Notes on A Priori Knowledge

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

Quote:

nameless - Science knows nothing to be true with absolute certainty

Isn't this statment self defeating? Or is it not a form of science that this statement is derived from?

Sorry to be off topic, I just enjoy statements like: 'Everything is relative'.

Pardon me, but belief in the relativity of truth seems to be widely held. So perhaps truth-claims now depend upon who makes the strongest argument or whoever convinces the most people or at least whoever convinces the most powerful people -? To put this another way: is the meaning of truth dependent upon whatever the most powerful people say that it is?

-

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

Pardon me, but belief in the relativity of truth seems to be widely held. So perhaps truth-claims now depend upon who makes the strongest argument or whoever convinces the most people or at least whoever convinces the most powerful people -? To put this another way: is the meaning of truth dependent upon whatever the most powerful people say that it is?

-

I don't guess truth is what people say but in the accuracy of their concepts in defining reality. The truth of every concept should be how well it works. If you can build a square out of a concept of a square your concept is true to reality. The truth itself is a social concept, and it is always bent subtly by the desires of people, but it can only be bent so far in regard to physical reality. If the beliefs people hold -keep them from looking for truth is a particular location where it might reside everyone has to hang up on finding it.

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

. Constructive knowledge is a result of man's ability to 'put two and two together', a capacity which the brutes do not have and I see no other source for this capacity but that it exists a priori.

--

Pythagorean,

I hesitate to even enter this thread as it may expose my ignorance, but the urge to dispell my ignorance outweighs my egoic pride.:p

Would you please expound on this statement in regard to "the brutes". Do you mean animals? There has been much scientific study of animal behavior, and to me seems that animals can comprehend universals, does that mean they are capable of abstractions and a priori knowledge?

As examples; I think of the african grey parot that can do math and differentiate color and shape. coco the gorilla who when its 'pet' kitten was killed was unconsoleable with the prospect of a new kitten, signing (sign language)that she did not want a new kitten, she wanted her pet back. Dolphins have exquisit abillity to understand language and syntax. Elephants apear to mourn thier dead.

thanks

@Pythagorean,

You said: "Philosophers who hold that experience is the only source of human knowledge ("empiricism") may, like John Stuart Mill, say that our conviction is nothing but a habit of association, built up by repeated observation that one property is conjoined with another, but a philosopher who holds such geometrical knowledge to be independent of experience, a priori ("rationalism"), retorts: If such were the case, why are we not convinced to an equal degree that all crows are black, or that all bodies have weight, or that the ground gets wet whenever it rains?"

I reply: Is there room for phenomenology here? I thought that had more to do with EXPERIENCE.

Empiricism brings us electrons, wavicles, the Planet Neptune, and many other things I cannot experience.

Is phenomenology a priori?

Is hunger, thirst, exhaustion a priori? Is my ability to sleep an a priori skill?

Billy

@Pythagorean,

I apologize for my statement in this thread. It was ill-founded and I mistook a negative statement for a positive one. If I could retract my post, I would.

I have a problem with all truth being relative because of the universality of our experience as human beings. If there is a priori knowledge, and this knowledge stems from necessity, for example, we must experience objects in space, then how can a statement we make on our a priori knowledge, like all experience must be in space, be a relative truth.

Or am I distorting what it means for something to be true?

------

nameless - Please ease off. I asked the question if it was self defeating because I didn't know if it was or not, I had no ulterior motive, especially that I would wait for someone to reply so I could play a 'nonsensical fallacious game'. It stemmed from hearing the phrase "There can be no objective truth", and thinking: wouldn't that be an objective truth? Anyways, I was wrong to make the statement, and realize that.

@de Silentio,

Quote:

nameless - Please ease off. I asked the question if it was self defeating because I didn't know if it was or not, I had no ulterior motive, especially that I would wait for someone to reply so I could play a 'nonsensical fallacious game'. It stemmed from hearing the phrase "There can be no objective truth", and thinking: wouldn't that be an objective truth? Anyways, I was wrong to make the statement, and realize that.

