I'm saying that you gotta have a priori knowledge of something you gonna construct. — Haglund

That doesn't make sense to me.

Well, this is something like what we are doing in philosophy, rather than what people are doing when they come to know things. It's what some philosophers do when they're trying to work out what knowledge is. — jamalrob

This suggests you understood the process to be one that's proposed to be undertaken by people generally, when they come to know things, and not as part of philosophical examination. — jamalrob

I don't really make much of a distinction between what we do in philosophy as opposed to what we do in life. In philosophy we try to be more careful. More formal. But, to me, the processes are the same.

If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness, does that count as knowledge of some sort?

ex. If I know nothing I still know that I am.

It seems self-evident to me that knowing things and asking "how do we know things?" are qualitatively different. The same goes for most philosophical questions. For instance, mathematicians need not concern themselves with whether numbers exist independently of the mind. The question is non-mathematical.

Otherwise, I think this is the right track:

I'm not even sure it makes sense to call it knowledge. — T Clark

Grouping all of this stuff under the same term is surely just a historical artifact. Just say no to epistemology.

You think the innate concept of quantity, undeniably present in animals, is an innate knowledge of math? — Haglund

Quantity is number. You can't do most math without numbers. So, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't learned parts.

Construct zillions of relationships between them. That evolves. Giving a priori knowledge of the world. Einstein never saw curved spacetime. He had a priori knowledge of black holes. A baby has a lot of instinctive knowledge about the world when pooped in it. It has too. Without a priori, tacit, instinctive, intuitive, knowledge, necessarily vague still, it won't be possible to continue living — Haglund

I don't think all the types of knowledge you've listed are necessarily the same thing.

It seems self-evident to me that knowing things and asking "how do we know things?" are qualitatively different. — jamalrob

Do I agree with that?.....I guess I don't. From a pragmatic point of view, the purpose of knowledge is to direct how we take action. If that's true, you can't separate knowing things from knowing how we know them. Or have I misunderstood what you wrote?

Grouping all of this stuff under the same term is surely just a historical artifact. Just say no to epistemology. — jamalrob

Epistemology is why I'm on the forum. It is philosophy to me. It's the underlying theme of most of what I've written here and most of what I think about when I'm really thinking.

If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness — SpaceDweller

I think that's probably not true.

That doesn't make sense to me — T Clark

Okay. Let's analyze. When you construct a bridge, don't you need a kind of premonition of how to do that? Don't you somehow construct it mentally first? Don't you need a priori knowledge of the bridge you construct first? Knowledge which practice, later, during or after construction, can be amended?

Don't you somehow construct it mentally first? Don't you need a priori knowledge of the bridge you construct first? — Haglund

That's design, not a priori knowledge. Design is applying principles I've learned elsewhere to a new situation.

If we know nothing, we still have self conscience and awareness, does that count as knowledge of some sort? — SpaceDweller

I'm not sure if that's true in the first place, in my humble opinion. To recognize yourself in the mirror (without being scared...) you need some knowledge of your face.

That's design, not a priori knowledge. Design is applying principles I've learned elsewhere to a new situation. — T Clark

It's design, true. But you need to know in advance if your design won't crumble on construction. In other words, you have to know in advance, a priori, what the new construction must be about, more or less. Of course you have seen trees over a river, but to base your bridge on a fallen tree... There has to be, somewhat vague still, premeditated knowledge of some sort. Your design will influence your knowledge and vice-versa. True, some based on previous encounters, but new a priori too (which may turn out good or bad, like the resonating of the bridge.

It's design, true. But you need to know in advance if your design won't crumble on construction. In other words, you have to know in advance, a priori, what the new construction must be about, more or less. Of course you have seen trees over a river, but to base your bridge on a fallen tree... There has to be, somewhat vague still, premeditated knowledge of some sort. Your design will influence your knowledge and vice-versa. True, some based on previous encounters, but new a priori too (which may turn out good or bad, like the resonating of the bridge. — Haglund

We're not getting anywhere with this. You and I are talking about different things with the same words.

