Philosophy Discussion Forums

Let me take the question is a priori knowledge possible, and ask instead if all we can know is "raw sense data", then where do patterns come from? I'm clearly supposing that patterns do not arise from the presumed randomness of how nerve impulses actually appear; but why?

Well, let's suppose that patterns do arise from raw sense data. This means that we're what John Locke called blank slates. Clearly, our souls must therefore come from outside of us, instead of from within. While it may not seem to matter much, it's nevertheless disconcerting to imagine that the most intimate part of me sprang from what should be forever outside of me. It's like having a Kline Bottle for a torso.

I guess the reason why I can't accept there being patterns in the tea leaves, is because mirrors never lie. No one is immune to self flattery. That's why no one should ever look at a painting to decide whether to shave, or not. There's clearly an undeniable delusion in letting your portrait determine your grooming habits.

Where, then does our standard of beauty, or aesthetics come from? If not from the actual portrait, how then from the delusion that all portraits are mirrors? If we're truly delusional, then we'll claw for every inch, to protect that delusion. We're just not up to seeing our own ugliness, unless forced to do so. My conviction that we must lie to ourselves, in order to protect something fragile about ourselves, is why I cannot agree with Locke.

And if I cannot agree with John Locke, then I surely can't agree that a priori knowledge somehow springs from randomness. (How then could we even pose the question?). In other words, if not from without, then surely from within. Or, in even shorter words, a priori knowledge must be innate. But, if it's true that a priori knowledge is innate, how then is it distinguishable from what we're actually seeing? There's no clear line separating the one from the other. It seems that, no matter how earnestly we might strive to be honest with ourselves, we must still lie.

There's no real way to sort out what is, from what shouldn't be so, which makes telling the difference between honesty and lying virtually impossible. This paradox should never be considered as the source of aesthetics. And this, even knowing this to be true, must be innate. We're clearly not blank slates. But if not, then what? I wouldn't even hazard a guess; I just so happen to know one certain thing we're not.

Felix wrote:

Consul: To call a theory or model a priori in the context of discovery would be to say that it is invented or constructed on the basis of pure intuition, imagination, contemplation, or speculation, i.e., without empirical data or input gained through observation or experimentation.

That is what I was referring to: intuitive knowledge not gained via empirical analysis or experimentation. You yourself listed it as a possible apriori truth: 2.1.2 nomologically necessary ones (laws of nature).

Again, "intuitively devised/invented" doesn't mean "intuitively justified/known". In ordinary language "intuitive" and "intuition" are used in ways different from the way these words are used in epistemology. Therein, intuitions are not "hunches" or "gut feelings". However, there is no consensus among epistemologists on what intuitions really are. Basically, there are two rival camps: the "Doxasticists" and the "Non-Doxasticists" or "Sui-Generists".
According to the former, intuitions are simply (spontaneous, non-inferential) beliefs, judgments, opinions, or dispositions or inclinations to believe, judge, opine. According to the latter, intuitions are cognitive experiences sui generis, of their own kind: non-sensory, "intellectual perceptions" (or "visions") of truths/facts. In this sense, to (veridically) intuit a proposition p is to discern or to "see" with the "mind's/intellect's eye" that p is (and must be) true.
Laws of nature are not epistemically intuitable, i.e. knowable a priori, on the basis of "intellectual perceptions".

For more information, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuition/

-- Updated April 19th, 2017, 7:49 am to add the following --

Platos stepchild wrote:Let me take the question is a priori knowledge possible, and ask instead if all we can know is "raw sense data", then where do patterns come from? I'm clearly supposing that patterns do not arise from the presumed randomness of how nerve impulses actually appear; but why?

Note that to say that all knowledge is based on experience is not to say that all knowledge is knowledge of experience!

Experience generates knowledge; it being best that the Knowledge of a Reality be gleaned from many sources.

Knowledge that is not generated by experience is called an Illusion; the experience of a Reality dispels Illusion.
An Illusion does not exist as an Illusion unless it is mistaken to be a Reality.

Sorry, but there is no difference in saying that Knowledge is the knowledge of, or is based upon, experience.

