I agree that the concepts of intuition or muscle memory apply to however mysterious one finds any given phenomenon. But we don't need deep mysteries like nonlocal entanglement for that. We can merely compare someone who knows how to write an equation for ballistic trajectories versus someone who can catch a high fly. Knowing the spells is not the same as having a hands-on understanding. There's no surprise there.
But what's odd, to me, is that people think that either (or both, or the many) ways of knowing are somehow *more real* (or more basic, or closer, or whatever) than other ways of knowing. Why do people seek this (as Eric puts it) emotional comfort with their ways of knowing? On 4/30/19 2:40 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Experiment seems to address but not resolve experience to me. How can this > <https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6136> be more than an wizard’s elaborate spell? > Don’t basic questions like whether there is randomness in the universe > matter? If not, what _/does/_ matter? Just knowing the spells? > > A not insignificant, but minor issue to me is the difference between fast and > slow thinking. There’s a difference between a taxi driver taking me across > London through dozens of small and large streets and me following GPS to do > the same. The taxi driver can holistically see the route from hundreds of > other possible routes. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