Now give him your lunch money.
[/COLOR]

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

Pythagorean,

I hesitate to even enter this thread as it may expose my ignorance, but the urge to dispell my ignorance outweighs my egoic pride.:p

Would you please expound on this statement in regard to "the brutes". Do you mean animals? There has been much scientific study of animal behavior, and to me seems that animals can comprehend universals, does that mean they are capable of abstractions and a priori knowledge?

As examples; I think of the african grey parot that can do math and differentiate color and shape. coco the gorilla who when its 'pet' kitten was killed was unconsoleable with the prospect of a new kitten, signing (sign language)that she did not want a new kitten, she wanted her pet back. Dolphins have exquisit abillity to understand language and syntax. Elephants apear to mourn thier dead.

thanks

Yes, Ogden when I say 'brutes' I do mean animals. And in my opinion animals do not posess the capacity for such reasoning. However, I think that many men seem to act like animals and so I can see how such confusion can arise.

I say that a priori reasoning is the ability to see truth and to produce a body of inferential knowledge based upon this truth-seeing ability. So it's not just the construction of rules or the following of such rules but the capacity to know why the rules exist and for what reason they are to be followed.

But that's just my little opinion. Our world can be a crazy place and I'm sure others will differ. Smile

@ogden,

ogden wrote:

Pythagorean,

I hesitate to even enter this thread as it may expose my ignorance, but the urge to dispell my ignorance outweighs my egoic pride.:p

Would you please expound on this statement in regard to "the brutes". Do you mean animals? There has been much scientific study of animal behavior, and to me seems that animals can comprehend universals, does that mean they are capable of abstractions and a priori knowledge?

As examples; I think of the african grey parot that can do math and differentiate color and shape. coco the gorilla who when its 'pet' kitten was killed was unconsoleable with the prospect of a new kitten, signing (sign language)that she did not want a new kitten, she wanted her pet back. Dolphins have exquisit abillity to understand language and syntax. Elephants apear to mourn thier dead.

thanks

Doing math is not the same as concieving of number. It is not being able to put two and two together that results in contructive knowledge, but the ability to concieve of a number, or number or anything for that matter. Conceptions are knowledge. Conceptions are judgements on the nature of reality. It does not matter that most of them are handed to us fully formed, and that for this reason people think there is some evidence of a'priori knowledge. Culture and society are a'priori knolwedge. We have all the ability when born as a parrot to count. We can add and subtract one, in real form. That is a long way from a conception of number.

Pythagorean wrote:

Yes, Ogden when I say 'brutes' I do mean animals. And in my opinion animals do not posess the capacity for such reasoning. However, I think that many men seem to act like animals and so I can see how such confusion can arise.

I say that a priori reasoning is the ability to see truth and to produce a body of inferential knowledge based upon this truth-seeing ability. So it's not just the construction of rules or the following of such rules but the capacity to know why the rules exist and for what reason they are to be followed.

But that's just my little opinion. Our world can be a crazy place and I'm sure others will differ.

If men act like animals it is always worse than animals because they use reason to accomplish goals that are driven by emotion without governance.

@Pythagorean,

Fido wrote:

If men act like animals it is always worse than animals because they use reason to accomplish goals that are driven by emotion without governance.

Well said, Fido.

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

Well said, Fido.

Thinks!!!!!!

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean;7186 wrote:

And in my opinion animals do not posess the capacity for such reasoning.

Actually, a recent finding is that monkeys can do (simple) math in their head as well as children, if it is not verbally related. AS WELL AS HUMAN CHILDREN!

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Actually, a recent finding is that monkeys can do (simple) math in their head as well as children, if it is not verbally related. AS WELL AS HUMAN CHILDREN!

It is not the same as a concept of numbers. People work with numbers long before they think of them as signifying a certain reality. Many people use words without an objective understanding of them as concepts. When a person can abstract from reality a certain number or word relationship they can use that for reasons purely their own, and draw their own conclusion having nothing to do with the questions asked. As always, the question remains of where the original knowledge comes from. Before anyone can even frame that question they have already amassed a great deal of cultural knowledge. We have to know before we can think, and the primary purpose of society is the transmission of knowledge between generations. No one does it alone. It is a group effort.

