Sorry, are you being literal here? You think that the water is deceiving you intentionally?

I maintain the water is innocent, it is simply behaving in accordance physics just as everything else. If you are "fooled" by this, the problem is with yourself. — goremand

Doesn't mean that it's not deception. like I said it can fool without intent. It makes the stick appear to bend when it doesn't.

But like I said before this topic is a waste of time.

But I am observing the number 1, right now.

It was not a flaw in reason that these were wrong, but, rather, in one's reasoning. Our faculty of reason is our deployment of logic, modality, etc.: it is not a particular chain of derivation. — Bob Ross

Kinda sounds like a flaw in reason, I mean why should anyone take your word for it? What makes your reasoning better?

You can only ever use reason: you have no choice. How else would you suggest that you can prove something or warrant a belief? — Bob Ross

Allegedly, I get by fine without reason.

I don’t think beliefs can be justified or proven with reason.

Reason is rooted in emotion fundamentally and even then we did make up the rules for it as well. So that sort of blows a few holes in its reliability. I mean just look at flat earth and vaccine denialism.

Your example doesn’t show you know things beyond mere observation, it’s more just assertions like 1=1.

Science was able to show us the holes in our reasoning through the myriad of unconscious biases we employ each day.

No I mean that the phrase itself doesn’t really have a meaning. Like all zen koans there is no conceptual understanding of it, so they say. Hence when people use it they are ignorant of that key fact.

2) Point of view. That is to say, emergence itself has in the background, the fact that there is already an observer of the "emerging". This does get into ideas of "does a tree make a sound if there is no observer", but there is a reason that trope is so well-known. We always take for granted that we have a certain point of view already whereby events are integrated and known. — schopenhauer1

People have to stop with the "does a tree make a sound" line as it doesn't mean what they think it does.

Actually that universe has always existed according to cosmological evidence.

Well that also is only what consciousness is. It is awareness of and recognition of what’s happening.

I also didn’t think they really rebutted the objection that illusion only makes sense if you have a reality to compare it to. If you don’t know what reality is then the term illusion looses all meaning. The same would apply if you said everything is an illusion, the term would be meaningless.

Overall this seems to have been a very pointless conversation. I mean OP even got that bit about the water wrong. But yeah, reading through this gave me the sense the convo went nowhere fast.

The problem I see with viewing pain as only functional is that it is not functional. — Patterner

It is functional, evidence shows that organisms without a pain response don't live long (as do people who have a condition that prevents them from feeling it). But it can be both functional and not functional, though mostly it is functional.

But the thing is the image does not "contradict what we know". To those who understand how light travels through water, the image is a straightforward representation of reality, no-one is getting fooled. — goremand

It actually does contradict what we know, you know need to know how light works to know that's an illusion. This is just wrong and we know the water is fooling us by "bending" the stick.

Something is an illusion only if there is consciousness to be fooled by it. The stick in the water is not an illusion to the stick, or the water, or the stick and the water. It's not an illusion to a camera that captures the image. It is only an illusion to those of us who know the stick is straight, but see the image contradicting what we know.

If consciousness is an illusion, then what is it that knows what's really going on, but perceives a contradiction? The idea that consciousness is, itself, an illusion, but an illusion that perceives itself as real, is like picking yourself up by your own bootstraps. — Patterner

Stuff like this makes my head hurt

nope, but keep denying reality I guess

What is the part of intuition that is 'already known'? Can you give an example of this in action? — Tom Storm

Already known in that you're aware of the result of the intuition not the thought process leading to it.

Your thinking is rigid and dogmatic. And wrong. — T Clark

That's not what the research shows.

Darkneos seems to be under the impression that by "intuition" we are talking about a knack, a kind of practical knowledge similar to phronesis. For example, he thinks the knack he has developed with respect to League of Legends is intuition. — Leontiskos

No, it's just showing what it IS.

You are oversimplifying it. Discursive knowledge didn't appear all of a sudden out of nothing. It was assembled - based on intuitive insights. No point arguing. The vast majority of the thread is from people who have a genuine interest in examining intuition. — Pantagruel

The vast majority of this thread is wrong about it. It really is just thinking fast and is drawn from experience.

