It seems to me that a better experiment could have been performed to show if babies are aware of quantities. It seems to me that we would need to know how the baby forms categories, as in there being a quantity of balls or a quantity of the color red or blue. — Harry Hindu
You’re going to go get your keys, you know beforehand and therefore a priori the keys are on the table because you put them there, but you have yet the experience of picking them up from the table, so you don’t yet have the knowledge a posteriori that in fact they are there. — Mww
In Kant but missing from Hume and Enlightenment empiricists in general, on the other hand....and for whatever it’s worth....is the notion of “pure” a priori knowledge, that in which there is no element of experience whatsoever, and these are principles, most obvious in geometry and propositional logic. The beginning of a very complex story indeed, and to some hardly worth the effort and consternation, considering the result. — Mww
It doesn't make sense to call knowledge a priori if it's dependent on knowledge based on experience. I don't see how that is different from what is called a posteriori knowledge. — T Clark
So I know the keys are on the table because I remember leaving them there. — T Clark
What you are calling pure a priori sounds like analytic. — T Clark
Philosophy is irrelevant then, so I disagree. It actually matters a lot to me. OK, it being true in this universe is enough for a priori knowledge, but I’m interested in it being objectively true.As I said, the sum of two and two is true in this universe. Whether it is not true somewhere else is irrelevant. — Harry Hindu
That would be a disappointment, but barring an example, I suspect otherwise.Something else would be true in the other universe, like 2+2≠ 4
You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed.:brow: Seriously? You really think that there was ever a chance that you could have been a bug?
I said I (the self) could no more be a bug than it could be me. I denied its existence. There is nothing ‘being’ me.Anyway, the 'I' in that question is the self again, and if you deny the existence of it, the improbability goes away. — noAxioms
Even that makes no sense. How can say a cat be a dog? A thing is what it is and cannot meaningfully be something else.Your Paul Simon quote isn't saying anything other than "I wish that I could be a different I".
That’s why your physical appearance is what it is, which wasn’t the question. The question asks why you look out of Harry’s eyes and not the eyes of another. The question makes no sense outside of a dualistic context since under monism it is tautological that a creature looks out of its own eyes (exceptions to robots with bluetooth).Why am I me? Because a unique arrangement of half of my mother's genes and a unique arrangement of half of my father's genes were fused together to make the unique me. We are all unique outcomes of different halves of our mother's and father's genes.
I think there's been a major distraction here. Kant wasn't concerned with whether we had hard wired empirical data in our brains, like if we have an innate fear of falling and instinctively cover our heads when we fall, or if infants instinctively turn their head to locate the nipple when the cheek is stroked. — Hanover
pure vs. impure. — T Clark
My preference would be that we focus on the general question of what can we know without empirical knowledge — T Clark
The pure/impure is Kantian terminology specifically, meant to show the distinctions in what can be considered a priori — Mww
It seems to me that your understanding isn't an understanding at all if you are unable to communicate it without contradicting yourself. It seems as if you are the one that needs to search for the publications and read them if you want to make an argument against anything that I've said (like experience is quantifiable).I was just reporting my understanding of how the tests were performed. If you'd like more detail, I'm sure it's published somewhere. — T Clark
Philosophy is irrelevant then, so I disagree. It actually matters a lot to me. OK, it being true in this universe is enough for a priori knowledge, but I’m interested in it being objectively true. — noAxioms
If there is more than one universe then are we not already acknowledging that there are a number of universes, and that there might be different universes where there are two universes in which 2+4=4 and 2 in which 2+2=7, but there are 2+2=4 total universes?That would be a disappointment, but barring an example, I suspect otherwise. — noAxioms
Because you are assuming that there is an I that is separate from the individual (dualism). The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all.You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed. — noAxioms
Dualism is not an instinct. Babies are born solipsists. Most animals are solipsists. Solipsism is instinctual. After a period of mental development, babies become realists in realizing object permanence (that objects continue to exist even when not being observed or thought about).I said I (the self) could no more be a bug than it could be me. I denied its existence. There is nothing ‘being’ me.
The point of the example was to illustrate that everybody knows what Paul Simon meant by those lyrics. People have a dualistic instinct, a lie that is pretty much impossible to disbelieve.
