Looking at intuition vs reality using philisophy or science (probably only philosophy)

[ryan]

Imagine you are in a different solar system that you just travelled to and have never been to yet. Unfortunately, during a space walk, your tether breaks and the tension forced you towards a moon that your ship is orbiting. You survive the fall because shrubs broke your landing.

You start walking this new moon, and want to find a space to set up for help.

At your landing site, you can only see a few feet in front of you because of the shrubs. Once you squeeze through the first batch of shrubs, you come to another batch of shrubs. This happens again and again and again, until you start wondering if the whole moon is just shrubs.

Questions:

1. a) Why is it that the longer a person walks through these shrubs the less and less likely one would think that they will end?

b) Shouldn't we always give an unchanging purely ignorant assumption of having no idea at any point during the walk, no matter how far we go? For example, shouldn't we give the same possibility of more or no shrubs after the 3rd wall of shrubs as walking through the 500th batch of shrubs and seeing more shrubs?

At least that's how it seems most of us think.


2. a) Or is this a correct and testable intuition? In other words, is there some universal law that the longer something is regular (using itself and the observer as a measure) the longer it will stay regular?

b) If we are somehow correct about this "probabilistic law of regularity", then how do we know this?

After all, people probably were sure that the Sun would come up the next even though they had no scientific data supporting their expectation, yet they were right every time.


3. How can knowing whether or not this intuitive ability is actually useful be tested scientifically, if at all?

 

[Hermit]

Gimme a moment. I wanna ring a friend. His name is Dave. Full of good advice 'e is. Humeay 'ave 'eard of 'im.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

 

[ryan]

Gimme a moment. I wanna ring a friend. His name is Dave. Full of good advice 'e is. Humeay 'ave 'eard of 'im.

 

[ryan]

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution. If we are correct in that the longer something happens the more likely it is to continue happening, then isn't that interesting and useful? Is it some sort of law about the universe? Like why would the longer something happens for make it be more likely to continue to happen?

I feel like there is actually a simple explanation for this using philosophy or math. I can't even think of what it might be though.

 

[ryan]

Oh, it just clicked. It all comes down to what the average sizes of regular things are in the universe.

So for every regular object (with "regular" defined some way as repeating units like a crystal) we can measure its size in all repeating dimensions. On Earth for example, there will be certain sizes of regularities for any of the 3 dimensions that are more common than others.

But, does this apply to the shrubs, or to periodic events like sunrise and sunset? Would we take the length of the "unit pattern" as a ratio to the temporal and/or spatial extent of the patterns into account. Probably, and then we would just give a ratio to each dimension.

Or is it all just random and we only feel like bigger is more likely to continue?

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution.

I think it is.

It's certainly not about how the universe is. It's about how the mind reads reality. It's about the best general strategy for survival given this particular universe.

Prove otherwise if you can.
EB

 

[Juma]

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution. If we are correct in that the longer something happens the more likely it is to continue happening, then isn't that interesting and useful? Is it some sort of law about the universe? Like why would the longer something happens for make it be more likely to continue to happen?

I feel like there is actually a simple explanation for this using philosophy or math. I can't even think of what it might be though.

intuition is partly the result of evolution and partly learned. so it is definitely about evolution.

 

[ryan]

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution.

I think it is.

It's certainly not about how the universe is. It's about how the mind reads reality. It's about the best general strategy for survival given this particular universe.

Prove otherwise if you can.
EB

Do you think that the evolution was right? Like, is it correct to give us the instinct that bigger is probably bigger?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution. If we are correct in that the longer something happens the more likely it is to continue happening, then isn't that interesting and useful? Is it some sort of law about the universe? Like why would the longer something happens for make it be more likely to continue to happen?

I feel like there is actually a simple explanation for this using philosophy or math. I can't even think of what it might be though.

intuition is partly the result of evolution and partly learned. so it is definitely about evolution.

I am not talking about why we know or assume this; I am trying to understand if it is right. And if it is right, what does that say about the universe? Why does big mean bigger?