Not to mention the success of it is prone to confirmation bias.

There are no intuitive insights per se, like I said it’s just thinking albeit really fast .

IMO you’re examining a settled matter and trying to make to more than it is

People who lack intellectual self-awareness are often unaware of how their thinking processes actually work. I have found that's true of people who dogmatically reject the value of intuition. — T Clark

Again, you’re not seeing what intuition is and want it to be more than it actually is. Or rather something other than it is.

In short intuition tells you what you already know, because it’s just fast thinking. It’s why when tested, experts were found to be reliable in their intuition compared to randos.

You just can’t admit that you’re wrong

Yes, I kind of assumed this was the extent of your scientific understanding.

1000 tonnes attracting another 1000 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes 66.743 Newtons of force. 1000 tonnes attracting a 1 tonne mass at a distance of 1 meter realizes .066743 Newtons of force.

Granted, the partial intuition of the greater force exerted between greater masses is offset by the greater inertia, which is ultimately realized in the complete intuition (realized by Newton) that Force equals Mass times Acceleration.

So all that is really "settled" is your lack of intuitive comprehension of basic physical concepts. Hence, I suppose, your disdain for intuition. — Pantagruel

I don't really have disdain for intuition, but I don't really care for people making it out to be something like magic or transcendent when it's more just thinking fast. My knowledge of physics doesn't change that.

The same applies to Newton, we don't really fully know what in his life led up to that nor does it change what intuition is. I'd also be willing to bet there wasn't anything special about him realizing this, he was just the first one to say it.

It has always surprised me how many people are not aware of their own thinking processes. Unaware that their consciousness and reason are just a small part of their mental life and that most of what we think, feel, know is not a function of those two limited processes. It's certainly something you see all the time here on the forum. So, I guess you could say you're in good company. — T Clark

Not sure what you are getting at, if you aren't aware of it then there isn't really anything you can do about it. Intuition isn't something you can control much like thoughts. Though intuition is also a limited process, again you're trying to make it out to be magic or some thing when it isn't.

We are products of genetics, environment, culture, and upbringing as well as experiences. That's pretty much about it.

Though most of what we think and feel and know is due to consciousness, without that you don't really have anything else. Sure your body could be alive but without awareness you won't really be able to do anything. Not saying consciousness in the "woo" sense, just stating a fact.

But this can't be entirely true. Strictly speaking, there hasn't always been discursive knowledge. I would say there is a pre-discursive intuition, which is a general kind of knowing how. Like a proto-human who is expert at hurling stones. He doesn't have a discursive understanding of gravity, or ballistics, but he does have an intuitive grasp of these things. Then there is a post-discursive intuition, in which the subject-matter of discursive understanding itself can become an object of the intuitive faculty. Intuition fills in the blanks.

For example, people intuitively want to believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Scientific thought seems to chide this. In fact, relative to any particular object, a more massive object is more strongly attracted than a less massive object, so this intuition has a substantial basis. The intuitive truth is simply not perceptible at human scales and conditions. — Pantagruel

It is entirely true. Intuition says heavier objects fall faster, science proved that wrong. A more massive object isn’t more strongly attracted, if anything a less massive object is, it’s how the moon orbits the Earth along with our satellites. This intuition has no basis.

There is no general knowing how. You could call it biology since we are all humans and all prone to similar behaviors. He doesn’t have an intuitive grasp in throwing stones, more like he learns after throwing many stones. Intuition doesn’t fill in the gaps, again research shows this isn’t the case. You are still committing the mistake of intuition being magic when we know now it isn’t.

You are still making it more than what it is, the matter is settled currently.

That's interesting. I don't know League of Legends. I'm not good at games requiring super quick response times.

On the matter of expertise, and its relationship to intuition; I'd say video games provide a pretty 'thin' training set. Intuitions developed from playing a videogame don't tend to be very useful outside of video games.