You can not have knowledge, an understanding, of a Reality without being able to experience said Reality; Reality that is not readily apparent, that has no displacement, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, at least some time or another, an Infinite reality, the existence or non-existence or non-existence of such a Reality is "Uncertain"; such a requirement is necessary whether said reality is large or small. If the existence of said Reality is infinite, then said Reality can not be experienced, is not readily apparent, is not measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time, " there being no knowledge of said Reality; Knowledge and go hand in hand.
There is no knowledge of a Reality with which no One, at sometime or another, has not had a direct experience.

So Called Knowledge can be derived thru an indirect method, however said knowledge exists only in Theory, belief, speculation, conjecture, the existence of said So Called Knowledge being an Illusion of Reality.

-- Updated April 19th, 2017, 8:11 am to add the following --

You people not only confuse everyone else, you also confuse yourselves by using technical terms.

Wayne92587 wrote:Sorry, but there is no difference in saying that Knowledge is the knowledge of, or is based upon, experience.

Yes, there is. For example, my knowledge that there is beer in my fridge is based on experience: I opened its door, looked inside and saw that there are some bottles of beer in it. The evidence for my belief that there is beer in my fridge is a certain visual experience, but that visual experience is not the object of my belief and knowledge, which is the non-experiential state of affairs of there being beer in my fridge. That is, my belief and knowledge is about what is the case in external, transexperiential reality. It's experience-based knowledge of something non-experiential, a non-experience.

Consul I take note of the word belief.

I do not known, understand, how intelligent people can deny something that is right in front of their face?

That is my belief and knowledge. The reality of a belief is uncertain.
There is no certainty that there is beer in the fridge if you only believe that there is.

What the hell is transexperiential reality? I will not bother to look that up.

Wayne92587 wrote:Consul I take note of the word belief. I do not known, understand, how intelligent people can deny something that is right in front of their face?
That is my belief and knowledge. The reality of a belief is uncertain.
There is no certainty that there is beer in the fridge if you only believe that there is.

Belief neither includes nor excludes knowledge.
Belief neither includes nor excludes subjective certainty.
Belief neither includes nor excludes objective certainty.
Knowledge includes belief. ("What I know, I believe." – L. Wittgenstein)

Wayne92587 wrote:What the hell is transexperiential reality? I will not bother to look that up.

It's the sum total of everything that is not part of the subjective content of a consciousness (such as the beer bottles in my fridge).

Consul: Again, "intuitively devised/invented" doesn't mean "intuitively justified/known". In ordinary language "intuitive" and "intuition" are used in ways different from the way these words are used in epistemology.

I understand but I don't see why they can't be both: one has a intuitively justified/known intuition, and based on that intuition constructs a model of it. Nikola Tesla was said to have done this: had an intuitive insight and than imagined and visualized what form it could take; the intuitive knowledge preceded the intellectual conception.

Consul: The evidence for my belief that there is beer in my fridge is a certain visual experience, but that visual experience is not the object of my belief and knowledge, which is the non-experiential state of affairs of there being beer in my fridge. That is, my belief and knowledge is about what is the case in external, transexperiential reality.

That's silly. How did the beer get in the fridge? Did it just magically materialize there? Obviously someone experienced putting it there, if not me than someone I know, and in either case the belief is based on subjective experience.

Felix wrote:

Consul wrote:Again, "intuitively devised/invented" doesn't mean "intuitively justified/known". In ordinary language "intuitive" and "intuition" are used in ways different from the way these words are used in epistemology.

I understand but I don't see why they can't be both: one has a intuitively justified/known intuition, and based on that intuition constructs a model of it. Nikola Tesla was said to have done this: had an intuitive insight and than imagined and visualized what form it could take; the intuitive knowledge preceded the intellectual conception.

That may be possible in logic and mathematics, but it's not possible in natural science, because all natural-scientific knowledge is a posteriori, empirical.

Felix wrote:

Consul wrote:The evidence for my belief that there is beer in my fridge is a certain visual experience, but that visual experience is not the object of my belief and knowledge, which is the non-experiential state of affairs of there being beer in my fridge. That is, my belief and knowledge is about what is the case in external, transexperiential reality.

That's silly. How did the beer get in the fridge? Did it just magically materialize there? Obviously someone experienced putting it there, if not me than someone I know, and in either case the belief is based on subjective experience.

Don't you discern the difference between (experience-based) knowledge of experiences and (experienced-based) knowledge of non-experiences?

I understand the problem of those that see themselves as being all knowing, God Like.