 

[Juma]

I think it is.

It's certainly not about how the universe is. It's about how the mind reads reality. It's about the best general strategy for survival given this particular universe.

Prove otherwise if you can.
EB

Do you think that the evolution was right? Like, is it correct to give us the instinct that bigger is probably bigger?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think anybody would come to believe the shrub would never end. Rather, the more one would have to go through, the more one would expect that they'll have to go through the same again.

Second, I would expect the belief we have in this kind of situation to be underpinned ultimately by Darwinian evolution, meaning that evolution must have selected having this kind of belief in this kind of situation as the most effective overall, even though it will be wrong, inevitably, in many specific instances.

Somebody might even be able to articulate how exactly this belief is more effective at keeping us alive. Not me, though, sorry.
EB

This is not about evolution. If we are correct in that the longer something happens the more likely it is to continue happening, then isn't that interesting and useful? Is it some sort of law about the universe? Like why would the longer something happens for make it be more likely to continue to happen?

I feel like there is actually a simple explanation for this using philosophy or math. I can't even think of what it might be though.

intuition is partly the result of evolution and partly learned. so it is definitely about evolution.

I am not talking about why we know or assume this; I am trying to understand if it is right. And if it is right, what does that say about the universe? Why does big mean bigger?

Yes you are. 1a and b explicitly asks ”why”.

About the questions numbered 2 then I think it is reasonable: most shrubberies have a limited size. The longer you walk, the leds is the probability that this shrubbery is similar to the shrubberies you are familiar with and this the probability that it is a very big shrubbery increases.

 

[Hermit]

Oh, it just clicked. It all comes down to what the average sizes of regular things are in the universe.

So for every regular object (with "regular" defined some way as repeating units like a crystal) we can measure its size in all repeating dimensions. On Earth for example, there will be certain sizes of regularities for any of the 3 dimensions that are more common than others.

But, does this apply to the shrubs, or to periodic events like sunrise and sunset? Would we take the length of the "unit pattern" as a ratio to the temporal and/or spatial extent of the patterns into account. Probably, and then we would just give a ratio to each dimension.

Or is it all just random and we only feel like bigger is more likely to continue?

You really need to read up on what my friend, David Hume, wrote about this. He was not the first person to deal with the problem, but nobody made a better exposition of it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Do you think that the evolution was right? Like, is it correct to give us the instinct that bigger is probably bigger?

I am not talking about why we know or assume this; I am trying to understand if it is right. And if it is right, what does that say about the universe? Why does big mean bigger?

Ok, I guess you have a point here. So, let's try it.

1. a) Why is it that the longer a person walks through these shrubs the less and less likely one would think that they will end?

I believe evolution selected this way of thinking. It's definitely a broad brush and it's going wrong probably often but overall it must have been effective since we're still here to tell the tale.

b) Shouldn't we always give an unchanging purely ignorant assumption of having no idea at any point during the walk, no matter how far we go? For example, shouldn't we give the same possibility of more or no shrubs after the 3rd wall of shrubs as walking through the 500th batch of shrubs and seeing more shrubs?

It's possible to adopt this strategy but I think it's got to be more expansive in brain power since you have to disregard your intuition and maintain this particular way of consciously considering the situation.

I suspect it will also distract you from possible dangers and effectively get you killed marginally more often. It's a trade-off, we all can do it and we do if we think it will work but I suspect lots of people have tried it before and some probably do it today. I think overall these people get killed on average more often that those who just rely on their intuition.

At least that's how it seems most of us think.

It's possible a majority of people would choose these days to use the strategy you seem to advocate. If so, they would get killed more often.

In terms of evolutionary effects in the long term, it may depend on why these people would suddenly do that. It might be because of a genetic mutation or because of some weird social trend. In the later case, there may be no evolutionary effect, just a slight increase in mortality for a while.

2. a) Or is this a correct and testable intuition? In other words, is there some universal law that the longer something is regular (using itself and the observer as a measure) the longer it will stay regular?