Having expertise in something a lot more complex than a video game, might help you get a better grasp on the nature of intuition. — wonderer1

Actually video games are pretty complex but they only appear simple to the average viewer. League isn't just response times, there's so much more knowledge and thinking that goes into it. Just look at pros. I've played for years and even I don't have the skill or mental game.

Also I said intuition is limited to the area of knowledge you are using it in. Without any knowledge to draw on you're just tossing a coin.

It might be harder to recognize the sense of intuition being discussed here, if one has never developed expertise in something. — wonderer1

League of Legends. I've played so much that I just develop a "sense" about situations that happen in game. However that sense is from years of experience and game knowledge to the point that breaking down a situation in game would take a detailed report of every factor, piece, etc, behind it.

It's thinking, but really really REALLY fast to the point where it feels like you just know but when you break it down you see it.

The research applies only to the limited meaning you incorrectly applied to it, as we pointed out to you during this discussion. — T Clark

That "limited" meaning is what it actually is. Like I said, it doesn't matter what you think that doesn't make intuition more than what it is.

To put it bluntly, of course I'm not. The "evidence" you provided at the beginning of the discussion was based on an incorrect understanding of what intuition is. I, and others on this thread, have demonstrated that your understanding is too limited. There's a name for a logical fallacy when you can't win an argument, you fall back to a more limited position that's easier to defend. — T Clark

It's not a limited understanding, you're just trying to make out to be more than what it actually is and I'm showing you the research doesn't support you.

So in this case you're just wrong. Intuition isn't some special knowledge, it's rooted in what you already know and is prone to bias as well. It's pretty much "thinking super fast" to where you reach the conclusion so quickly that it feels like "knowing" but it really isn't.

Like I said already, it doesn't matter what you THINK it is that doesn't change the reality of what it is. All you and others here have shown is that you REALLY want magic to exist, but humans just aren't special bud.

To put it bluntly, you’re wrong about intuition.

Well I’m right and you’re right wrong.

I don't think you read my reply. I agreed with you, intuition is integrally related to knowledge. I just don't see it as a trivial occurrence. — Pantagruel

My mistake

Interesting. You may be making less of it than it actually is. I fully agree that intuition is related to knowledge in that one is always intuiting something in some context, and that the more detailed knowledge you have, the more intuitive knowledge becomes possible. But it is the entire nature of intuition that it extends if not transcends the current limits of what can be discursively extracted from the context. The expert diagnosis of a very experienced MD versus an intern for example. — Pantagruel

That’s not what the research shows again. Without any sort of training or knowledge it’s no better than a coin toss.

except that isn’t true. Intuition is more akin to thinking than knowledge which is why it’s not reliable if you know nothing.

Plus science has frequently proven human intuition wrong on a number of subjects and stances about the world.

Calling it a ring of truth is just wrong.

Darkneos seems to be trading on the ambiguity of the term 'knowledge', What he said makes no sense if you consider knowledge as being JTB, but if you think of it as being know-how, then it does make sense. — Janus

All I can say is what the research behind it shows which seems to bear out better than mere philosophical speculation.

Your intuitions about intuition could use some development. — wonderer1

It’s not my intuitions about it it’s just the simple fact. Even what you cited before about observing people lots of times it’s knowledge, knowledge of body language.

You’re making it more than it actually is which is something a lot of people like to do.

Intuition is rooted in knowledge. The more you know the better it is. It honestly doesn’t matter what you think about it, doesn’t change what it is.

There is more to it than simply acquiring knowledge. Tom Storm and T Clark brought up important points. TS brought up experience and TC brought up attentiveness. — wonderer1

Nope, that's pretty much it. Intuition is improved by acquiring knowledge. That's all.

Did you read the paper or just a summary Darkneos? — Philosophim

I did read it, but in the end it still feels like the "I" is being assumed there.

In the future you might want to start with a summary of what you're getting at an use smaller words, everyone so far doesn't really see what you're getting at.

No, because if I find a cat and try to say its a dog, I'm wrong. If I claim something is a dog, I must prove its a dog. Matching identities to objects is not a circular argument. — Philosophim

you don't prove something is a dog so much as say it is one. Matching IDs to objects is circular because it all comes down to saying it is that "because I said so". Which is fine, I mean that's what definitions are.

