The intuitions vs reasons debates often appear misguided to me. You’ve eloquently pointed out that intuitions result from the same black box of spaghetti code as reasons, namely the brain.
Volcanoes and dolphins are both generated from physics, but that doesn’t convince me they’re the same, so there must be more to this argument that that!
Additionally, your analogy doesn’t map well to my comment. A more accurate analogy would be to say that active volcanoes are explicit and non-magical (similar to reason), while inactive volcanoes are mysterious and magical (similar to intuitions), when both phenomena have the same underlying physical architecture (rocks and pressure for volcanoes and brains for cognition), but manifest differently.
I just reckon that we are better off working on understanding how the black box actually works under the hood instead of placing arbitrary labels and drawing lines in the sand on things we don’t understand, and then debating those things we don’t understand with verve. Labelling some cognitive activities as reason and others as intuitions doesn’t explain how either phenomenon actually works.
The intuitions vs reasons debates often appear misguided to me. You’ve eloquently pointed out that intuitions result from the same black box of spaghetti code as reasons, namely the brain.
Volcanoes and dolphins are both generated from physics, but that doesn’t convince me they’re the same, so there must be more to this argument that that!
Additionally, your analogy doesn’t map well to my comment. A more accurate analogy would be to say that active volcanoes are explicit and non-magical (similar to reason), while inactive volcanoes are mysterious and magical (similar to intuitions), when both phenomena have the same underlying physical architecture (rocks and pressure for volcanoes and brains for cognition), but manifest differently.
I just reckon that we are better off working on understanding how the black box actually works under the hood instead of placing arbitrary labels and drawing lines in the sand on things we don’t understand, and then debating those things we don’t understand with verve. Labelling some cognitive activities as reason and others as intuitions doesn’t explain how either phenomenon actually works.