Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Simon says...
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 627
|
Post: #1  Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:47 am Post subject: Is a priori knowledge perfect? |
  |
|
|
Is a priori knowledge perfect? For example, is it impossible, that two completely contradictory facts can be true simultaneously, dispite the fact that they clearly cancel each other out. By this I do not mean that said facts are true in one sense, and false in another, I mean two facts in the exact same context, where one is the complete opposite/negation of the other, yet both are true?
If it is completely, and utterly impossible for such a situation to be real, then surely a priori knowledge does yield certainty, a.k.a. a probability of 1. If not, then perhaps we "know" a great deal (in the sense that we have "justified" beliefs that are true), but that we lack "certainty" (perfect security from being mistaken). Either is satisfying, because even without probabilities of 1, probabilities of nearly 1 still give us "confidence" in our predictions and hypotheses.
It is difficult to find an example, but here is one that I "think" is a priori. Is it possible, that somebody can run with a velocity of 3mph & 40mph, at the exact same instant, whilst remaining the same person? (I do not mean a person who divides himself into two and runs at two different speeds in different places, I mean ONE person in ONE place at ONE time). Is that even conceivable? If not, why? And if so, how?
p.s. I am also curious as to the extent that "conceivability" is a justification of a priori knowledge. On one hand, just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it isn't true, a blind man cannot conceive of red (if he has been blind all his life) because he has no frame of reference, yet the colour red exists. However, on the other hand, just because something is "inconceivable" by humans doesn't mean that "god" or any other divine being can conceive of it either, particularly when the very reason that humanity cannot conceive of something is NOT because of a lack of frame of reference, but because the two facts that we are trying to conceive of cancel each other out similar to what happens when you add 4 to -4, and get 0, a.k.a. NOTHING, the absence of existence...
What are your thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NameRemoved
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 642
|
| Post: #2 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Is a priori knowledge perfect? For example, is it impossible, that two completely contradictory facts can be true simultaneously, dispite the fact that they clearly cancel each other out. By this I do not mean that said facts are true in one sense, and false in another, I mean two facts in the exact same context, where one is the complete opposite/negation of the other, yet both are true?
|
priori knowledge is existing only in of the mind and prior to and independant of experience so how does it follow that two contradicting facts can be true simultaneously..is it perfect? depends what one calls perfect?
okay there are two writers and both simultaneously are about to write a book about Texas...one author wants to write about the glorious cowboys and ranching..so has in truth without experiencing being a Texan resarched about cowboys and ranches and seen pictures of it..the other author wants to write about the wealthyness of oil barrens in Texas,, he has never been there but has researched about the Oil in texas..and how much wealth it generated the oil barrens he is a critique of the opulance..both facts though opposing can be said to be true without either author having to have visited Texas or experienced being a Texan..
| Quote: |
| If it is completely, and utterly impossible for such a situation to be real, then surely a priori knowledge does yield certainty, a.k.a. a probability of 1. If not, then perhaps we "know" a great deal (in the sense that we have "justified" beliefs that are true), but that we lack "certainty" (perfect security from being mistaken). Either is satisfying, because even without probabilities of 1, probabilities of nearly 1 still give us "confidence" in our predictions and hypotheses. |
probabilitie is different to priori knowledge in the context I now see you are asking is it possible to concieve in advance of any knowledege on the matter by just faith alone [is that right?]
if so my answer is Yes inspiration and inventions and creation is the act of concieving priori knowledge
| Quote: |
am also curious as to the extent that "conceivability" is a justification of a priori knowledge. On one hand, just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it isn't true, a blind man cannot conceive of red (if he has been blind all his life) because he has no frame of reference, yet the colour red exists. However, on the other hand, just because something is "inconceivable" by humans doesn't mean that "god" or any other divine being can conceive of it either, particularly when the very reason that humanity cannot conceive of something is NOT because of a lack of frame of reference, but because the two facts that we are trying to conceive of cancel each other out similar to what happens when you add 4 to -4, and get 0, a.k.a. NOTHING, the absence of existence...
|
btw A blind man can concieve of red he just can`t perceive it. I can`t conceive of a place called Timbuktu I really can`t as I have never seen it or read of it, except I have heard of it..I can know its a fact its a land without seeing it...as others tell me it exists and some people come from there..equally many say there are things that I haven`t concieved for example high physics the foundation of science ie the Math..is impossible for me to concieve, yet I can grasp..and to some degree understand the theory of quantum how is that?
I could say its all unreal and that man landing on the moon is all hoax..[it could be] its like believing in fairytales and the honey monster for me to concieve of it.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 861
|
| Post: #3 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:07 pm Post subject: Re: Is a priori knowledge perfect? |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
Is a priori knowledge perfect? For example, is it impossible, that two completely contradictory facts can be true simultaneously, dispite the fact that they clearly cancel each other out. By this I do not mean that said facts are true in one sense, and false in another, I mean two facts in the exact same context, where one is the complete opposite/negation of the other, yet both are true?
If it is completely, and utterly impossible for such a situation to be real, then surely a priori knowledge does yield certainty, a.k.a. a probability of 1. If not, then perhaps we "know" a great deal (in the sense that we have "justified" beliefs that are true), but that we lack "certainty" (perfect security from being mistaken). Either is satisfying, because even without probabilities of 1, probabilities of nearly 1 still give us "confidence" in our predictions and hypotheses.
