that was my initial response to what they said, however after further thought I have no reason to take the person in the Quora answer seriously.

No amount of skepticism changes the fact that I haven’t been failed by “recognizing” there is a behind me. If anything listening to that person actually hurt my ability to remember stuff and almost caused a few accidents

As is obvious to the reader, contrary to what we've been thinking all along, we don't have a definition of existence if perception is our standard/measure. Odd that! — Agent Smith

Except that we do. Also good work showing how useless this sort of thinking is in day to day.

Looking back at the guy in the answer he's obviously wrong. Mirrors aren't an illusion, they show behind us because we can't see it. The part about memory doesn't change that either. Just because we can't remember what was in front or behind doesn't mean there aren't such things. not to mention is there is no behind you a car would never work.

Plus like I said before, there are dire consequences to thinking like the the guy in the quora answer. Break real hard on a busy highway and see how well that holds up.

It's actually kinda interesting how divorced from day to day reality a good deal of philosophy is, at least this topic anyway. I can't believe I took it seriously.

Do you understand Snell's law? If you did you would understand mirages and refraction is just normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner

Again no, those are special instances. And as said before it is playing tricks. Still proving you don’t understand what you cite.

It is clear who doesn't understand what they are talking about, and it is not me. But maybe you can explain your position in detail rather than just repeating that I don't understand? — PhilosophyRunner

Considering all you're doing is parroting one thing it's likely you. Like I said it does deceive in certain instances, like water and mirages, and not others.

There are no tricks in physics, I have no idea what you are talking about. Light changes direction at the boundary of two medium, given by Snell's law. It always behaves correctly according to Snell's law. Always.

There is no trick that happens sometimes. — PhilosophyRunner

Again, it depends on the context, science is more gray than most think. Especially in biology. Like I said you don't understand it as well as you think.

Refraction is never a trick. It is simply the way light behaves when moving from one medium to another where there is a change in wave speed. This is well understood in physics, there is no trick, just the normal behavior of light. — PhilosophyRunner

That’s just not true. Refraction can sometimes be a trick like with water. That is also well understood in physics. I’m thinking you don’t get this as well as you’re making it out

In a sense it can be a trick of the light depending on the where

You mean, how did we invent writing and other means of information exchange? Do you believe that without qualia, the invention and use of writing becomes inexplicable? — goremand

There really isn't a reason to believe qualia exist. It's just another last gasp of dualism.

It is our consciousness (or brain depending on your stance) interpreting the redirected light as a bent stick that is causing the confusion. — PhilosophyRunner

There is no stance, it's really just the brain. That fact is more or less solved at the moment and I am well aware of refraction hence it's not the brain's fault but the light playing tricks, like it sometimes does. It's the same for a mirage.

Ok. — goremand

I mean it's been 5 pages and you haven't really gone anywhere with this.

It seems you are "bundling" concepts together in a (to me) arbitrary way, such that denial of one becomes denial of all. I don't remember ever denying subjectivity, consciousness or meaning as useful concepts, if these can only make sense in relation to qualitative properties you will have to explain why. — goremand

You kinda have to accept other minds otherwise there isn't a reason to take anything you say seriously.

The light traveling from the stick to our retina is behaving as we know it should according to physics, when a stick in the water appears bent. It is not behaving wrongly. It is only our intuitive interpretation of this light that causes confusion. — PhilosophyRunner

No it is behaving wrongly because it appears bent when it isn't. It has nothing to do with the intuitive interpretation of the light, hence why it's an optical illusion.

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.