I would be satisfied with a good explanation of why the question is ill-formed, how the illusion comes about, etc. I really don't think the question is ill-for

I would be satisfied with a good explanation of why the question is ill-formed, how the illusion comes about, etc. I really don't think the question is ill-formed, though. There is a big explanatory gap. Denying that is simply dishonest. It would be like, if you don't know why a bicycle is easier to balance when it's moving, pretending that there is nothing to explain. "Oh, it's just bicycle parts."