I don't think it's even possible to measure that or study the problem in a scientific way. This question is relevant to just about every goddamn collection of things in the universe. To establish whether there is a universal law, scientists would have to study a very, very, very, very large sample of collections of things, something like more collections than there are particles in the whole universe to the power of a gigabillion. Not doable.

b) If we are somehow correct about this "probabilistic law of regularity", then how do we know this?

After all, people probably were sure that the Sun would come up the next even though they had no scientific data supporting their expectation, yet they were right every time.

I don't think we will ever know whether our default intuition is correct.

All we can do is to assume our default assumption has been put in place by evolution in the sense that, so far at least, people who choose to follow this strategy die at least a little less than those who choose instead to follow what you seem to advocate.

That being said, there's no guaranty that people will keep doing it or even that the current strategy is the best one to ensure our survival.

In a way, you could argue that human beings are particularly prone to disregard their intuitions to invest a lot of brain power and therefore energy into considering things very carefully. Our social organisation seems even designed to do just that, with whole professions, like philosophers, scientists, politicians, all intellectual professions generally, who are effectively dedicated to the careful consideration of things. Many generations of people seem to have already benefited from that but I feel there's no good reason to be optimistic about futures generations.

3. How can knowing whether or not this intuitive ability is actually useful be tested scientifically, if at all?

No way. You can't possibly test evolution on such a mindboggling large scale feature of reality.

You just have to trust my judgement on this. I do it myself all the time and I feel fine, really.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Or is it all just random and we only feel like bigger is more likely to continue?

So when you get tired of Hume I suggest you read a little Bayes.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Or is it all just random and we only feel like bigger is more likely to continue?

So when you get tired of Hume I suggest you read a little Bayes.

Ah yes, exactly! It's the technical acumen I was trying to remember was applicable here. Excellent!

Now, to be honest, I have no idea how one would go about effectively applying it on an actual case.

And, obviously, Bayes couldn't possibly help you decide if there's the sort of universal law considered by ryan. Way too much data to crunch.

Still, Happy New Year!
EB

 

[ryan]

Yes you are. 1a and b explicitly asks ”why”.

About the questions numbered 2 then I think it is reasonable: most shrubberies have a limited size. The longer you walk, the leds is the probability that this shrubbery is similar to the shrubberies you are familiar with and this the probability that it is a very big shrubbery increases.

This last statement you say here seems unjustified. How can you predict the size of a shrubbery with no helpful information?

 

[ryan]

Oh, it just clicked. It all comes down to what the average sizes of regular things are in the universe.

So for every regular object (with "regular" defined some way as repeating units like a crystal) we can measure its size in all repeating dimensions. On Earth for example, there will be certain sizes of regularities for any of the 3 dimensions that are more common than others.

But, does this apply to the shrubs, or to periodic events like sunrise and sunset? Would we take the length of the "unit pattern" as a ratio to the temporal and/or spatial extent of the patterns into account. Probably, and then we would just give a ratio to each dimension.

Or is it all just random and we only feel like bigger is more likely to continue?

You really need to read up on what my friend, David Hume, wrote about this. He was not the first person to deal with the problem, but nobody made a better exposition of it.

Not helpful, it's as if someone asks what mc^2 equals, and you said read up on Einstein.

 

[ryan]

Ok, I guess you have a point here. So, let's try it.




I believe evolution selected this way of thinking. It's definitely a broad brush and it's going wrong probably often but overall it must have been effective since we're still here to tell the tale.

b) Shouldn't we always give an unchanging purely ignorant assumption of having no idea at any point during the walk, no matter how far we go? For example, shouldn't we give the same possibility of more or no shrubs after the 3rd wall of shrubs as walking through the 500th batch of shrubs and seeing more shrubs?

It's possible to adopt this strategy but I think it's got to be more expansive in brain power since you have to disregard your intuition and maintain this particular way of consciously considering the situation.

