other species do unless taught to imitate an express and hunt that way by those animals they were around (unless they happen to grow up with human that also do this).
A monkey's logic when it comes to rainfall is to use a leaf as cover, maybe, or just sit and wait it out as they've learned, like us, that rainfall stops eventually. A human's logic is to learn to, an together materials fir a larger, more stable structure such as a lean to, or if given enough materials in their surroundings, a roof and timbers.
Jut because it's different does not make other animal logic somehow bad and ours good, but its not the same logic. Of all the research we've done n animal behavior, animal expressions, and in other species ability to learn complex tasks, so far it's only select individuals from certain species that can learn to use and combine or rip apart and reform symbols. This is because for those individuals, who run on a needs/rewards or model/reward basis (like with that parrot that became aware of the concept of zero, the benefit was that researcher left the parrot alone after that which is what the parrot wanted in the first place hence it repeating there were "none" as in "zero" orange keys when the question was actually "how many yellow", they need to see benefit for them to learn to use it.
Humans have moved beyond benefit that is immediate to understanding that benefit may be there, it may not, it may be eventual, and they may outlive that eventuality, and yet they could also never see it in generations so far, but still use it because it' the best tool we use to understand who we are, where we are, how many, how long do we have estimated time-wise here on earth, can we go elsewhere, how far, how many times, what's that animal over there and what's it doing, etc etc.
The original poll, however, is asking if logic is innate, intuitive, or native and I explained it is not. For something to be innate it is then something that is either present before birth, or else it is not necessary for any environmental pressures, information or additives to be there to learn from, even if not directly taught by a human animal or other species in such a way that everyone understand it as logic, because its not necessary to know the term in order to understand the concept. What is necessary is that some form of experience is present, some type of ingestion of information processed by the brain, which has to be working to at least a degree in terms of at least some of the senses, and in many ways it would need another human around at least in the first few years to grasp the elevated levels we can push logic to in order to continue to use it as the person grows and learns and grows and ages.
It's similar to when that pseudoscientist who works in neuroscience although he is not accredited for much at all if anything, Deepak Chopra, when he lays claim that language is an innate (native, intuitive) skill that humans do not need other humans and certain other environmental pressures in pace in order to learn it.
We've already shown that to be incorrect with the Case of Genie and every wolf-child, child raised by monkeys that grows past a point of time usually around the age of 8 or so, but on the outside about 12, without other humans around to teach them what sounds, syllables, symbols, pictures, and questions and response are, what they are sued for, maybe then where they are derived from, how it can help people to understand better what the child wants or needs versus just pointing or looking at what they want or need.
It's not this hard, really it's not. Other than the processes present before birth such as instincts and the running of digestive organs, and those coming in directly after it such as breathing, blinking et which are known as subconscious processes that, in the case o breathing, can have some conscious control factored in as time an development continue, nothing about human minds or the way the brain works is innate. Testing does not always have to be a conscious thing wither, like when a young child discovers for the first time that a glowing burner on an electric stove is glowing because it's hot, it burns, pulls their hand away and after that steers clear of the stove once they see it glowing. Not the best way, by far, to discover when something is potentially harmful, no, but it is rudimentary logic, a logic that can move past rudimentary, if taught at a young age to analyze, how to think, how to question, how to discover other things about reality. This cannot happen if it is innate because all innate things are simply an attribute, not a skill. Logic is a skill. Physical appearance, instinct, the way ears looks, the color of something or someone's eyes, are attributes.
Schacter's Two Factor theory, Lawrence Kohlberg's theory, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs an the theory of Consciousness (from I forget who), Pavlov, Skinner, Bronfrenbrenner, all point to the fact that without experience in the environment, which is how we learn anything at any point within any second of our lives, there isn't even probability as far as we know right now for logic, reason, empathy, and also moral code, or any codes we use in language just like language itself, to be innate or inherent or intuitive. Even when we intuit emotion from a person, we are still relying on our past experience, on expression and body language and behavior, all of which is learned through time and experience with nature (whether wild or man manipulated it doesn't matter).
Watch The Mocking Bird Sings (fictionalized docudrama on the Case of Genie) because even though the research was on psychological study of emotionality, brain development when not nurtured, an language you'd see she had no concept of using reason to form conclusions or decisions on pretty much anything, not because her brain was in any way warped or diminished but because without learning anything she knew almost nothing about the world or how to move in it, since without experience and skills (like logic) she'd no idea how fast cars move an how it might be dangerous, in seeing it run over an animal, to move out into the street when there are lots of cars etc etc.
It's a learned skill reinforced by benefit versus risk/failure. Similar as with other animals, just not the same since it has a lower stopping point for most considering they have fewer needs and lower (or perhaps almost no) self awareness.
goddammit, I need to go back to school (or want to anyway). Fuck, I hate being me.