Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Question about a priori knowledge

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2012 8:41:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's assume that we evolved a logical intuition or sense purely by empirical means. Not that our own intuition evolved in our life time, but over the course of many years of evolution so that it was a natural property. Now let's say because of this logical property we know certain facts that we did not gain from direct experience. Since our intuition was formed by empirical means in the process of evolution and our intuition was what eventually lead us to knowing that fact, would that mean it was a priori or a posteriori knowledge?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 10:17:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 8:41:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Let's assume that we evolved a logical intuition or sense purely by empirical means. Not that our own intuition evolved in our life time, but over the course of many years of evolution so that it was a natural property. Now let's say because of this logical property we know certain facts that we did not gain from direct experience. Since our intuition was formed by empirical means in the process of evolution and our intuition was what eventually lead us to knowing that fact, would that mean it was a priori or a posteriori knowledge?

A propri and posteriori from how I understand the terms merely refer to the conscious reasoning involved in gaining some bit of knowledge. So something purely intuitively gained (as in mathematical propositions, screw whatever Kant says to the contrary) is a priori regardless of how we came to actually develop that cognitive ability.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2012 3:08:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/28/2012 10:17:48 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 8/27/2012 8:41:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Let's assume that we evolved a logical intuition or sense purely by empirical means. Not that our own intuition evolved in our life time, but over the course of many years of evolution so that it was a natural property. Now let's say because of this logical property we know certain facts that we did not gain from direct experience. Since our intuition was formed by empirical means in the process of evolution and our intuition was what eventually lead us to knowing that fact, would that mean it was a priori or a posteriori knowledge?

A propri and posteriori from how I understand the terms merely refer to the conscious reasoning involved in gaining some bit of knowledge. So something purely intuitively gained (as in mathematical propositions, screw whatever Kant says to the contrary) is a priori regardless of how we came to actually develop that cognitive ability.

Thanks for the response.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 2:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/27/2012 8:41:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Let's assume that we evolved a logical intuition or sense purely by empirical means.

How do you mean we evolved intuition by empirical means? o.O

Something being derived empirically means that it was a notion drawn out from experience by a thinking being...

How does this apply to Evolutionary processes endowing us with natural manners of thinking?

Not that our own intuition evolved in our life time, but over the course of many years of evolution so that it was a natural property.

Intuition is too broad a term.. It IS (at least often) in part built from First-hand experience, though it also relies upon our natural manners of thinking..

I think you mean more the fundamental basic framework which we're all apt to understand our experience by.. Like having the idea of 3 dimensions and time.

Now let's say because of this logical property we know certain facts that we did not gain from direct experience. Since our intuition was formed by empirical means in the process of evolution and our intuition was what eventually lead us to knowing that fact, would that mean it was a priori or a posteriori knowledge?

again how is the Evolutionary endowment we're given "empirical"?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:25:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 2:22:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/27/2012 8:41:50 PM, phantom wrote:
Let's assume that we evolved a logical intuition or sense purely by empirical means.

How do you mean we evolved intuition by empirical means? o.O

Something being derived empirically means that it was a notion drawn out from experience by a thinking being...

How does this apply to Evolutionary processes endowing us with natural manners of thinking?

Well from what I was deliberating, creatures must not have possessed a sense of logic, or whatever you want to call it, in the past. Based only on speculative theory, I cogitated that it were plausible our gaining such a property were by empirical means. That our observation and experience of reality naturally formed an intuition pertaining to the nature of logic and reasoning. I believe we can see that in the past, humans have not had as good an intuition as now. It is always developing and progressing and it is partially passed genetically from generation to generation. At the beginning of this chain I would extrapolate, was a point in which it was not possessed. We had to have got it somehow so that just leaves it with what method did it come about. My theory I think is plausible though I have no idea if it's right. I'm just being hypothetical and wandering what it has to say about the rationalist empiricist debate if it were true.

Not that our own intuition evolved in our life time, but over the course of many years of evolution so that it was a natural property.

Intuition is too broad a term.. It IS (at least often) in part built from First-hand experience, though it also relies upon our natural manners of thinking..

I use it somewhat loosely in the sensory/instinctive sense.

I think you mean more the fundamental basic framework which we're all apt to understand our experience by.. Like having the idea of 3 dimensions and time.

Now let's say because of this logical property we know certain facts that we did not gain from direct experience. Since our intuition was formed by empirical means in the process of evolution and our intuition was what eventually lead us to knowing that fact, would that mean it was a priori or a posteriori knowledge?

again how is the Evolutionary endowment we're given "empirical"?

Explained above, but again, it's all hypothetical. I don't know what scientific backing I would have for or against this theory. I'm just wandering about its implications.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2012 8:36:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/29/2012 8:25:47 PM, phantom wrote:
At 8/29/2012 2:22:56 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Well from what I was deliberating, creatures must not have possessed a sense of logic, or whatever you want to call it, in the past. Based only on speculative theory, I cogitated that it were plausible our gaining such a property were by empirical means. That our observation and experience of reality naturally formed an intuition pertaining to the nature of logic and reasoning. I believe we can see that in the past, humans have not had as good an intuition as now. It is always developing and progressing and it is partially passed genetically from generation to generation. At the beginning of this chain I would extrapolate, was a point in which it was not possessed. We had to have got it somehow so that just leaves it with what method did it come about. My theory I think is plausible though I have no idea if it's right. I'm just being hypothetical and wandering what it has to say about the rationalist empiricist debate if it were true.

This is the problem... Your having Empirically derived a notion from your experience doesn't mean that the genetics you pass on are More likely to allow your offspring to derive such notions.

I agree that our intuitions rely, very much, upon Empirical means.. and that Every generation builds upon the notions of previous generations... but that's b/c of Culture and Communication of these notions.. Not because our father's understanding certain things makes us Evolve to better understand them.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2012 8:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: It has nothing to do with evolution. Because we need to known logic to know evolution. The confusing with a priori logic is cause because we keep using the word experience to refer only to sensory perception. Whle before positivm it was completly normaal to say internal experience. e.g feeling dream, thought, imagination. pure reason.

But when a Good logician. aka Enlightenment and before, discovered logica principle there are based of intuiting relations between ideas. (that what Human would call it.)
We call it (the Good philosophers) A priori in that is was already withing your reasoning before you recognized it. In fact you couldnt even learn langauge without being able to recognize the patterns and rule of language. For you must already have the capcitiy to recognize them.

Here is a proof:
[If] I say the car is Read [THen] you understand what I mean
But if I say the Red is Car, you know that there is something wrong.
I don't have to tell you anything. Its an illogical category.
That is the red most go on something aka the car or a spatial entity but he car, can't go on red.
Second proof: I just said this.
If I say the car is Read you understand what I mean.
But to even know how to say that I must know a priori the these [relation of ideas]

[If] I say the car is Read [then] you understand what I mean.
which of course is a Condition relation -->
So you must have this rule a prior as a part of how are thought are process, for you to even recognize and let alone use it when speaking.

Helpfull:??? <(8J)
"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