@Fido,

Fido;7199 wrote:

It is not the same as a concept of numbers. People work with numbers long before they think of them as signifying a certain reality.

The point was that monkeys, a species other than human, can entertain abstract reasoning. One less 'prop' for human vanity.

Quote:

Many people use words without an objective understanding of them as concepts.

Everyone does. There is no such thing as an 'objective understanding' as any 'ubderstanding' exists in the mind, a completely subjective perspective. All perspectives seem to be uniquely subjective. From this perspective.

Quote:

...the primary purpose of society is the transmission of knowledge between generations. No one does it alone. It is a group effort.

The 'primary purpose' of 'life' is to 'survive' and to 'reproduce'. 'Transmission of knowledge' is only of value to the extent that it aids in these functions, genetic survival and reproduction. All we are, from that perspective, is a gene's way of reproduction.

Quote:

As always, the question remains of where the original knowledge comes from.

All (knowledge) 'illusion' is 'perspective'. Perspective is placing import on a small view of the totality of possibilities, giving rise to the illusion that these certain possibilities are actualities and more, are 'truth' (the way that 'we' see 'things', the 'perspective' that we imagine to be 'self'.
Consciousness/Mind is One. That is where it all appears to 'happen'.

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

The point was that monkeys, a species other than human, can entertain abstract reasoning. One less 'prop' for human vanity.

Bushet. If they can't explain it there is nothing abstract about it. It is practical problem solving, and babies do it too. And they can move on to something bigger.

Quote:

Everyone does. There is no such thing as an 'objective understanding' as any 'ubderstanding' exists in the mind, a completely subjective perspective. All perspectives seem to be uniquely subjective. From this perspective.

If I can see the direction of math in physics books without understanding the meaning of all the symbols involved I cannot understand it objectively. I can understand it in part, but not myself present it as it is presented to me, as an objective whole. In the example above, of the monkey: if the monkey can grasp that another group is larger than its own, it does not mean that it could do the math in regard to the larger numbers; nor could he objectively explain it. We sense much that we do not understand, but I doubt that we truely understand anything we cannot translate and express in some other fashion.

Quote:

The 'primary purpose' of 'life' is to 'survive' and to 'reproduce'. 'Transmission of knowledge' is only of value to the extent that it aids in these functions, genetic survival and reproduction. All we are, from that perspective, is a gene's way of reproduction.

We are both the product of our genes and the product of our understanding, and very few of us have any grasp of the technology upon which our lives depend. In various ways I have been trying to tan leather. Everyone uses leather, and Americans far more than the average six square inches per human. In one way or another I have failed at this, and right at this moment have in mind a road kill I may get for that very purpose. This is just one thing, very labor intensive, and time consuming. And since it is handed to us we do not think of it. We do not know what it takes, how people once survived, and how food gets on out table, or how things are made. We live in advanced wide spread societies that are cooperative in nature which are always adding to the technology and just as quickely forgetting it. No one knows it all. People follow their interests, get a job, learn what they must, and ignore the rest. But we could not live without it. And we cannot live without an electric cord or cheap energy. We have got it all and most of us think it is our right, and that it is somehow ours. It is given by the past, one step before the other, just as our language and knowledge of an abstract kind. All we have to do is reproduce and hand off our knowledge to another generation. How tough is that.

Quote:

All (knowledge) 'illusion' is 'perspective'. Perspective is placing import on a small view of the totality of possibilities, giving rise to the illusion that these certain possibilities are actualities and more, are 'truth' (the way that 'we' see 'things', the 'perspective' that we imagine to be 'self'.
Consciousness/Mind is One. That is where it all appears to 'happen'.

Knowledge is the ability to reproduce reality from our concepts of it. Just in case civilization isn't there for you tomorrow; don't you think you might want to learn to make a stone tool or two.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Bushet. If they can't explain it there is nothing abstract about it.

Its here; Chimps Do Numbers Better Than Humans
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 03 December 2007 10:10 am ET if you're interested.

Quote:

We are both the product of our genes and the product of our understanding,

I can understand that perspective, I don't share it.