No, this is just lazy analysis Darkneos. Which look, if you're not interested in addressing the actual argument, that's fine. I don't care about convincing you. I care about having a discussion over the paper. If you're just going to blanket state that everything I've done is an opinionated assertion without demonstrating that you understand the vocabulary of the argument or the reasoning, then this is just removing yourself from the discussion, not skepticism. — Philosophim

Because it is and all you're really doing is just asserting that it isn't. And I don't know how much I can repeat that point for you to understand it.

I don't have to see inside of your mind to verify this. If you want to take the conversation seriously, please re-read to understand what discrete experience is, and the proof for why it is also applicably known. — Philosophim

I don't have to reread it, that's why I said what I said.

If you're going to dismiss the theory without going over the points and showing why they're wrong, then of course there's nothing to talk about. I'm asking for serious approaches, not dismissals. No, according to the theory 2+2=5 would be wrong. If you're going to not try, then that's fine, I'll just let the conversation end. If you want the potential at actually exploring a theory of knowledge that could be useful in your own life, lets be more serious. — Philosophim

Your theory is just your say so. This is a serious approach and you just keep reasserting your points like they've been shown to be the case. I still don't know if there is an "I" that is experiencing anything. Just like Descartes you assume the conclusion. You're reasoning follows only if you get past the starting point , so far you just insist otherwise. Your theory still requires the same leap of faith every philosophy starts off on. That's the point of axioms, you can never prove them and yet without them you get nothing.

Oh, I don't mean like a human. If that test isn't satisfactory to you, the test is just to see if an animal can separate X from Y. Food vs not food would probably have been a better example. — Philosophim

See my previous statement.

I have. That isn't really considering the points or a refutation. — Philosophim

My point is that animals will try to leave but don't see there is an exit, I've seen it many times before (in fact I have to catch them and put them out otherwise they just fly around). Not to mention it's still an assumption you are making.

That's not a circular argument. If I have the definition of a dog, find a dog and demonstrate that the thing is a dog, that's not a circular argument. Same with sensation. — Philosophim

That is circular though because you're pretty much saying a dog is a dog.

Its not an assumption, its an inescapable reality. — Philosophim

Except it isn't as I have said and shown.

No, this is not circular. If you re-read the section I apply this notion of discrete experience to reality. Its my own reality. Again, if you are a human replying to me, you do the same. If you are able to read these words, you're able to see the black on the screen as something which you can ascribe an identity to. Your ability to make any sense of it requires you to discretely experience those words as something separate from the white nearby. You cannot deny that you do this. For to even attempt to deny that you do this, means you must have discretely experienced a concept that you're trying to deny. — Philosophim

Again no it doesn't mean that, this is just you trying to force your definition on reality.

The M Trilemma issue has nothing to do with axioms. You also did not address my point where I noted the axioms I start with can be tested with the final theory and confirmed. I invite you to try to use the theory and find one of the three logical fallacies that is what the M Trilemma notes. — Philosophim

Not really, axioms can't be tested, they have to be taken as true in order to get off the ground. Trying to prove the axioms is akin to assuming the conclusion.

No, they simply aren't rational under the theory. Its like someone saying 2+2=5. They can believe it all they want, it doesn't mean that they've objectively solved the math problem correctly. — Philosophim

"under the theory" which is pretty much just saying "according to me". They have solved the math problem correctly if according to them 2+2=5. We agree that 2+2=4 but if someone doesn't you can't really convince them otherwise.

Is this an objectively rational conclusion? Claiming rationality is subjective contradicts itself. At that point I can claim from my subjective viewpoint that rationality is objective. And to hold onto your claim, you have to agree with me. Holding onto a claim which leads to a paradox or contradiction is of course, not objectively rational. — Philosophim

Again, according to you.

I've never encountered a bot with your level of sophistication. Its plausible, but that doesn't outweigh the possibility you're a person. Same with the random slapping of keys. Probability wise, I already know that's nigh impossible, so this argument doesn't work either. So its most rational for me to believe you're a human being. So no, your arguments aren't enough. The fact that you typed, "I don't discretely experience", means you do. Since the inductions failed, try to look at the argument as it is and see if you can refute it. — Philosophim

Well, no. You know none of these things, these are all just assumptions you are taking on. There is no reason to think that this is a human being after all if you break it down. Typing "i don't discretely experience" is evidence enough that I don't unless you're claiming to have knowledge of the inside of my mind and subjective experience to verify this, which you can't.

Like I keep saying, your theory fails before it gets off the ground. You can't see (or won't admit) the things you take on faith in order to get it to work.

Even your starting chain of "I discretely experience" is little more than an axiom. It doesn't demonstrate and I or experiencer or that you break things apart as you say you do. I can't get inside your head to confirm it so it's just something I have to take your word for.

Try as you might your theory falls to strong skepticism.

No, I do not assume faith in my observations or even that I can know things. I build that up from assumptions, yes. But then I try to disprove those assumptions afterward. The thing about the theory is once you understand it, you can apply it to every single one of the prior assumptions. Starting with assumptions is not illogical as long as you can go back and prove those assumptions must be. The M Trilemma in specific is about claiming that all ideas devolve into one of three fallacies, circular, dogmatic, or regressive. You've made a claim that the argument is circular, but you have not proven so. If you can prove that the theory devolves into one of those 3, then you would be correct. Can you do so? — Philosophim

You do, we all do, because without that ground faith nothing else is possible same with that you can know things. You cannot prove these assumptions must be without being circular, like using sensation to prove sensation.

Yes, because you answered my question. To answer my question you would have had to read. If you read, then you're able to part existence out. Can you differentiate between letters? Then you discretely experience. Your very denial that you discretely experience leads to a contradiction, therefore you discretely experience. — Philosophim

Nope. Still doesn’t mean I discretely experience. I could just be a bot after all, or just smacking the keys and yielding this. Can I know the letters, maybe, you don’t know that. My denial doesn’t lead to a contradiction, it’s more like you’re just really wanting to be what is a maybe to be a certainty. It’s not proof by contradiction, it’s wishful thinking at best.

Example: As a very basic test, put an animal in a room. Have an open exit. See if the animal ever tries to leave. A non-discrete experiencer would not be able to recognize there is an exit just like a camera cannot recognize anything about the picture it is taking. — Philosophim

You’ve obviously never seen an animal trying to leave.

Depending on a person's context, yes, it might be more rational to believe God will do it. But they must applicably prove so within their context. Do they have distinctive knowledge of a God that's non-synonymous with another identity? Have they ever applicably known this God? Have they applicably known God to change a lottery ticket before? If not, then its merely a plausibility. Compared to the known probability, its still more rational for them to choose the probability.

Also, we can evaluate other people as being rational, as being rational is objective. I can ask a person all of these questions, and if they give answers that do not align with actually applicably knowing these questions, then we can tell them they did not actually applicably know, and were not being rational. Their feelings or disagreement is moot. — Philosophim

They don’t have to prove anything. Your questions aren the right ones either. Being rational isn’t objective though, it’s subjective. Maybe to you they aren’t rational because YOUR questions aren’t satisfied but that doesn’t mean anything besides you being upset about it.

No, that is an induction. Has every single idea been proven to devolve into the M Trilemma? Of course not. Feel free to prove it if so. An induction is a conclusion that does not necessarily occur from the premises. If you have not proven that all ideas devolve into the M Trilemma, then it is an induction. — Philosophim

I’d argue yes since all ideas eventually have to start from axioms without exception. There is no branch of philosophy without axioms.

Discrete experience is the ability to part and parcel the full set of experience you have. Discrete experience allows us to observe parts of experience. Go back to the camera which merely splashes light on a piece of paper versus that which can interpret sections such as a sun, a field, and a sheep on the paper. As a very simple point, can you see a difference between letters and words? Can you ignore the letter and simply focus on a black piece on your screen? That's discrete experience.