Everything that comes to the mind of a know-it-all is a Reality, even his or her conjecture, speculation; to the know-it-all, having faith that his or her Theories as a Reality.

Theory which may have objects of reality, is not based upon experience.

Wayne92587 wrote:You people not only confuse everyone else, you also confuse yourselves by using technical terms

I like that. Perhaps not everything that was once said by a great philosopher should be maintained. After all, it can't all be true.

Change on my thoughts about Priori Knowledge.

Priori knowledge for one thing, exists as the knowledge of a Reality that has not been experienced, is not born of cause and effect, but that has the potential of existing, being experienced.

Priori Knowledge being based upon the indirect method of discovery.
The Indirect method of discovering Knowledge; the discovery of the knowledge and the Reality there of, Reality that is not born of Cause and Effect, has no cause.
Priori Knowledge, is of a Priori Reality, is a Affect.

-- Updated April 28th, 2017, 6:06 pm to add the following --

Priori Knowledge does Exist, it is just that prior knowledge is of a Reality just does not exist in the material sense of the word, is of a Reality that has no mass.

Priori Knowledge exists as the knowledge of a Reaity that has yet to be experienced, meaning that the existence or non-existence of a Reality that is defined by Priori Knowledge is Uncertain.



It could be said that Priori Knowledge is gleaned from the Akashic Record

Ontical wrote:The episteme is a social a priori of a kind that preceeds any possible original discovery and any possible truth to the world. It is social because it is spoken together before it can be spoken individually. It preceeds any possible truth about the world because it is a priori therefore must constitute the very ground upon which truth and falsity can be debated. Foucault does not deny that theories may be more or less true and more or less original within an episteme.

Between epistemes however, he proposes a discontinuity so deep and unbridgableas to be beyond even conflict and disagreement.

IMO, the various epistemes in their different worldviews of the objective reality, are unbridgeable as to be beyond even conflict and disagreement, is largely as a result of the scientific method of modern science, which is a fiasco for the validations of first principles. This is despite the scientific method of modern science has true values with its pragmatic theory of truth.

Check this out: Critiques of the scientific method

And this: Logic and belief systems

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:20 am to add the following --

Felix wrote:A so-called idiot savant, who can instantly and accurately perform extremely complex mathematical calculations, would that be considered a priori knowledge?

IMO, that should be considered as an a posteriori knowledge at its best if validated. Nonetheless, special cases do exist, such as the degree of a wobbling star, could be used to predict the existence of its planets with some specific details.

IMO, it is those idiot mathematicians who used it in proof theory to assert its axiom in circular reasoning, thus fallaciously claimed as proof for the axiom is the a priori knowledge of the first principle for its posteriori knowledge.

This is how the mainstream endorsed posits are messed up in physical science with the scientific method.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:23 am to add the following --

Platos stepchild wrote: The genius of Galileo lay in his commonsense refutations of Aristotle.

Ditto.

Platos stepchild wrote:The phases of Venus shattered a venerable, a priori knowledge; precisely those very schema already mentioned.

Well said!

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:25 am to add the following --

Consul wrote:Astronomical knowledge isn't (and can't be) a priori knowledge.

IMO, from the first principle in its transcendental perspective with the a priori knowledge of a spheroidal Venus revolves around the Sun, it could then correctly and precisely predict the phases of Venus with its accurately developed a posteriori knowledge for its time-based observations from a further away Earth.

As the first principle of its established a posteriori knowledge, the justified predications of the a priori proposition, is a qualified a priori knowledge for the correct and accurate predictions of its astronomical observations in objective reality.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:30 am to add the following --

Wayne92587 wrote:I would say that Prior Knowledge is the knowledge of a Reality, not an Illusion, that has issued forth from thought experiments, Rationalization, without being an Irrational concept, with out being an Illusion made manifest a false Reality, without being just so much gibberish, reality which then can be experienced.

Agreed.

Although the objective reality might be an illusion, IMO, a priori knowledge in objective reality exists.