Without it, the lyrics don’t make any sense since X is X (a tautology) and cannot be Y. But it makes sense to suggest the experiencer of X were to experience Y instead. — noAxioms
There is no lottery. There is no luck. Things happen for a reason (prior causes or pre-existing conditions). If something else happened instead then you wouldn't be here asking these questions. Someone else would be.Yes, given dualism, there are a lot more non-human things to be (bugs being one example) and thus odds of winning the ‘human lottery’ are suspiciously low. Some get out of this via anthropocentric assertions, that humans are special this way. Questioning the lie is often not an option. — noAxioms
That was my point. Either way you put the question, it's a silly question given that we know that you are the outcome of a particular sex act between two specific people and the subsequent development (life experiences) without which you wouldn't exist at all, not that you'd be something else - as if that were ever possible. It isn't.Even that makes no sense. How can say a cat be a dog? A thing is what it is and cannot meaningfully be something else. — noAxioms
Well, yes, which is why I said you need to abandon dualism if you want to avoid asking silly questions that simply don't take into account what we know today in modern times when religion and it's dualistic thinking is on the decline and replaced with scientific theories of biology, genetics and evolution.That’s why your physical appearance is what it is, which wasn’t the question. The question asks why you look out of Harry’s eyes and not the eyes of another. The question makes no sense outside of a dualistic context since under monism it is tautological that a creature looks out of its own eyes (exceptions to robots with bluetooth). — noAxioms
The pure/impure is Kantian terminology specifically, meant to show the distinctions in what can be considered a priori. The thing with the keys shows there is a kind of a priori in common usage but hardly recognized as such, but it is the other kind of much more importance, that being, absent any element of experience whatsoever, that is, pure, which if not from experience, must the be from reason itself. Your list of a priori conditions on pg 1 are both kinds, but without the distinction of which is which. Conventionally speaking, that is sufficient, insofar as conventionally no one cares, but both scientifically and metaphysically speaking, it is very far from it. And, of course, you did ask a metaphysical question after all, so......just thought I’d weigh in. Or.....wade in, more like it. — Mww
Do you think there has been a satisfactory answer to that? — Mww
The question, "why am I me?" is a meaningless question (many philosophical questions are) if you understand that you are the result of a causal chain of events, and that if there was a different chain of events, it would not be that you would be some one else, rather you wouldn't exist at all. — Harry Hindu
So Kant's pure reason is a priori reason? — Haglund
many people use the term "a priori" to mean something that can be known without justification. — T Clark
That would be a meaningless question if the sum of two and two is not objectively meaningful. You’re asking an objective question there, not one related to a particular set of laws.If there is more than one universe then are we not already acknowledging that there are a number of universes, and that there might be different universes where there are two universes in which 2+4=4 and 2 in which 2+2=7, but there are 2+2=4 total universes? — Harry Hindu
I suppose in the universe where 2+2=7, there would objectively be 7 universes, but we’d count only 4. That sounds like a contradiction since it is an objective quantity being discussed, not a quantity of anything that is part of one universe or another. That’s fair evidence that 2+2 objectively is 4, but I’ve not enough of a formal mathematical background to assess the validity of that argument.Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe?
The question assumes that, yes. Hence I rationally reject the question as either meaningless or begging. The question “why is there something and not nothing” is similarly meaningless/begging, and is why I abandoned the realism that it begs.You misunderstood what I wrote then. I was trying to illustrate why the ‘why am I me’ question is baffling only if dualism is assumed.
— noAxioms
Because you are assuming that there is an I that is separate from the individual (dualism).
I might agree with the solipsism thing, but my suspicion is that language is what then introduces the dualism, just like it introduces object identity and reinforces presentism, something that babies/animals already have. Religion (organized religion at least) is just a parasitical entity evolved to prey on these beliefs and the natural resistance to death.Dualism is indoctrinated at an early age with the introduction of religion (soul vs body).
Yes, warm fuzzies so you can sleep. Most people rationalize the lies rather than rationally analyze them, but most people don’t give a philosophy forum a second thought.The notion that you can exist independently of your body is a delusion created as way to deal with the knowledge of your death.
Agree, but you expressed incredulity about the bug, so I thought I’d explain from where that idea came.There is no lottery. There is no luck.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I can say that same about you. :up:Just wanted to say thanks for the dialog. You’re one of the single digit of posters whose feedback I’d not lightly dismiss, even if I’m in total disagreement with a few of them. — noAxioms
My profile actually says that my location is Indonesian fields, not necessarily that I am Indonesian, but then don't believe everything that you read on a person's profile. :wink:Your profile says you're Indonesian, not an "American white guy". — noAxioms
For it to be objective, it would have to be true regardless of what is true in each universe. It would be true outside of all the universes. If there is only one universe, then there isn't a problem.That would be a meaningless question if the sum of two and two is not objectively meaningful. You’re asking an objective question there, not one related to a particular set of laws.
You said that 2+2=4 is true in our universe, which I’ll call U0. So U0 → 2+2=4
But I’m going for a relation in the other direction: 2+2=4 → U0, U1, etc.
If mathematical law holds objectively and not just relative to our universe, then I can explain the existence relative to us of our universe. That’s why I’m interested in it being objectively true. It has been a weak point in my argument.
Would it make any sense at all to say that we can add 2 universes to 2 other universes to get 4 universes yet 2+2 does not equal 4 in a certain universe?
I suppose in the universe where 2+2=7, there would objectively be 7 universes, but we’d count only 4. That sounds like a contradiction since it is an objective quantity being discussed, not a quantity of anything that is part of one universe or another. That’s fair evidence that 2+2 objectively is 4, but I’ve not enough of a formal mathematical background to assess the validity of that argument. — noAxioms
For me, it is the ironing out of the self-contradictory beliefs that make me fit. All knowledge must be integrated. It's more likely that your self-contradictory beliefs have no bearing on your goal to survive, which is why you can hold them and still survive. When you actually apply those beliefs to goals that they have an impact on, then you will find that your goals cannot be realized.I obviously hold multiple self-contradictory beliefs. As I said, the lies make you fit, and I’d not survive the day without them. — noAxioms
That's the thing that we need to iron out. Is our goal to feel warm fuzzies and cope with the reality of life, or is to acquire true knowledge of reality? When we are discussing what is the case independent of ourselves, then bringing your emotional state into the discussion isn't useful at all.Yes, warm fuzzies so you can sleep. Most people rationalize the lies rather than rationally analyze them, but most people don’t give a philosophy forum a second thought.
