Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A mystery, of a priori knowledge

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:29:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think it's inherent knowledge per se, but more, inherent ways of thinking.

In other words, although we consider logic (a priori knowledge) abstract and conceptual, it is every bit as real as emotion.

It doesn't need to be infallible to exist. ^_^
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:36:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:29:13 AM, Ren wrote:
I don't think it's inherent knowledge per se, but more, inherent ways of thinking.

In other words, although we consider logic (a priori knowledge) abstract and conceptual, it is every bit as real as emotion.

It doesn't need to be infallible to exist. ^_^

I didn;t say anything about logic here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 8:49:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:36:46 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:29:13 AM, Ren wrote:
I don't think it's inherent knowledge per se, but more, inherent ways of thinking.

In other words, although we consider logic (a priori knowledge) abstract and conceptual, it is every bit as real as emotion.

It doesn't need to be infallible to exist. ^_^

I didn;t say anything about logic here.

http://i193.photobucket.com...

http://www.bu.edu...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:00:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:49:51 AM, Ren wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:36:46 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:29:13 AM, Ren wrote:
I don't think it's inherent knowledge per se, but more, inherent ways of thinking.

In other words, although we consider logic (a priori knowledge) abstract and conceptual, it is every bit as real as emotion.

It doesn't need to be infallible to exist. ^_^

I didn;t say anything about logic here.

http://i193.photobucket.com...

http://www.bu.edu...

You can't appeal to authority anyways. That guy confused the language with the reality.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 9:38:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The mind is like a computer, Priori is the OS.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 12:47:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 9:38:56 AM, CrazyPerson wrote:
The mind is like a computer, Priori is the OS.

The Fool: yeah that is what was getting at, but also the fact that the OS gets updated,
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.

Ever read anything by John Lilly? Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer has some potential answers.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:36:53 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.

Ever read anything by John Lilly? Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer has some potential answers.

In what sense does it answer the account of mind?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:44:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:38:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:53 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.

Ever read anything by John Lilly? Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer has some potential answers.

In what sense does it answer the account of mind?

I don't know if i fully understand the question. But it essentially maps out the physical brain and locates points of physical-mental connection by which one can presumably enter mentally and alter certain imprints or behaviors. But of course, Lilly explains it quite well.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 1:48:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:44:17 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:38:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:53 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.

Ever read anything by John Lilly? Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer has some potential answers.

In what sense does it answer the account of mind?

I don't know if i fully understand the question. But it essentially maps out the physical brain and locates points of physical-mental connection by which one can presumably enter mentally and alter certain imprints or behaviors. But of course, Lilly explains it quite well.

I am a graduate student in Cognitive Science. With specialization in philosophy of mind. WE are not even close to that potential yet. It must be Sci-fi.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:03:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 1:48:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:44:17 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:38:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:53 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/16/2012 1:36:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The mystery is how do they get updates, A Niave empirist will say the phyiscal causes the mind. But that is not a rational, another, its pure ignorance. There is nothing logically warranting the leap.

Ever read anything by John Lilly? Programming and Metaprogramming the Human Biocomputer has some potential answers.

In what sense does it answer the account of mind?

I don't know if i fully understand the question. But it essentially maps out the physical brain and locates points of physical-mental connection by which one can presumably enter mentally and alter certain imprints or behaviors. But of course, Lilly explains it quite well.

I am a graduate student in Cognitive Science. With specialization in philosophy of mind. WE are not even close to that potential yet. It must be Sci-fi.

Dude, what school did you go to.. they didn't teach about Lilly??? Did you at least learn about Leary's consciousness theories? It is far from fiction, I seriously recommend you read at least some of it.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:04:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"my teachers and i never figured it out so it MUST be fiction!"
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mind
Mind, which is defined as the sum total of all the programs and metaprograms (and even supraself metaprograms) of a human biocomputer.[4] This is the software and is looked at as the opposite of the hardware.
Brain
The brain is defined as the visible, palpable living set of structures to be included in the human biocomputer.[5]
Stored programs
A stored program is defined as a set of instructions which are placed in memory storage of the biocomputer, and which control the biocomputer when orders are given for that program to be activated.[6] These programs can be activated by the same biocomputer, another biocomputer, or a situation outside of the biocomputer.
Metaprogramming
Metaprogramming is defined as a set of instructions, descriptions, and implementations of related thoughts and actions(programs).[7] Self metaprogramming involves the creation, revision, and reorganization of programs and metaprograms.[7]
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:06:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Its a map, a map of things we already know about and how to manipulate the psychology within it.. It's like fundamental Cognitive Science.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:44:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 2:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Its a map, a map of things we already know about and how to manipulate the psychology within it.. It's like fundamental Cognitive Science.

NO no that is a bit Sci Fi. We are not even close to conscious computer for more complicated reason that I may discuss another time but I have to do some thing. Bring it up agian sometime.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:49:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
just check the book out.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 2:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 2:44:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 2:06:12 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Its a map, a map of things we already know about and how to manipulate the psychology within it.. It's like fundamental Cognitive Science.


Oh yeah sorry I checked it out. It a modal of explaining the Human as a computer and they are for the most part right, it doesn't captuer conscousness, experience or intention.

But there is also a catch 22. about it. I will take about it later.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.

Why is that? You have never heard of that?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:35:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.

If you sever the spinal cord of a cat near the mid-section and put it on a treadmill, the cats legs will walk using reflex systems stored entirely in the spinal cord.