For instance, mathematicians need not concern themselves with whether numbers exist independently of the mind. The question is non-mathematical. — jamalrob

Still, Mandelbröt, when he contemplated his set, emphasized that he thought he truly had dis/uncovered a truly, really existing feature of reality. So not a "mere" construction of the mind. That seemed important to him.

I fear so too. It's not exactly clear though what you mean about a priori knowledge and what kind of knowledge you refer to. You give a lot of definitions from the web, but its still somewhat unclear to me. But, of course that can be me. What if knowledge is god-given, or partly predetermined in the moment of creation? So some thing we know are already "known" unconsciously at birth, a priori, without any experience whatsoever? If...

It's not exactly clear though what you mean about a priori knowledge and what kind of knowledge you refer to. You give a lot of definitions from the web, but its still somewhat unclear to me. — Haglund

The purpose of this thread is to thrash this out among ourselves. I'm doing the best I can to be clear, but some vagueness and confusion is to be expected.

a priori knowledge is supposed to be theoretical right?

The purpose of this thread is to thrash this out among ourselves. I'm doing the best I can to be clear, but some vagueness and confusion is to be expected. — T Clark

:up:

I think examples might help. And maybe from there give abstractions, generalizations, knowledge categories, or meta knowledge.

a priori knowledge is supposed to be theoretical right? — SpaceDweller

A neonatico must have knowledge of the world already when pushed out of the womb. A priori knowledge has to be theoretical, or else it wouldn't be a priori, indeed.

Every new form of knowledge is based on instinct and countless unconscious "experiments", encounters with reality. Every new stage of knowledge is like being pooped in the world again.

I actually question everything, even 2+2=4. Is it objectively true, or is it perhaps only a property of the physics or mathematics of say this universe, and doesn't work in another one? I cannot think of a reasonable counterexample, but that very issue seems to be one of the weakest links in my goal of finding a self-consistent view of how things are. — noAxioms

It would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category.

On the surface, how about "reproduction is beneficial"? It certainly doesn't benefit the individual. There are plenty of humans living more comfortable lives by becoming voluntarily sterile, but for the most part, reproduction is quite instinctual which is why the above goal can rarely be achieved via just abstinence. — noAxioms

Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about. What makes reproduction not beneficial to an individual? Wouldn't that depend on the goal we're talking about?

At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial. — noAxioms

Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it. — T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, like I said, and from there we develop symbols for communicating these quantifiable experiences.

I think examples might help. — Haglund

The example I gave previously is causality. Some people believe that all events have causes and they know this as an a priori truth.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable, — Harry Hindu

What I wrote and what you wrote don't seem to me to be the same thing.

Y'all seem to be in a sort of chicken/egg thing with the bridge subject. I assure you that the bridge came before the first one purposefully created by humans, and any preconception of the creation of the first built ones most certainly drew on the experience of prior bridges.
Even ants engineer a bridge when there isn't one already there. It's hardly a unique human accomplishment.

I think maybe you're overusing the word "instinct." — T Clark

Maybe so, but besides the point, which is: there are falsehoods which we believe and find intuitive. Some are deep enough that I know they're wrong, yet still believe them, which sounds oddly contradictory.

[2+2=4] would be true in any universe in which there are categories and a quantity of things within that category. — Harry Hindu

OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'?

Again, what is beneficial and comfortable is dependent upon the goal we're talking about.

Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion.

At a much deeper level, one's feeling of personal identity is fantastically instinctual, and yet doesn't hold up to true rational analysis. It is probably a complete lie compliments of evolution (over 650 million years ago when it was put there), and it makes us fit as an individual, a pragmatic benefit at best. Assuming being fit equates to a benefit over not being fit, this makes the truth of the matter harmful, and the lie beneficial.
— noAxioms
Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool?

I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself.

