so logic and reason are tools less useful than perception?

Logic implies circular thinking (true OR false) which turns into a conflict of reason (true VS false) the moment one chooses to hold onto either side. The origin of logic implies logos (word of god)...yet not spoken by God but articulated in the name of God by whoever chooses to suggest it to you.

Any suggested word represents logos; you thinking about it represents logic; you fighting others about it represents reason.

Perception implies delineation aka all perceivable moving through each ones perception...no conflict; no circle; no word to hold onto.

Only within a line (implication) can a circle (reason) be shaped.

im pretty logical myself

Hence mentally stuck within the following conflicts of reason...i am vs you are + pretty vs ugly + mine vs yours.

i think i learned it works

How could your logic (pretty or ugly) ever resolve the resulting conflict of reason (pretty vs ugly)?

predict the future, as in if an apple is falling, it will hit the ground.

Pre (before) dict (to show). Before implies "forwarded being" aka nature moving each living being from inception towards death. While alive...a being cannot perceive its inception or death.

Being implies in-between beginning and end, hence transferred from > to.

One can only perceive the apple on the tree; the apple falling or the apple hitting the ground...aka each instance apart (analysis); not together (synthesis).

If you synthesize your prediction about the falling apple hitting the ground; then you mentally hold onto an artificial synthesis, which permits another to exploit your ignorance by using analysis like picking the apple from above or catching the apple before it hits the ground. Exploiting ignorance represents a potential of free will of choice...a potential you ignore when binding your choice to a prediction.

Life does not need to predict death...life needs to adapt to the process of dying. Predicting outcome implies gambling aka ignoring given choice by taking a chance.

so logic and reason are tools less useful than perception?

Logic implies circular thinking (true OR false) which turns into a conflict of reason (true VS false) the moment one chooses to hold onto either side. The origin of logic implies logos (word of god)...yet not spoken by God but articulated in the name of God by whoever chooses to suggest it to you.

Any suggested word represents logos; you thinking about it represents logic; you fighting others about it represents reason.

Perception implies delineation aka all perceivable moving through each ones perception...no conflict; no circle; no word to hold onto.

Only within a line (implication) can a circle (reason) be shaped.

im pretty logical myself

Hence mentally stuck within the following conflicts of reason...i am vs you are + pretty vs ugly + mine vs yours.

i think i learned it works

How could your logic (pretty or ugly) ever resolve the resulting conflict of reason (pretty vs ugly)?

predict the future, as in if an apple is falling, it will hit the ground.

Pre (before) dict (to show). Before implies "forwarded being" aka nature moving each living being from inception towards death. While alive...a being cannot perceive its inception or death.

Being implies in-between beginning and end, hence transferred from > to.

One can only perceive the apple on the tree; the apple falling or the apple hitting the ground...aka each instance apart (analysis); not together (synthesis).

If you synthesis your prediction about the falling apple hitting the ground; then you mentally hold onto an artificial synthesis, which permits another to exploit your ignorance by using analysis like picking the apple from above or catching the apple before it hits the ground. Exploiting ignorance represents a potential of free will of choice...a potential you ignore when binding your choice to a prediction.

Life does not need to predict death...life needs to adapt to the process of dying. Predicting outcome implies gambling aka ignoring given choice by taking a chance.