Can you understand concepts apart from the totality of what you experience? That's discrete experience. Because I can form this concept in my head, and I find that simply challenging the idea, "I don't discretely experience" necessitates that I discretely experience, I have a claim that cannot be contradicted by reality. Thus, my first set of distinctive knowledge. This is not an assumption or circular. The very negation of it proves that it must be.

And example of a circular argument is, "The bible tells me God is real. God tells me the bible is truth. Therefore God is real." This cannot be proven by contradiction. If I state, "The bible isn't true" we have a situation in which God doesn't have to be real. The negation does not create a contradiction. I do not see this with discrete experience. — Philosophim

This is still circular as it’s just operating on the definition you say it is. You have a claim that can be contradicted by reality because all you’re doing is just saying that you do this, you haven’t shown that you do. It’s all just words. Also I’m pretty sure monks in Buddhism don’t discretely experience either and Buddhism seems to be against such a view of the world calling it illusion.

Try as you might it’s still an assumption you are making rooted in the faith of your senses.

If you can disprove that people discretely experience, then yes, I will just have an assumption. Until then, its both distinctively and applicably known. If you discretely experience, then of course you experience. Being able to doubt or invent a plausibility such as, "What if I don't actually experience?" is fine. But if you've experienced at least once, which you would need to even ask the question, then its possible that you experience. So once again possibility is more cogent than plausibility, and the plausible question can be dismissed as a less rational induction to believe and explore.

Also, while there may have been assumptions made to think through the theory, I can go back to each assumption and apply the theory to it. Many theories of knowledge fail when this is done. Mine doesn't. If you think it does, please demonstrate where it does. — Philosophim

Yours still doesn’t make it past the starting block. It’s not know other people experience, you just assume that. You can’t even know if you do, it’s just assumed. Nothing you have said so far shows me that you or I do, not even me replying to you.

And most importantly: any study has its sensory foundation on which it builds a complex understanding. All sciences presuppose sensory (I don't use this term. Too Kantian) givenness, and therefore, there is the claim that all science is analytically reducible to just this, as in Kant's, sensory intuitions are blind without concepts; concepts without sensory intuitions are empty. — Astrophel

This is incorrect. There is just sensation, it’s not a presupposition. Also sensory intuitions aren’t blind without concepts and there are plenty of concepts without sensory intuitions that aren’t empty. Again you’re still the wrong here and Wittgenstein was wrong too.

Insulting talk about rambling has no place in a discussion. Don't be a child. — Astrophel

It actually does considering multiple people have noticed it already.

All knowledge is forward looking, and so science's claims are forward looking, i.e., temporal constructions. — Astrophel

Nope. Knowledge isn’t forward looking, it just simply is or rather it's a claim about what is. Science's claims aren't temporal constructions, they just simply are, it's facts about the world which for some reason bothers you considering you want an out so bad. Just because postmodernists say something doesn’t make it so. Like I said it’s not useful when it comes to science only in literature and social sciences. Though stuff like “consciousness is language” is why a lot of people don’t take it too seriously, consciousness isn’t language. And I mentioned Sokol because it showed how there is no quality control for post modernism ideas. You can submit utter bullshit and have it published. You just sound mad.

Buddihsts are like Wittgenstein: they are right about what they do, wrong that one cannot talk about it. See the Abhidhamma: It does talk about ultimate reality and has extraordinary things to say, that is, if you are a serious meditator. But it's analyses are mostly dogmatic, though, they may be right. Hard to say since one needs to learn Pali. But I noticed it doesn't have the rigorous analysis of Husserl's Ideas or Levinas' Totality or Derrida's Margins. You CAN talk about these things, but only indirectly, which makes the field difficult because this because the material before is obscure to language, and this is because of a lack of shared experience. They say tibetan Buddhists had/have an mysterious language filled with references to things encountered only in deep meditation. — Astrophel

Kinda shows you don’t understand Buddhism or even talked to monks about this. There is a reason they talk about practice. They can’t talk about it which is why near the end of the route you’re told to forget everything you were taught because this cannot be taught or talked about without losing it. Or to cite something they often say “if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him”.

