Well, this is something like what we are doing in philosophy, rather than what people are doing when they come to know things. It's what some philosophers do when they're trying to work out what knowledge is. — jamalrob
This suggests you understood the process to be one that's proposed to be undertaken by people generally, when they come to know things, and not as part of philosophical examination. — jamalrob
I'm not even sure it makes sense to call it knowledge. — T Clark
You think the innate concept of quantity, undeniably present in animals, is an innate knowledge of math? — Haglund
Construct zillions of relationships between them. That evolves. Giving a priori knowledge of the world. Einstein never saw curved spacetime. He had a priori knowledge of black holes. A baby has a lot of instinctive knowledge about the world when pooped in it. It has too. Without a priori, tacit, instinctive, intuitive, knowledge, necessarily vague still, it won't be possible to continue living — Haglund
It seems self-evident to me that knowing things and asking "how do we know things?" are qualitatively different. — jamalrob
Grouping all of this stuff under the same term is surely just a historical artifact. Just say no to epistemology. — jamalrob
If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness — SpaceDweller
That doesn't make sense to me — T Clark
If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness, does that count as knowledge of some sort? — SpaceDweller
That's design, not a priori knowledge. Design is applying principles I've learned elsewhere to a new situation. — T Clark
It's design, true. But you need to know in advance if your design won't crumble on construction. In other words, you have to know in advance, a priori, what the new construction must be about, more or less. Of course you have seen trees over a river, but to base your bridge on a fallen tree... There has to be, somewhat vague still, premeditated knowledge of some sort. Your design will influence your knowledge and vice-versa. True, some based on previous encounters, but new a priori too (which may turn out good or bad, like the resonating of the bridge. — Haglund
For instance, mathematicians need not concern themselves with whether numbers exist independently of the mind. The question is non-mathematical. — jamalrob
It's not exactly clear though what you mean about a priori knowledge and what kind of knowledge you refer to. You give a lot of definitions from the web, but its still somewhat unclear to me. — Haglund
The purpose of this thread is to thrash this out among ourselves. I'm doing the best I can to be clear, but some vagueness and confusion is to be expected. — T Clark
a priori knowledge is supposed to be theoretical right? — SpaceDweller
It would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category.I actually question everything, even 2+2=4. Is it objectively true, or is it perhaps only a property of the physics or mathematics of say this universe, and doesn't work in another one? I cannot think of a reasonable counterexample, but that very issue seems to be one of the weakest links in my goal of finding a self-consistent view of how things are. — noAxioms
Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about. What makes reproduction not beneficial to an individual? Wouldn't that depend on the goal we're talking about?On the surface, how about "reproduction is beneficial"? It certainly doesn't benefit the individual. There are plenty of humans living more comfortable lives by becoming voluntarily sterile, but for the most part, reproduction is quite instinctual which is why the above goal can rarely be achieved via just abstinence. — noAxioms
Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial. — noAxioms
Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, like I said, and from there we develop symbols for communicating these quantifiable experiences.There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it. — T Clark
There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark
Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, — Harry Hindu
Maybe so, but besides the point, which is: there are falsehoods which we believe and find intuitive. Some are deep enough that I know they're wrong, yet still believe them, which sounds oddly contradictory.I think maybe you're overusing the word "instinct." — T Clark
OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'?[2+2=4] would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category. — Harry Hindu
Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion.Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about.
I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself.At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial.
— noAxioms
Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?
Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool? — Harry Hindu
There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark
Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable,
— Harry Hindu
What I wrote and what you wrote don't seem to me to be the same thing. — T Clark
Using an omnipotent god as an example is quite a stretch as the phrase, "omnipotent god" brings a whole host of other problems into the mix.OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'? — noAxioms
Yes, but if a species doesn't reproduce which requires individuals within a species to do just that, then the species dies out. Reproducing isn't just the sex and the birth. It requires the raising of the young to a reproductive age, or else you haven't reproduced even at the level of species because if all the offspring of a new generation die then the existence of the species is threatened.Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion. — noAxioms
What is the difference between an individual and a self? Do individuals exist? If so, and they are synonymous with selves, then selves exist. I don't see what the lie is that you are referring to.I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself. — noAxioms
Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity — Harry Hindu
It's a dogma, an unproven conjecture, that evolution progresses by accidental mutations of the genes. There is zero evidence that this is generally the case — Haglund
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.