I’ve watched my mother rewrite her memories as a method of holding on to the warm fuzzies. It’s harder to see yourself do it, but it’s a necessary coping mechanism. Humans are excellent at rationalizing, but incredibly poor at rational thought. I struggle to be otherwise, and maybe even fool myself into thinking I’m on some kind of right track, but deeper down I realize that’s probably a rationalized conclusion. Go figure. — noAxioms
You seem to be describing the difference between belief and knowledge, not different kinds of knowledge. Beliefs seem to be those interpretations of sensory data from a single sense, while knowledge seems to include justification from all the senses. How do you know that you were bitten if you don't know what bit you? After all, it could be that you stepped in a claw-trap. You interpreted a single sensory perception (tactile) based on previous experiences of being bit, rather than confirming with your eyes what the source of the tactile sensation is. When you use your eyes, you are getting real-time information about the circumstances, not from the past in the form of memories or past experiences.The Greeks liked to divide knowledge into knowledge of and knowledge that. Russell called it knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. Either way, the dichotomy reduces to knowledge before submission to the cognitive system and knowledge as a result of the system. Like..... I know I just got bit, but I don’t know what bit me. That I got bit is not something the least a priori knowledge, for it is an affect of some kind on the senses, and if I don’t know what bit me, that can’t be a priori because it isn’t anything.
Regardless, if one thinks knowledge to be a relative condition of certainty, that is only possible by being justified by something. — Mww
I am not sure if I have posted a comment before in this thread but the answer is simple. Watch a toddler...when we come to this world, we know nothing. Our culture expanding through time, provide us with all the axioms and principles etc realized by previous generations.
ALL our knowledge is empirical. All are axioms are tested empirically every time we use them. Even logic has rules that are grounded in the empirical ''face" of the reality we experience.
You won't be able to point to "a priori, self-evident, intuitive, obvious, and common sense." without first experiencing and interacting with other members empirically. — Nickolasgaspar
Acquisition of what amounts to a measurement of an unmeasurable thing is of little concern to me. Not being a realist, I don’t give meaning to realist statements like “there are X many universes”, be X 0, 1, some other number, finite or otherwise. My universe is confined to a limited distance. That’s a relation relative to any given event (physics definition) in my life.It's like saying that in one universe there is only one universe, when there are actually many. How would you acquire the truth if not by leaving this universe and going to another? — Harry Hindu
Tegmark listed four different ways to do that. His first is the kind I referenced above, a set of finite sized hyperspheres that overlap, separated only by distance. That’s four different ways to define a cat.What qualifies a universe to be a universe, or part of the category, "universe"?
I’d have said that abstract is abstract and there is no cat until something names/models it. The word cat is strictly a mental construction. So are atoms if you come right down to it, but at least atom has a physics definition that the cat lacks. I’m not asserting anything here, just giving my thoughts.So the question is, do (mental) categories exist independent of minds? Are categories objective features of reality?
The lies have a huge bearing on my ability to survive. So it must be the rational beliefs, far more likely to be true, that have no bearing. I’d say they do, but the rational side isn’t in charge, but instead has a decent advisory role for matters where the boss hasn’t a strong opinion. Fermi paradox solution: Any sufficiently advanced race eventually puts its rational side sufficiently in charge to cease being fit.It's more likely that your self-contradictory beliefs have no bearing on your goal to survive, which is why you can hold them and still survive.
I have to admit that the rational side is like an engineer, not having goals of its own, but rather is something called upon to better meet the goals of its employer, even in cases where the goals are based on known lies. But I’m not sure whose goals you think are not being realized. They’re working on ‘live forever’.When you actually apply those beliefs to goals that they have an impact on, then you will find that your goals cannot be realized.
OK, there’s a rational goal, since I rationally want to do the latter. Surprisingly, there are warm fuzzies on that road as well, despite the denial of that possibility from the theists, who assert oblivion as the only alternative to eternal orgasm in the sky.That's the thing that we need to iron out. Is our goal to feel warm fuzzies and cope with the reality of life, or is to acquire true knowledge of reality?
We've been modern humans for only a short time. Our current morals are only a few generations old. Yes, there are some crude rules built into our instinct, but siblings regularly do some pretty cruel things to each other, so it's a stretch to say the morals are an evolutionary product instead of a product of society, and a rapidly changing one at that.Yes Human brains have the capacity for numerical and moral judgments, grammar etc. After all we are the evolutionary product of billion of generations interacting empirically with their environment and its rules. — Nickolasgaspar
ALL our knowledge is empirical. — Nickolasgaspar
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.