Would you consider a cats ability to walk even without input from the brain a priori knowledge?
tarkovsky
Posts: 212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:36:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's not that the actual information is stored in DNA, it's that certain aspects of DNA will influence the individuals psycho-emotional makeup. DNA stores the information that codes for proteins which will inevitably have some bearing on how that individual develops. Therefore, should an individual already have certain mental faculties at birth, it is because the particular 'organization' of that individual, realized during the prenatal growth processes and governed by the direct and peripheral behavior of DNA, is such that that it contains certain physico-psychological predispositions.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:42:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:35:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.

If you sever the spinal cord of a cat near the mid-section and put it on a treadmill, the cats legs will walk using reflex systems stored entirely in the spinal cord.

Would you consider a cats ability to walk even without input from the brain a priori knowledge?

Are you here for hate. Its a really popular claim, new born horses have intention.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:45:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:42:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:35:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.

If you sever the spinal cord of a cat near the mid-section and put it on a treadmill, the cats legs will walk using reflex systems stored entirely in the spinal cord.

Would you consider a cats ability to walk even without input from the brain a priori knowledge?

Are you here for hate. Its a really popular claim, new born horses have intention.

You want to discuss how "a priori knowledge" might be biologically transmitted through generations.

Part of that will be determining whether innate biological processes independent of the brain should be counted as "a priori knowledge."

It's related to the question of whether complex muscle reflexes would fall under what you call "a priori knowlege."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:48:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:36:26 PM, tarkovsky wrote:
It's not that the actual information is stored in DNA, it's that certain aspects of DNA will influence the individuals psycho-emotional makeup.
DNA stores the information that codes for proteins which will inevitably have some bearing on how that individual develops.

The Fool: Well that is quite big claim but I don't think we have it that easy, and again, you are not accounting for mind. You assuming Niavely that it just pops up.

Therefore, should an individual already have certain mental faculties at birth, it is because the particular 'organization' of that individual, realized during the prenatal growth processes and governed by the direct and peripheral behavior of DNA, is such that that it contains certain physico-psychological predispositions.

No that I why I wrote that people can't explain it by purley physical mean with out have to make a unwarrented jump from physical to mind.

The Fool: Seconly we are no way near accounting for that kind of complexity from DNA information as of yet. Its bold assertion for now
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 3:56:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:45:19 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:42:58 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:35:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:33:12 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:21:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/16/2012 8:14:01 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Some people seem confused about what a priori means, its refers to knowledge that we have built in in our system before having experienced anything. For example certain animals can walk right after they are born. Babies are born with the ability to recognize faces, and they can recognize tastes.

We are not born as complete Tabula Rasa's Aka ‘a blank slates'. As once thought, There needs to be a system in place that is ready to be able to learn new knowledge, in order to begin to learn conscious knowledge.

This raises many interesting philosophical questions. If this is true then it follows by necessity that, knowledge is learned through experiences from past ancestors and is somehow stored, and transferred to the offspring!
Where?

In physical DNA? But these are properties of mind? And DNA as we know it is cannot account for this different property. Not rationally anyways.

Part of the puzzle is missing here?

Discuss.

So you would say that new-born horses have a priori knowledge allowing them to walk?

Well I would say that I know lots of animals do. do horses? I think they do too.

If you sever the spinal cord of a cat near the mid-section and put it on a treadmill, the cats legs will walk using reflex systems stored entirely in the spinal cord.

Would you consider a cats ability to walk even without input from the brain a priori knowledge?

I would, becarfull I think it is clear that I mean implicit knowledge. I feel you avoiding the principle of charity.

Are you here for hate. Its a really popular claim, new born horses have intention.

You want to discuss how "a priori knowledge" might be biologically transmitted through generations.

The FOol: I will discuss it sometime, I was just bringing it up.

Part of that will be determining whether innate biological processes independent of the brain should be counted as "a priori knowledge."

The Fool: so I am not talking about is we should defiine or not its a report of knowledge not an argument.

It's related to the question of whether complex muscle reflexes would fall under what you call "a priori knowlege."

The Fool: I said they intentionally walk, so if I walk to the store intentionally I would say that is alot more a priori in formation then a Baby has to this regard. I know it has alot to do with muscle development. In a similare way we that logic is a priori and no not the language of logic. But the implicite inference which is simply this p->q conditional.

Again I am reporting something thinks in learned that is not the debate part, I was about how such information would tranfer without the niave empirist view where it just pops up.!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 3:45:19 PM, Wnope wrote:

The Fool: and with the cat example it such a complicated movement which is coded in grey matter not implicit knowlege. I may develope faster reflexs by training judo, I would say that is implicit gains in such reflexes. You have to be careful of the way information goes from what we consider smal reflexes in the kick back loop from the spinal cord in the condition that you touch something hot. But what was when it was simple. FOr we may say it was just as wrong for labeling them reflexes because they are from the same loop when the original nomenclature was based on its simpliy on on the areas of the spin imparticular.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2012 4:07:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/16/2012 4:01:29 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/16/2012 3:45:19 PM, Wnope wrote:

The Fool: And with the cat example it such a complicated movement which is coded in grey matter not implicit knowlege? I may develope faster reflexs by training judo, I would say that is implicit gains in such reflexes. You have to be careful of the way information goes from what we consider smal reflexes in the kick back loop from the spinal cord in the condition that you touch something hot. But we originally named it reflexes because of the simplicity. But then it shifted to the loop when we learned that the loop is what caused it. And so we may say that such a move was unwarrented because we didnt know that it could be develop in such complexity until recentl. Thus why now apon new information should be maintain that understanding. For it may push us in a explanation that is completly difference from reflexes gain closer and in the brain in specifically when they may all have related process..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL