Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atreyu wrote:Could we assume that a priori knowledge exists if we also assume that knowledge is material/substance?

I'm asking because I believe that knowledge, as well as many other metaphysical concepts, actually has a material (albeit an unknown one) existence.

It seems that in the history of humanity, there has never been a good, Universal definition of 'Knowledge'.
Aristotle was right when he suggested that Knowledge = experience! That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with 'thought/ego'.
The experience of a moment is Knowledge, different experience the next moment;

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, Universal definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.
All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective! Here! Now!

All is 'information waves', Mindstuff; material/substance is a mirage; thought is made of the same stuff as the sun, or rocks, or deep space!

Atreyu wrote:Could we assume that a priori knowledge exists if we also assume that knowledge is material/substance?

I'm asking because I believe that knowledge, as well as many other metaphysical concepts, actually has a material (albeit an unknown one) existence.

This is a very Aristotle oriented view of knowledge, as some kind of abstract class like a substance.

Know is the Time, the only Time that exists.

-- Updated November 23rd, 2017, 8:01 pm to add the following --

Atreyu wrote:

Could we assume that a priori knowledge exists if we also assume that knowledge is material/substance?

No!

You have to separate Priori Knowledge from Empirical Knowledge.

Priori Knowledge is the Knowledge of a Reality that has no substance, that does not exist as a material Substance, that exists as an immaterial Reality, substance.

Singularity has a dual quality, 0/1.

The knowledge of a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, is priori knowledge, is the knowledge of Singularity that has no relative, numerical value; A Singularity having a numerical value of Zero-0, can not be experienced.

The Knowledge of a Singularity having relative, a numerical value of One-1 is the knowledge of an Empirical, of an objective Reality an can therefore be experienced.

The Knowledge of Singularity of Zero-0 is the priori knowledge, of a subjective, metaphysical, Reality, The knowledge of a Reality that can not be experienced, the knowledge of a priori Reality.

A Singularity of One-1 being an objective, an Empirical Reality; being Relative and having a numerical value One-1 can be experienced.

A Singularity of One-1 exists as the First Singularity of Zero be converted, Transfigured, reborn an objective Reality, singularity of One-1.

The metamorphic change in a singularity of Zero-0, being the result of displacement, a change in the nature of the motion of a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of a Great Void.

The motion of a Singularity of Zero-0 having no displacement, angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.

The First Random Singularity of Zero-0 to become relative, attaining angular momentum, velocity of speed and direction being Metaphorically converted, transfigured, into a Singularity of One-1.

A Random Singularity of Zero-0 becoming the First in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, attained a Relative, numerical value of One-1.

One really shouldn't bring empirical theory into this. Being hard wired as an evolutionary fixture in conscious events does not allow the matter to come to light itself. Here, you can never get beyond Kant's account of causality. I mean, Kant refutes Hume by, to use the jargon in play on this issue, pointing out the apodicticity of causal occurrences, that is, the necessity behind the proposition every event must have a cause. And observation does not yield this. It is apriori.
Consider further that, I claim, ethics is the same: One can never actually see the badness of, say, having a root canal without anesthetic. the screams are there, so is the pain, the the "badness" of the pain is, as Wittgenstein observed, not among the facts of the situation. But then, clearly, the pain is "bad" in the ethical sense of the term. The badness is not there to see with the observing eye. Thusm, how is that we know pain is bad in the ethical sense? Must be apriori.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑December 15th, 2017, 11:20 am One really shouldn't bring empirical theory into this. Being hard wired as an evolutionary fixture in conscious events does not allow the matter to come to light itself. Here, you can never get beyond Kant's account of causality. I mean, Kant refutes Hume by, to use the jargon in play on this issue, pointing out the apodicticity of causal occurrences, that is, the necessity behind the proposition every event must have a cause. And observation does not yield this. It is apriori.
Consider further that, I claim, ethics is the same: One can never actually see the badness of, say, having a root canal without anesthetic. the screams are there, so is the pain, the the "badness" of the pain is, as Wittgenstein observed, not among the facts of the situation. But then, clearly, the pain is "bad" in the ethical sense of the term. The badness is not there to see with the observing eye. Thusm, how is that we know pain is bad in the ethical sense? Must be apriori.

The problem is, without measurement no real physical definition is ever possible. The problem is that i would't define simple knowlege as a priori, it's better to look at Filtrations in the sense of $ F_{t}$ and $F_{t-}$ in maths (latex {special sort of text-processing system}-notation). The example previously made was discrete so all sort of time limits don't play a role. But if you would define equivalent, processes on the previously mentioned Filtrations it could be , although being explainable, that they even ressemble more like magic. The simple ethical knowledge or simple evolutionary processes , like pain hurts, the society doesn't accept criminal actions, are no real apriory knowledge for anybody.