Quote:

and very few of us have any grasp of the technology upon which our lives depend.

Yes, Americans, at least, graduate from school horribly ignorant and completely uneducated in science or critical thought.

Quote:

In various ways I have been trying to tan leather. Everyone uses leather, and Americans far more than the average six square inches per human. In one way or another I have failed at this, and right at this moment have in mind a road kill I may get for that very purpose. This is just one thing, very labor intensive, and time consuming.

There are simple ways, and lots of books describibg them. Oops, that was when we actually cut down trees to make paper and books. The net is chockfull 'o info on tanning. Yes, at times it is labor intensive.

Quote:

And since it is handed to us we do not think of it. We do not know what it takes, how people once survived, and how food gets on out table, or how things are made.

How much of this do we really need to know anyway. I can buy leather all over the place, rawhide to tanned and finished.. even embossed. I'm glad that unless artistically compelled, I can buy it and utilise my time in more 'creative' ways. We have 'grunts' to do the 'gruntwork', thank Dog! Often the 'grunts' are now mechines (when they aren't in high school *__- ).

Quote:

...All we have to do is reproduce and hand off our knowledge to another generation. How tough is that.

I understand the perspective, I just do not share it. (We 'have to do' exactly as we do!)

Quote:

Knowledge is the ability to reproduce reality from our concepts of it.

That is 'your' definition, not mine. We have been through this hoop before. You cannot seperate/reproduce your concepts from themselves. All you have is a 'concept' of an objective seeming 'reality' 'out there'. You cannot demonstrate sucessfully that there is actually an 'out there'.

Quote:

Just in case civilization isn't there for you tomorrow; don't you think you might want to learn to make a stone tool or two.

I hate to get 'personal' here, but I have 'collected skills' all my life. I have been a bladesmith/blacksmith for decades. I can make about any tool needed to build a community and help it function comfortably; from knives to pliers and shovels, saws to lathes. I can cast metal. I work with wood, from carving sculpture to building houses. I have tanned my share of leather. The list is long after half a century. I have also made knapped stone tools (knives and axes, mortars, jewelry..) The first knife that I made was, when 8 years old, from an old stone in the yard. That 'trail' ended with pattern-welded damascus steel. I have also carved tools from antler and ivory, so, 'civilisation' (hah!) can take a dump any time that it does, y'all be comming to me with your pigs and wheat and daughters to trade for my knowledge and work. I'm good with it all.
Egoic rant ended.
*__-

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Its here; Chimps Do Numbers Better Than Humans
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience
posted: 03 December 2007 10:10 am ET if you're interested.

I can understand that perspective, I don't share it.

Yes, Americans, at least, graduate from school horribly ignorant and completely uneducated in science or critical thought.

There are simple ways, and lots of books describibg them. Oops, that was when we actually cut down trees to make paper and books. The net is chockfull 'o info on tanning. Yes, at times it is labor intensive.

How much of this do we really need to know anyway. I can buy leather all over the place, rawhide to tanned and finished.. even embossed. I'm glad that unless artistically compelled, I can buy it and utilise my time in more 'creative' ways. We have 'grunts' to do the 'gruntwork', thank Dog! Often the 'grunts' are now mechines (when they aren't in high school *__- ).

I understand the perspective, I just do not share it. (We 'have to do' exactly as we do!)

That is 'your' definition, not mine. We have been through this hoop before. You cannot seperate/reproduce your concepts from themselves. All you have is a 'concept' of an objective seeming 'reality' 'out there'. You cannot demonstrate sucessfully that there is actually an 'out there'.

I hate to get 'personal' here, but I have 'collected skills' all my life. I have been a bladesmith/blacksmith for decades. I can make about any tool needed to build a community and help it function comfortably; from knives to pliers and shovels, saws to lathes. I can cast metal. I work with wood, from carving sculpture to building houses. I have tanned my share of leather. The list is long after half a century. I have also made knapped stone tools (knives and axes, mortars, jewelry..) The first knife that I made was, when 8 years old, from an old stone in the yard. That 'trail' ended with pattern-welded damascus steel. I have also carved tools from antler and ivory, so, 'civilisation' (hah!) can take a dump any time that it does, y'all be comming to me with your pigs and wheat and daughters to trade for my knowledge and work. I'm good with it all.
Egoic rant ended.
*__-

Cool; but since you seem to have added your share to the 'out there' what is your need to prove it?

