How does the baby dog know to go to mamma's nipples? — Haglund
My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge — T Clark
Knowledge of god can't be empirical.
Nothing. Knowledge takes the form of sensory data.One question about intuition is whether or not it is based on experience or reason. My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience.
My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge — T Clark
The baby already has knowledge of the world without ever having walked in it. How can that be? The knowledge must have evolved already in the womb, with closed eyes. In a sense the baby is in the world 9 months. Structures in the brain, without halt, running around during evolving from nothing to baby size. Baby eyes sending patterns, brain reacting, balance, body sending formal information, baby brain reacting. Knowledge forming. No tabula rasa. Then we are thrown in. The world showing itself. The world projected in the fertile soil of the baby brain. — Haglund
How does the baby dog know to go to mamma's nipples? The dog image or dog knowledge is already there a priori, contrary to the a priori knowledge of the goose. Smaller brain. — Haglund
Knowledge of god can't be empirical, although you can see them all around. — Haglund
Nothing. Knowledge takes the form of sensory data. — Harry Hindu
This makes sense to me, although I don't know if there are studies about experiences babies pick up in the womb. — T Clark
Agree. I find that intuitions are almost never based on reason, but rather instinct or experience. Many of those intuitions are not true, but don't confuse truth with beneficial.One question about intuition is whether or not it is based on experience or reason. My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience. — T Clark
:100:Our intuitions are not there for the purpose of truth ... Many of those intuitions are not true, but don't confuse truth with beneficial. — noAxioms
But introspection illusions, no? :chin:I think introspection is a valid form of empirical knowledge. — T Clark
My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience. — T Clark
I can remember reading about the baby's retina aleady stimulating the brain with shapes. Don't ask me how they found out... Maybe you have seen it with your eyes closed. Concentric rings flowing in and outwards. Surely the bodily baby shape somehow projects in the baby brain. — Haglund
Our intuitions are not there for the purpose of truth. That's a pretty easy one to figure out if you think about it. — noAxioms
I think introspection is a valid form of empirical knowledge.
— T Clark
But introspection illusions, no? — 180 Proof
I would be interested to hear what others have to say about a priori - and synthetic a priori. There may be space in this discussion to explore the idea of properly basic beliefs. These are all part of a foundationalist view of reality. — Tom Storm
What is the value of knowing that all bachelors are unmarried? — T Clark
My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge rather than spending all our time on arguing the definitions of particular words. — T Clark
That's an example of an analytic truth, not synthetic. The value is that it is definitional. It tells you what a bachelor is. — Hanover
But 2 plus 2 is four and there is a process there which is more than finding new words. — Gregory
So there are linguistic skills learned analytically and processes learn synthetically, both being different in *how* humans learn them. — Gregory
Babies have to build their own worlds. — T Clark
And yet knowledge is pragmatically a matter of experience. We develop habits of future expectation based on a history of past events. — apokrisis
So speaking of "knowledge", or "truth", or "facts", has this unfortunate tendency to push it all into some Platonic realm of surety quite separate from the uncertain world. The truth "exists" in some eternal present. — apokrisis
Sure, it is useful also to take this kind of deductive approach to knowledge/truth/facts. We can abduct to make some general guess about what could be the past, and thus possibly be the future. From this hypothesis, we can then deduce the observable consequences.
That is, we can deduce the counterfactuals. We can figure out what we ought to see in the future if our guess is indeed right ... and thus also discover if what we guessed instead seems more like a wrong hypothesis.
The last bit - the checking of the predictions to confirm/deny the deductive argument - is the inductive confirmation. The more times the theory works, the more justified becomes our belief that it must be true. — apokrisis
Deduction - as abstract syntax - works when firmly anchored in the pragmatism of learning from the world so as to be able to live in that world. But knowledge, truth and facts aren't literally the objects of some other world. — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.