Sorry Simple Guy: There is nothing in this that responds to the post. It does suggest that you are not clear on what apriority in knowledge claims, in statements and judgments,is. The matter is about the form of thought itself. If I make a statement that, say, the grass is green, one could take this up analytically and ask, taken not as a factual reference to the grass but as a logical form through which the fact about the grass is presented, how is it that such a form is there, available; what is it that must be true given that this form is possible (as is evident in my utterance)? From there, one cannot look to the world nor to any empirically based knowledge claims for an answer: for these would all presuppose the logical form inherent in each and any claim that is in question. Of course: this would include the very form of statements made to derive apriority! Then of course, all propositions become suspect in their ability to make truth claims. then you end up with Wittgenstein.

The answer to the question is a lot simpler than many are seeking to make it. Memories can be electrical or chemical. Thus there can be physical (chemical) properties of the brain that contain information learned by previous generations that does not have to be relearned/experienced by the current generation. This commonly goes by the name of instinct and is well known and appreciated even by lay persons.

Hereandnow wrote: ↑December 15th, 2017, 2:06 pm Sorry Simple Guy: There is nothing in this that responds to the post. It does suggest that you are not clear on what apriority in knowledge claims, in statements and judgments,is. The matter is about the form of thought itself. If I make a statement that, say, the grass is green, one could take this up analytically and ask, taken not as a factual reference to the grass but as a logical form through which the fact about the grass is presented, how is it that such a form is there, available; what is it that must be true given that this form is possible (as is evident in my utterance)? From there, one cannot look to the world nor to any empirically based knowledge claims for an answer: for these would all presuppose the logical form inherent in each and any claim that is in question. Of course: this would include the very form of statements made to derive apriority! Then of course, all propositions become suspect in their ability to make truth claims. then you end up with Wittgenstein.

In fact you don't understand that all these measurements are a part of a stochastic process, and due to a definition of a stochastic process adaptation to a filtration always plays a role of preknowledge. This is the basis of martingale theory in stochastics, that somehow projects radom events ordered into a certain "knowledge" system called sigma-algebras , to which the process is measurable at each time. Wittengstein was neither a mathematician nor a good phyisicist. Pre-knowledge is well defined after the theory of stochastic processes.

Simpleguy:
In fact you don't understand that all these measurements are a part of a stochastic process, and due to a definition of a stochastic process adaptation to a filtration always plays a role of preknowledge. This is the basis of martingale theory in stochastics, that somehow projects radom events ordered into a certain "knowledge" system called sigma-algebras , to which the process is measurable at each time. Wittengstein was neither a mathematician nor a good phyisicist. Pre-knowledge is well defined after the theory of stochastic processes.

For me to give this a nod, you would have to tie in your thoughts about probability theory to the issue of apriority. I have a vague understanding of stochastic processes, but there is nothing here that helps. It seems to me you would have to put out some probabilistic account of the intuitive apprehension of a logical form, such as a conditional or apodictic proposition. But how would this be anything but what Kant calls general logic?; or, an advanced construal of general logic? Apriority is transcendental because it is the form presupposed by statement and judgment as such. Even as you meticulously spell out how necessity and probability can be reduced to something else, your account will possess the very form you are supposed to be examining. This is where Kant has his greatest criticism: In using language and logic to talk about language and logic.

Also, keep in mind that there is yet another form of apriority which is more difficult, impossible, really, and that is causality. Every event has a cause, and this is apodictically true. How does this get explained in term probability theory?

Or am I truly off your mark? Glad to be disabused, but I would ask that you make the effort to address the matter as stated. (I am aware of the temptation present ideas independently.)

Hereandnow wrote:
Every event has a cause

Virtual particles have no cause

And my virtual grandmother dances in the head of a pin.

Hereandnow wrote:
And my virtual grandmother dances in the head of a pin

Here virtual means that they only exist for an infinitesimal period of time not that they do not exist at all

They are manifestations of quantum fluctuations which occur due to the Uncertainty Principle

Ah, very good. But causality here is an intuition, like reason itself it is intuitively acknowledged, an irreducible given, the idea that events must have a cause cannot be undone, even if theoretical models want to say so.Granted, based on observations in particle physics that encourage an acausal explanation, we would allow for this. But then, the acausality in question is not really observed at all, is it? which is the point about apriority: causality is never observed. The apriority is a necessity built into the understanding, notwithstanding what theoretical models say (does this make the theoretical models wrong? Of course not. Causality and its apodicticity, these so not present themselves as justified beyond anything but intuition, and even that kind of certainty does not constrain speculation). How? Just try to imagine an actual acausal event? Can be done. Very mysterious: why does our constitution of our understanding absolutely insist on event having causes?

Can't be done! I wrote 'can' be done. Proofread!

When looking at the behaviour of observable phenomena we assume that it can be explained logically. Cause and effect is one such logical process But that does not necessarily mean it applies to all phenomena as quantum mechanics clearly demonstrates. Assumptions without evidence can be false because they are not based on actual observation. This is why they must where possible be tested. Whether something is actually understood is less important than whether or not it is true since it not being understood is not relevant. It is only deemed important because we want answers