Here is another example of the Galilean revolution for the a priori knowledge in objective reality with resolved illusion, which has had shattered another venerable illusory a priori knowledge:
Galileo predicated with his hypothesis by inductive reasoning that the time of descent for free falling objects, is independent of their mass. This was with qualitative rigor in the law of noncontradiction for its a priori analysis, and the insight of this Galileo's hypothesis had thus addressed the cognitive paradox fallacy in the Aristotle's theory of gravity, which falsely states that heavier object falls faster. Reportedly he proved this predication by dropping two balls of different mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the experiment demonstrated that the time of descent of the balls is independent of their mass. The experimental proof for the a priori proposition, conclusively established it as an a priori knowledge that the time of descent for free falling objects is independent of their mass.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:35 am to add the following --

[quote="Wayne92587Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.
[/quote]

You are coming from the theological transcendental perspectivalism point of view for the ontology of material existence to define a priori knowledge on the nature of reality.

IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:38 am to add the following --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any who is interested to explore a modern era grounded theory method for physical science that fundamentally evaluates the actualities of empirically observed natural phenomena that establishes their a priori knowledge, can visit a website on Overviews of Universal Vortical Singularity.

Let me know if I had missed anything.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 12:41 pm to add the following --

Ontical wrote:Between epistemes however, he proposes a discontinuity so deep and unbridgableas to be beyond even conflict and disagreement.

To resolve the adversaries, the scientific community has to go back to the original scientific method advocated by Francis Bacon (the father of empiricism and scientific method) for the reconciliation.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 12:44 pm to add the following --

p.s. Sorry for the messed up typesetting in my previous posts, but have no option for editing to rectify them.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 1:00 pm to add the following --

Wayne92587 wrote: Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.

You are coming from the theological transcendental perspectivalism point of view for the ontology of material existence to define a priori knowledge on the nature of reality.

IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

I rephrase it as:

You seem to be coming from the theological transcendental perspectivalism point of view for the ontology of material existence to define a priori knowledge on the nature of reality.

IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 1:20 pm to add the following --

Amended as:
Anyone who is interested to explore a modern era grounded theory research method for physical science that fundamentally evaluates the actualities of empirically observed natural phenomena, which could establish their a priori knowledge, can visit a website: Overviews of Universal Vortical Singularity.

Wayne92587 wrote:Change on my thoughts about Priori Knowledge.

Priori knowledge for one thing, exists as the knowledge of a Reality that has not been experienced, is not born of cause and effect, but that has the potential of existing, being experienced.

Priori Knowledge being based upon the indirect method of discovery.
The Indirect method of discovering Knowledge; the discovery of the knowledge and the Reality there of, Reality that is not born of Cause and Effect, has no cause.
Priori Knowledge, is of a Priori Reality, is a Affect.

-- Updated April 28th, 2017, 6:06 pm to add the following --

Priori Knowledge does Exist, it is just that prior knowledge is of a Reality just does not exist in the material sense of the word, is of a Reality that has no mass.

Priori Knowledge exists as the knowledge of a Reaity that has yet to be experienced, meaning that the existence or non-existence of a Reality that is defined by Priori Knowledge is Uncertain.



It could be said that Priori Knowledge is gleaned from the Akashic Record

A priori knowledge (a Real Thing, BTW) is not knowledge without experience, it is knowledge not previously experienced by that individual. It has been experienced by previous generations.

Semantics issues revised:

Paradigmer wrote:Although the objective reality might be an illusion, IMO, a priori knowledge in objective reality exists.

Although the objective reality might be an illusion, IMO, a priori knowledge in objective reality is possible.

Paradigmer wrote:-- Updated May 7th, 2017, 11:35 am to add the following --
IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

IMO, a priori knowledge is possible in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

p.s. I concede that I might not be interpreting the context of other posters correctly in my quick replies.

LuckyR;

A priori knowledge (a Real Thing, BTW) is not knowledge without experience, it is knowledge not previously experienced by that individual. It has been experienced by previous generations.

Wayne wrote; Priori Knowledge has to be more than simply the knowledge of Reality as experienced by some but not experienced by others.

Priori Knowledge is not experienced, the existence of Priori Knowledge may or may not exist as a Reality, is Uncertain, Priori knowledge has the potential of being and not of being a Reality, an Illlusion.

Priori Knowledge not being readily apparent, having no mass, not being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time.

If or when prior knowledge becomes the knowledge of a Reality that has been experienced said Knowledge, is no longer a priori Knowledge, makes an appearance as a Simple Reality, is no longer
a non-being, becomes a Reality.

A Singularity having a relative, numerical value of One-1 is a Singularity of Zero that has gone thru metamorphosis, the conversion process.