@Fido,

Fido;7206 wrote:

Cool; but since you seem to have added your share to the 'out there' what is your need to prove it?

It is only in appearances that I 'exist', much less that I have actually 'done' anything. It is a game of 'make-believe'. And the egoic rant was in response to your comment about me learning lithic technology. The point was that I already live there. Besides, I seriously truncated the list, anyway! I take no prideful credit for anything, I have no responsibility, yet that in no way diminishes the joy. I was responding in the same spirit of 'make-believe' as your statement.
Bye the bye, I never respond from 'need'. I respond because that is what I do, when I do. I have no choice in the matter. Unless you want to translate 'our need to write' as 'we have no choice but to write when we write'. In that sense, I 'need' to, we 'need' to, without the emotional and psychological perspective.
Happy Holidays

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Perspective is placing import on a small view of the totality of possibilities, giving rise to the illusion that these certain possibilities are actualities and more, are 'truth' (the way that 'we' see 'things', the 'perspective' that we imagine to be 'self'.

Wow! I really like that! It seems so true to me.

Is there anyone I can attribute it to?

Billy

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean wrote:

I say that a priori reasoning is the ability to see truth and to produce a body of inferential knowledge based upon this truth-seeing ability. So it's not just the construction of rules or the following of such rules but the capacity to know why the rules exist and for what reason they are to be followed.

Pythagorean, greatings

Please help me understand. I almost had it, then I was confused again. I thought a priori was rationalism independant of experience. Rational implies logic and reason, and isnt math deductive reasoning?

You previously posted that constructive knowledge (putting two and to together) was a "human only" ability and that you saw no other source for constructive knowledge exept that it be a priori. when I posited that animals can put to and two together, that still wasnt a priori reasoning (until they produce a body of inferential knowledge). Is there a difference between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning?

I dont intend to be difficult, I just want to understand as best I can. Surprised

I know of an example where a scientist was observing banobo chimps when an injured bird was discoverd by said primate. The chimp took the bird to the top of a tree and threw it into the air repeatedly, as if to help it fly. Does not this show that the chimp made an inference; that it identified the creature as a bird and birds fly; therefore this bird should fly? It may also reveal altruism. (Perhaps someone could help me out with a better example.)

Must a chimp have a library card to get any respect?:p Is it posible that we may be under-aprecciating animal cognition due to our preconcieved humanistic ideas about them?

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

It is only in appearances that I 'exist', much less that I have actually 'done' anything. It is a game of 'make-believe'. And the egoic rant was in response to your comment about me learning lithic technology. The point was that I already live there. Besides, I seriously truncated the list, anyway! I take no prideful credit for anything, I have no responsibility, yet that in no way diminishes the joy. I was responding in the same spirit of 'make-believe' as your statement.
Bye the bye, I never respond from 'need'. I respond because that is what I do, when I do. I have no choice in the matter. Unless you want to translate 'our need to write' as 'we have no choice but to write when we write'. In that sense, I 'need' to, we 'need' to, without the emotional and psychological perspective.
Happy Holidays

You are missing the best part of life equating it with make believe. As long as you are stuck on that point you cannot make any progress. What is the point of denying what everyone takes as the ultimate of truth? Has it resulted in any other great discovery for you other than your own meaninglessness? I cannot deny reality because I feel it. The most difficult thing for any person to do, and the most detructive thing they can do, is to deny their emotions. I have an emotional sense of my being and the being around me, that is appearantly shared by all but you. How did you reach this point of self denial? It seems that you have tried to be by doing, and that works for me as well. I have done so I cannot be undone; and yet I have risked my life to erect buildings I have lived to see torn down. What have I done that is eternal? Nothing. It is the attempt to latch hold of the eternal and the real that makes us both, and nothing other. We do as we can.

Philosophy Forum

Notes on A Priori Knowledge

Quick Links

My Account

able2know