People don't read philosophy. That is why they don't get it. Simple as that. I have encountered some who, finding that they really know nothing at all about what they post , like yourself, are inspired to read after our exchanges. One reason why I go on. You may not admit it to me, but later you will perhaps read to see what it is you have been attacking so vacantly.

Have a lovely time with Heidegger. Rorty considered him, along with Dewey and Wittgenstein, to be among the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Being and Time is literally life changing.

Later.....perhaps. — Astrophel

They do read it, most just realize it’s more like glorified opinions than truth or knowledge.

But reading this just confirms to me that this is all just ego stroking and you don’t have an actual point and you’re so smart for reckoning with the questions the “normies” don’t. This thread was just you rambling with no point and I think everyone else saw that.

Again it just really sounds like you can't accept reality for what it is.

Then again you did say knowledge is existentially meaningless so it's hard to take what you say seriously. By that logic you know nothing and are saying nothing, as am I. Good talk.

Right, learning is required and the consequences of that learning are not fully predictable. However, I'm not talking in black and white terms, of intuitions either being perfectly accurate or totally unreliable. I'm just suggesting that intuitions can be improved to a significant degree. — wonderer1

By acquiring knowledge

But really, Darkneos, all this says is no. You have to come to grips with this and try harder to actually make a case. I can help you:

You would have to show how context changes pain and any affectivity at all, in the same way the knife's sharpess changes from good to bad given the context of its appearance. You see this, right? You are trying to make the claim that pain qua pain is context determined. There is a very good work on this by Stanley Fish in his Is There a Text in this Class: He argues that context makes the determination, and apart from this, there is no "center" of knowledge claims. All is contingent, just as you are defending here. A student asks if there is a text in the class coming up soon, but the prof is confused: does she mean text to be a textbook? Or is it the that the student left her book and is looking for it? Or, does the prof have a textual frame of reference for the way the ideas will be discussed? — Astrophel

There isn't a case to make, that's just how pain is. That's also not what I am arguing. Some knowledge claims have a center, where it is irrelevant what you think or feel about them. Others do, like pain. Context changes pain and feeling, it always has since our emotions are dependent on stimuli among other things. You haven't really shown how it's not otherwise.

You see this?: text, text or text, three alternative possibilities, each very different, ambiguously in play, at once! This is contingency, and it is the kind of thing post modern thinking is about, this loss of determinacy in foundations of meaning. Is the world not like this when language speaks it's truths? — Astrophel

Postmodernism has a use in the social sciences and literature, but not in science. Despite what they think not every truth is rooted in a cultural or social context. Also you're kinda just rambling now, not making much sense. Though no, that is not what postmodernists are saying either. To be honest I don't think the field ever recovered from the Sokal Affair.

"Recent philosophies suggest pain to be an illusion?" Fascinating! tell me how works: how can it be that my toothache is illusory? — Astrophel

I don't know and I'm not entirely sure it does, ask the Buddhists monks. Though they'll tell you there is no logic behind it and words can't describe it.

I know you don't want to think like this, but I am guessing since this is a strain of philosophical thought that dominates our age, and really: it is on YOUR side of tis issue, that it might be useful to you the next time you you defend your, well, curmudgeon-ism.
Science doesn't think like this because it is thematically outside its purview. That is, it simply don't take up questions like this, just as astronomers do not take up basket weaving. It is simply not what they do. This is philosophy, an essentially apriori "science." — Astrophel

This is still more rambling, whatever point you're trying to make here just seems lost. I don't think like this because there isn't really much value to it. Science isn't outside it's purview though. If anything it probably won't be long before we're able to explain everything since the brain is the root of it all. Neuroscience is certainly advancing faster and faster, though hopefully climate change doesn't get us before then.

If this is philosophy you're more or less proving my point about how useless it is. 5 pages of you typing screeds, going on tangents, and people asking you what the point is and still nothing. I'm honestly just convinced this is more ego stroking than getting at any point that is meaningful or useful, or both. It honestly reminds me of how I used to be.

I'll repeat, it just sounds like you want reality to be something it just isn't and won't be.