A Singularity has a dual quality; in the beginning a singularity exits as an affect, as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, which then through a metamorphic process is converted, transfigured, into the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical Value of One-1, becomes the Single direct cause of a system of chaos (as in the Butterfly effect) that is then becomes the single direct material cause of the system of chaos that made manifest the creation of the Heavens and the earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word, even a rock; here to fore had a relative, a numerical value of One-1 as a Singularity of Zero-0 was first and foremost Prior Knowledge.

The Singularity of 0/1 is an equation that explains the existence of the Reality of Everything.

-- Updated May 8th, 2017, 9:00 am to add the following --

LuckyR;

A priori knowledge (a Real Thing, BTW) is not knowledge without experience, it is knowledge not previously experienced by that individual. It has been experienced by previous generations.

Wayne wrote; Priori Knowledge has to be more than simply the knowledge of Reality as experienced by some but not experienced by others.

Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.

Paradigmer;
[quote; Wayne you are coming from the theological transcendental perspectivalism point of view for the ontology of material existence to define a priori knowledge on the nature of reality.

Wayne wrote; Absolutely True!!!!!!!

[/quote]
Paradigmer;

IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature. [/quote]


Paradigmer

Although the objective reality might be an illusion, IMO, a priori knowledge in objective reality exists.

IMO, a priori knowledge can exist in objective reality with the coherentism of transcendental perspectivalism point of view on the reality of nature.

Wayne Wrote; I just stumbled onto my thoughts on Priori Knowledge which hit me like a bolt of Lightning that came, out of the Clear Blue Sky, from somewhere out in left field.

.[quote="Wayne92587Prior Knowledge is an original product of the mind, is a creation, has no prior existence, original, first knowledge.

Priori Knowledge does not, can not exist as an objective Reality.
Priori Knowledge exists as the Illusion of a potential Reality.

When priori knowledge becomes readily apparent it becomes an objective Reality, Truth, Fact.

That is not correct; Prior knowledge not exist as an Illusion; in fact Priori Knowledge is of a substance that has no mass, meaning, is Undefined.

Priori Knowledge exists as the first sign of an heretofore unknown Reality.

It has also been said, in so many words, that source of priori Knowledge is the Akashic Record.

Example; It is said that all Religions are born of same priori knowledge.

The Whole of the Material, Physical, World of Reality, Universe, is born of a Priori Singularity, of a Singularity that has no relative, numerical value, a Singularity of Zero-0.


There is the omnipresence of not only, a very minute Singularity, there is also the omniscient State, of Singularity, existing as the Transcendental Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity filled with an unspoken of Number, Quantity, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities


Here is an example of what I consider to be the priori knowledge of the Singularity of the Reality of First Cause, the Uncaused cause, the cause of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material, objective sense of the word.

Following the Metamorphic conversion of a Singularity of Zero-0 into a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1, the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical, value of One-1, a Singularity is found to have a dual quality, existing as both an Omnipresent, Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity of Zero-0 and as the Omniscience of the Fully Random Quantum, Metaphysical, State of Singularity.

Priori Knowledge is not experienced, the existence of Priori Knowledge may or may not exist as a Reality, is Uncertain, Priori knowledge has the potential of being and not of being a Reality, an Illusion.

Priori Knowledge not being readily apparent, as having no mass, as not being measurable as to location and momentum in Space-Time.

If or when prior knowledge becomes the knowledge of a Reality that has been experienced said Knowledge, is no longer a priori Knowledge, makes an appearance as a Simple Reality, is not longer a non being, becomes a Reality.

A Singularity having a relative, numerical value of One-1 is a Singularity of Zero-0 that has gone thru metamorphosis, the conversion process.

A Singularity has a dual quality; in the beginning a singularity exits as an affect, as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0, which then through a metamorphic process is converted, transfigured, into the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical Value of One-1, becomes the Single direct cause of a system of chaos (as in the Butterfly effect) that is then becomes the single direct material cause of the system of chaos that made manifest the creation of the Heavens and the earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the material sense of the word, even a rock; here to fore had a relative, a numerical value of One-1 as a Singularity of Zero-0 was first and foremost Prior Knowledge.

The Singularity of 0/1 is an equation that explains the existence of the Reality of Everything, Being and Non-being