Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hereandnow wrote: ↑January 6th, 2018, 11:29 am

Nameless:
I would suggest that (almost?) all metaphysical, ultimate, Reality/Truth is Known a priori..

I don't know what ultimate reality is. How is "it" known??

All that is ever experienced is, ultimately, (a 'feature' of) Reality! There is no other 'Reality' to experience.
When I use 'Know', thatit is (as Aristotle once also suggested) no different than 'experience'.
We Know what we experience.
There is not anything to be experienced/Known that is not Reality.
Reality is One, ALL inclusive!
One can Know this, experientially, or one can experience/Know 'thoughts/ego' ABOUT the subject at hand.
We Know thoughts about 'fire' but we do not yet Know fire!
Thoughts about the Universe are Known, all inclusive, but they are only capable of reflecting that which is 'conditional/dual/schizophrenic'. All thought possible is insufficient to give any real experience of anything other than the thoughts perceived.
You have to actually put your finger in the fire to Know!
Thus is why ignorance is bliss.

Anyway, transcendental, unconditional Love/Enlightenment, however, can never be Known in the 'conditional' thought state (ego). There is no definition, no limitations, no boundaries, completely transcendental.
Unimaginable.

Much of Mankind’s Knowledge of Reality, his or her Celestial Sphere is Priori Knowledge which can not be experienced because it is an Illusion, an Illusion of Reality; that can not be experienced.

The difference between an Illusion and a Reality, is that a Reality can be proven to exist.
An Illusion can not be proven to or not to exist.

Priori Knowledge falls under the fail of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.

In order for an entity to exist as a Reality an not as an Illusion of Reality, said Reality must be Universal, must be measurable as to a number, a multiplicity, of Location in Time and in Space, in order to be deemed a Reality rather than an Illusion or Reality.

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 1:07 pm Priori Knowledge falls under the fail of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
In order for an entity to exist as a Reality an not as an Illusion of Reality, said Reality must be Universal, must be measurable as to a number, a multiplicity, of Location in Time and in Space, in order to be deemed a Reality rather than an Illusion or Reality.

Not only this, this could lead to a construction of some-kind of maxwell thermodynamiical demon, that could then somehow be used to
inverse the laws of entropy. So this is a contradiction to quantum mechanics as well as thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.

SimpleGuy; this could lead to a construction of some-kind of maxwell thermodynamiical demon

This is of course True! Mankind in general being one of demons; the head Maxwell Thermodynamic Demon being in charge of the Planet
Earth, the many acting as One.

Scott wrote: ↑June 29th, 2009, 10:46 pm If knowledge refers to the act of knowing, which requires a conscious being to perform the act, then I believe all knowledge depends on experience in some ways simply because the conscious being itself cannot exist without experience-gained data. In regards to the claim that a conscious being cannot exist without experience-gained data, I believe a functioning conscious being, namely a human or similar animal, is created through experiences that hard-wire it with certain instincts, beliefs, etc. Even before birth, a human baby's brain is experiencing developments as a result of experiences that happened to its mother and evolutionarily-gained traits through experiences that happen to its ancestors over time. But of course all those statements rely on the definition of experience and what is and is not experience.

Anyway, what do you think?

It seems to me that we cannot do anything with data if we do not have a priori knowledge. Of course every knowing subject has experience co-beginning with its existence. So one cannot have knowledge without also having experience. But that's not quite what a priori knowledge is. It is more like existence entails knowledge and this allows us to learn from experience.

And by that last sentence, I mean that we have some kind of built in heuristic that allows us to learn. Otherwise life would be like being in a washing machine while high on an overdose of LSD, from birth. We wouldn't be drawing any conclusions.

What do you mean by knowledge? What exactly is knowledge? If you're referring to being-in-itself, something necessary as a result of objective consciousness, to really "know" something, then it becomes a question of whether you have to "know" to encapsulate what is meant, or if one has to "be" before s/he can know that s/he "is," or if both reciprocally come into being as a result of something else.

Nietzsche:

One should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure conceptions, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and mutual understanding,—not for explanation. In "being-in-itself" there is nothing of "casual-connection," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there "law" does not obtain. It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, reciprocity, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we interpret and intermix this symbol-world, as "being-in-itself," with things, we act once more as we have always acted—MYTHOLOGICALLY.

Scott wrote: ↑June 29th, 2009, 10:46 pm In this thread I want us to debate whether a priori knowledge is possible. Some philosophers argue that some knowledge is a priori (fully independent from experience). In contrast, radical empiricists argue that all knowledge is a posteriori (derived from experience). Immanuel Kant made the distinction between analytic a priori knowledge and synthetic a priori knowledge. (An analytic proposition is one whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept, such as "All bachelors are unmarried." And a synthetic proposition is one whose predicate concept is NOT contained in its subject, such as "All bachelors are happy.")

What do you think? Do you think a priori knowledge is possible or not? Why?

I think the answer depends greatly on how we define knowledge and experience.

If knowledge refers to the act of knowing, which requires a conscious being to perform the act, then I believe all knowledge depends on experience in some ways simply because the conscious being itself cannot exist without experience-gained data. In regards to the claim that a conscious being cannot exist without experience-gained data, I believe a functioning conscious being, namely a human or similar animal, is created through experiences that hard-wire it with certain instincts, beliefs, etc. Even before birth, a human baby's brain is experiencing developments as a result of experiences that happened to its mother and evolutionarily-gained traits through experiences that happen to its ancestors over time. But of course all those statements rely on the definition of experience and what is and is not experience.

Anyway, what do you think?

Well I think you are right about knowledge and the act of knowing.

So modern logicians have a twist on Kant's statement you might like.

1) Some facts can be shown to be a priori true.
2) That statement can be proven true for all correctly formed deductions and a small class of inductions.
3) The inductions that can be shown to be a priori true are a liimted class of syllogisms in mathematical proofs, such as for the existence of mathematical numbers.

That is to say, the facts are a priori true whether they are known or not.

The statement just needed a little refinement for modern philosophy, that's all.

End of argument.

ROFL.

A priori knowledge is built into the patterns of all structural organisms, suiting them to the awaiting environment of the particular pattern/organism. This is a product of the eons of death and adaption of common carbon-based biology, sharing in their essence while differing in forms. Each pattern/organism knows innately how to be that pattern, where an organism fails in this, it must perish, for nature deems it a monstrosity unfit for existence, which bring us to Trump!