I suspect it will also distract you from possible dangers and effectively get you killed marginally more often. It's a trade-off, we all can do it and we do if we think it will work but I suspect lots of people have tried it before and some probably do it today. I think overall these people get killed on average more often that those who just rely on their intuition.

At least that's how it seems most of us think.

It's possible a majority of people would choose these days to use the strategy you seem to advocate. If so, they would get killed more often.

In terms of evolutionary effects in the long term, it may depend on why these people would suddenly do that. It might be because of a genetic mutation or because of some weird social trend. In the later case, there may be no evolutionary effect, just a slight increase in mortality for a while.

2. a) Or is this a correct and testable intuition? In other words, is there some universal law that the longer something is regular (using itself and the observer as a measure) the longer it will stay regular?

I don't think it's even possible to measure that or study the problem in a scientific way. This question is relevant to just about every goddamn collection of things in the universe. To establish whether there is a universal law, scientists would have to study a very, very, very, very large sample of collections of things, something like more collections than there are particles in the whole universe to the power of a gigabillion. Not doable.

b) If we are somehow correct about this "probabilistic law of regularity", then how do we know this?

After all, people probably were sure that the Sun would come up the next even though they had no scientific data supporting their expectation, yet they were right every time.

I don't think we will ever know whether our default intuition is correct.

All we can do is to assume our default assumption has been put in place by evolution in the sense that, so far at least, people who choose to follow this strategy die at least a little less than those who choose instead to follow what you seem to advocate.

That being said, there's no guaranty that people will keep doing it or even that the current strategy is the best one to ensure our survival.

In a way, you could argue that human beings are particularly prone to disregard their intuitions to invest a lot of brain power and therefore energy into considering things very carefully. Our social organisation seems even designed to do just that, with whole professions, like philosophers, scientists, politicians, all intellectual professions generally, who are effectively dedicated to the careful consideration of things. Many generations of people seem to have already benefited from that but I feel there's no good reason to be optimistic about futures generations.

3. How can knowing whether or not this intuitive ability is actually useful be tested scientifically, if at all?

No way. You can't possibly test evolution on such a mindboggling large scale feature of reality.

You just have to trust my judgement on this. I do it myself all the time and I feel fine, really.
EB

Do you think that evolution had a large enough sample to be correct on whether something unknown should end or not? I don't think so, which means it's wrong. But if it's right, then it must be saying something very profound about the unknown and only the unknown as it enters consciousness.

 

[ruby sparks]

About the questions numbered 2 then I think it is reasonable: most shrubberies have a limited size. The longer you walk, the leds is the probability that this shrubbery is similar to the shrubberies you are familiar with and this the probability that it is a very big shrubbery increases.

Yes, the use of shrubbery in the thought experiment refers us to something which previous experience indicates to us is limited in size.

Another, slightly different example might be......where the persistence of something (a tossed coin repeatedly landing on a head for example) might lead us to think that the series must end at some point (and in fact in the gambler's fallacy, we can take the persistence to be actually increasing the likelihood that it will change on the very next toss).

 

[ryan]

About the questions numbered 2 then I think it is reasonable: most shrubberies have a limited size. The longer you walk, the leds is the probability that this shrubbery is similar to the shrubberies you are familiar with and this the probability that it is a very big shrubbery increases.

Yes, the use of shrubbery in the thought experiment refers us to something which previous experience indicates to us is limited in size.

Another, slightly different example might be......where the persistence of something (a tossed coin repeatedly landing on a head for example) might lead us to think that the series must end at some point (and in fact in the gambler's fallacy, we can take the persistence to be actually increasing the likelihood that it will change on the very next toss).

Thinking identical coin flips will end is just as wrong as thinking they will continue.

Why should the shrubs be more likely to not end the more they don't end?

 

[beero1000]

 Bayesian Inference

You start with a prior between 0 and 1, and then update it according to the information you find. Even if the prior is really, really, really, small, if this persists for long enough, the rational conclusion will update the posterior probability to be more and more likely.