I have to say, this is entirely intelligible to me and (linguistically) solves a problem I've had for some time - there are clearly non-physical objects of experience. — AmadeusD
…..“that which is real its existence is given; a real thing cannot not exist (necessity)”
-Mww
Is this “real thing” the object which was given to the senses? — "Bob
Why would it be necessary that a cup exists because we experience a cup? — Bob Ross
I don’t see the necessity you are talking about here. — Bob Ross
The way we sense is prestructured (….) in a certain way to react to stimuli — Bob Ross
Technically, though, the a priori structure of sensibility itself (…) resides in reason, insofar as the matter of sensation is transcendental.
I don’t see how it would be. Our neurons send the sensations to the brain; not vice-versa. — Bob Ross
I think we have good reasons to believe, e.g., that electrons exist. — Bob Ross
Why not, though, just use ‘real’ and ‘existent’ interchangeably and note, instead, that not all the models and concepts we deploy to explain experience necessarily exist in reality (i.e., are not real)? — Bob Ross
If we can't sense it, can’t indicating an impossibility, how would we know it exists?
Through empirical tests with the help of self-reflective reason. — Bob Ross
That’s an equivocation. (1) I wasn’t asking just about empirical knowledge…… — Bob Ross
your using the term ‘empirical’ to only strictly refer to what is sensed—that’s not what it usually means. — Bob Ross
I know that my car is in my garage even though no one is sensing it. For you, this is invalid knowledge. — Bob Ross
……representing objects in space is a priori knowledge; which I thought you were denying because it is intuition. — Bob Ross
We are getting there — Bob Ross
I think we have good reasons to believe, e.g., that electrons exist. — Bob Ross
I am not following how we only know through contradictions (between our experiences and reality). I can imagine perfectly fine a person who infers correctly, without contradiction, that their conscious experience is representational; and then proceeds to correctly identify that there must be a thing-in-itself which excites the senses which, in turn, begins the process to construct the conscious experience which they are having. — Bob Ross
Can you cite something we could say is knowledge that did not require any experience to gain it?
The most basic example that comes to mind is mathematical knowledge. Your brain necessarily has to already know how to perform math to construct your conscious experience; and this is why mathematical propositions, in geometry, are applicable and accurate for experience: the axioms of geometry reside a priori in our brains — Bob Ross
Mathematical propositions are valid in virtue of being grounded in how our brains cognize; and they are only valid for human experience. They are true, justified, beliefs about experience—not reality. — Bob Ross
Perhaps that’s where the confusion was: the a priori knowledge we have is not knowledge about reality, but about how we cognize it. — Bob Ross
So what is a flower apart from any observation
I would say that we merely say that there is some thing which is exciting our senses, and of which we represent as what we normally perceive as a flower. — Bob Ross
And that's all the 'thing in itself' is. Its an unknowable outside of the mind existence.
Agreed; but that’s not a purely abstract thing, then. It is a concrete—unknown. — Bob Ross
"Objects of experience" or 'aspects of understanding or judgement'? Perhaps an example or two would be helpful. — Janus
…..“that which is real its existence is given; a real thing cannot not exist (necessity)”
-Mww
Is this “real thing” the object which was given to the senses? — "Bob
Yes.
It is necessary that some thing exists, which becomes the experience of, in this case, cup.
You’re explicitly demanding neurons send the feeling of a mosquito bite, when the science legislating neural activity will only permit neurons to send quantitative electrochemical signals.
Errrr….wha??? We don’t care what neurons do when talking about speculative transcendental architecture.
I think we have good reasons to believe, e.g., that electrons exist. — Bob Ross
That was never a contention; believing in a thing is very far from knowledge of it.
The real and the existent are pretty much already interchangeable
Because you’re talking sensing, the only knowledge you’re going to get from it, if you get any at all, is empirical.
…
That’s all it’s ever meant to me. I use empirical to describe a kind of knowledge, rather than a posteriori, which prescribes its ground or source.
What else does it refer to for you?
For me it’s unjustified to call it knowledge.
What do you really know, with respect to the car itself, when somebody tells you he put your car in the garage?
Representing objects in space is a priori; it is intuition, which isn’t knowledge.
Lets break this down.
This is why in my knowledge theory I broke down what knowledge is into two camps.
For example, we applicably know math through 'base 10'. But math can be in any base. Base 2, or binary, is the math we use for logic circuits.
The ability to think is not generally prescribed as 'knowledge'. Just like the ability to 'move my limbs' doesn't mean I know 'how to move them to walk'.
It is purely an abstract thing that cannot be applicably known.
"The thing in itself" is a space alien
Give me an example of where something is real but does not exist (if applicable); and where something exists but is not real (if applicable). — Bob Ross
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.