What about the quark model or preon models? The knowledge of the quarks and their properties was known before they were actually observed, like preons aren't observed directly today. Can we say that they are somehow observed in the chaos of observations? Can we consider it as a priori knowledge? The model is of course based on observation but we never had direct evidence for them, in the low energy realm. Neither were there observations of black holes. Can we say prefabricated knowledge about the world is a priori knowledge?

L

Nah. I don't think that alpha males and females and the individual in which an DNA copy "error" occurred that provides the benefit from which is then propagated throughout the gene pool is an instinctual illusion. Those are real things. If not there from where do beneficial genes come from if not individuals within a gene pool? — Harry Hindu

Here you apply a dogma. It's a dogma, an unproven conjecture, that evolution progresses by accidental mutations of the genes. There is zero evidence that this is generally the case and as such on the same level as the gods conjecture.

There seems to be disagreement about what kind of knowledge math is. As I noted in a previous post, there are studies that show that very young children, babies, are aware of quantity, so there seems to be some inborn "knowledge" of math. On the other hand, we have to learn how to use it.
— T Clark

Which is just another way of saying that conscious experience is quantifiable,
— Harry Hindu

What I wrote and what you wrote don't seem to me to be the same thing. — T Clark

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity if not that their experience is quantifiable. Are they born knowing the symbols used to represent some quantity? It seems to me that you need to establish mental categories or else there will only be one of everything.

OK, but if it was an a-priori truth, it would be true even in a universe without meaningful countable anything. I mean, imagine the sum of 2 and 2 was 4 because an omnipotent god said it was, and had it decreed that the sum was seven instead, then it wouldn't actually be four. I mean, what's the point of being omnipotent if you can't do stuff like that? Would the sum be actually 7 then, or only 7 because 'the god says so'? — noAxioms

Using an omnipotent god as an example is quite a stretch as the phrase, "omnipotent god" brings a whole host of other problems into the mix.

I just don't see how some string of scribbles could be true if the scribbles were not representative of some real state-of-affairs that exists somewhere and somewhen. I guess it comes down to how you define "truth".

Being fit, probably as a species. If a species is not fit, it gets selected out. It's not a purposeful goal, but being fit is definitely an emergent property of things that evolve via the process. As an individual, reproduction is arguably optional. The species often benefits from the members that are not potential breeders. Yes, the individual benefits one way or the other depending on the goal via which the benefit is measured, but for a species, it's being fit, and little else. I don't thing the human species is particularly fit, but that's just opinion. — noAxioms

Yes, but if a species doesn't reproduce which requires individuals within a species to do just that, then the species dies out. Reproducing isn't just the sex and the birth. It requires the raising of the young to a reproductive age, or else you haven't reproduced even at the level of species because if all the offspring of a new generation die then the existence of the species is threatened.

Sure, less competition for mates does help a species, and is also a benefit to individuals as they can find mates without having to expend much energy in doing so, as well as those that are not breeding contribute to the rearing of the next generation like educating or paying your taxes that goes to education. So it seems to me that any benefit to the species is also a benefit to the individuals that make up the species, or else what do you mean by "species" if not individuals of a particular gene pool?

I'm sorry, but we seem to be talking past each other. This doesn't seem to be a relevant reply to my comment, which I left up there. I'm talking about one's sense of self. The lie makes you fit, but the analysis of the belief seems to lead to all sorts of crazy woo to explain something that was never true in the first place. It leads to the hard problem of consciousness, something that is only a problem if you believe the lie, which everybody does, even myself. — noAxioms

What is the difference between an individual and a self? Do individuals exist? If so, and they are synonymous with selves, then selves exist. I don't see what the lie is that you are referring to.

The hard problem of consciousness is resolved by abandoning dualism and physicalism.

Deleted

Then explain what you meant by babies are aware of quantity — Harry Hindu

They are aware of quantities of things.

It's a dogma, an unproven conjecture, that evolution progresses by accidental mutations of the genes. There is zero evidence that this is generally the case — Haglund

It is my understanding that mechanisms of genetic change other than random mutations have been identified. That doesn't mean there isn't evidence of evolution being caused by mutations.