It is difficult to find an example, but here is one that I "think" is a priori. Is it possible, that somebody can run with a velocity of 3mph & 40mph, at the exact same instant, whilst remaining the same person? (I do not mean a person who divides himself into two and runs at two different speeds in different places, I mean ONE person in ONE place at ONE time). Is that even conceivable? If not, why? And if so, how?
p.s. I am also curious as to the extent that "conceivability" is a justification of a priori knowledge. On one hand, just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it isn't true, a blind man cannot conceive of red (if he has been blind all his life) because he has no frame of reference, yet the colour red exists. However, on the other hand, just because something is "inconceivable" by humans doesn't mean that "god" or any other divine being can conceive of it either, particularly when the very reason that humanity cannot conceive of something is NOT because of a lack of frame of reference, but because the two facts that we are trying to conceive of cancel each other out similar to what happens when you add 4 to -4, and get 0, a.k.a. NOTHING, the absence of existence...
What are your thoughts? |
When we speak of one thing, we speak of its opposite as well. If there is a back side to a coin, that implies there is an opposite side. This is the principle of the Dyad, isn't it? The separation of the Monad.
"The principle of "twoness" or "otherness", was called Dyad by the Greek philosophers of the five centuries before Christ. They were suspicious of it because it seemed to revolt from unity, distancing itself from the divine Monad. They referred to the Dyad as "audacity" for its boldness in implying a separation from the original wholeness and "anguish" due to its inevitable yearning to return to to unity. It was also called "distress", "falling short", "the lie", and "illusion" since they believed the Monad alone was all." Michael S. Schneider, "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe".
When matter and anti matter meet, they cancel each other out, how this does not mean non-existance, but free energy, perhaps the state of universe before the big bang. On the other hand when the sperm and egg meet they multiple. Perhaps the issue is not opposites but the the forces of attraction or repulsion? When the two come together, do they become one, or repulse each other, and maintain their twoness? Without twoness, there could be no manifestation.
| Quote: |
| I mean ONE person in ONE place at ONE time |
You can determine position or you can determine speed, but not both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stax
Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 13
|
| Post: #4 Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Is a priori knowledge perfect? |
|
|
|
| Simon says... wrote: |
| Is a priori knowledge perfect? For example, is it impossible, that two completely contradictory facts can be true simultaneously, dispite the fact that they clearly cancel each other out. By this I do not mean that said facts are true in one sense, and false in another, I mean two facts in the exact same context, where one is the complete opposite/negation of the other, yet both are true? |
I would consult the liar paradox to find an example you're looking for.
Consider this statement: "I always lie" or "This statement is a false".
In these propositions, assigning truth value, in a bivalent manner is extremely hard.
Because if sentence 2 were correct, that would entail that the proposition itself is false, which contradicts the original truth value which we assigned, and thus the sentence is both true and false. If we considered it false, then we would be led to think that what the sentence expresses is not true, and then the sentence is actually non-false, i.e. true.
Tarski tried to solve this problem by saying the sentence "P" is not true iff P is not true. By which you would come to a recursive truth.
I like to resolve this paradox by changing the language, but keeping the same meaning of the sentence.
"This statement is not true." Now with a negative qualifier, it is not true, but it is also not false. See how a positive qualifier in "it is false" does not allow one to say it is not false, and not true.
I digress, but this is probably the most prominent case of a priori conceptual knowledge showing a complete negation of itself, and the inferences derived from it.
| Simon says... wrote: |
| If it is completely, and utterly impossible for such a situation to be real, then surely a priori knowledge does yield certainty, a.k.a. a probability of 1. If not, then perhaps we "know" a great deal (in the sense that we have "justified" beliefs that are true), but that we lack "certainty" (perfect security from being mistaken). Either is satisfying, because even without probabilities of 1, probabilities of nearly 1 still give us "confidence" in our predictions and hypotheses. |
In most cases a priori knowledge always yields what could be considered as 'perfect' as knowledge can be. But the disclaimer I give to you is that a priori reasoning only comes to logically perfect knowledge, not epistemically perfect knowledge.
Consider a basic maths sum like calculating the circumference of a circle. You do your sum, and you get a perfect number consequence from perfect number axioms. But in real life, you may never encounter a perfectly shaped circle with the exact same radius and circumference. The point I'm illustrating is, a priori knowledge is detached from reality, we can lock ourselves inside our rooms and deduce perfectly self contained systems from set axioms, and they can be logically perfect and sound within themselves, (an example springs to mind- theoretical physics) but when referenced against what is actually the case, they can be totally wrong.
| Simon says... wrote: |
| It is difficult to find an example, but here is one that I "think" is a priori. Is it possible, that somebody can run with a velocity of 3mph & 40mph, at the exact same instant, whilst remaining the same person? (I do not mean a person who divides himself into two and runs at two different speeds in different places, I mean ONE person in ONE place at ONE time). Is that even conceivable? If not, why? And if so, how? |
Because this statement "A is moving at both 40mph and 4mph at the same time" cannot be proven false analytically, you must employ other methods. This is because this proposition has concepts and properties, and it is because of the properties, they are synthetic.
What one must first define is that this sentence can also be expressed as: "A has the qualities B and C, where B and C are both derived from the same mode of qualification"
Now consider:
How does moving at 40mph exclude moving at other speeds? How does moving at 40mph exclude moving at non-40mph speeds?
These questions must be answered by thinking about the following; the speed of 40mph is not a state of preclusion, that is, the speed 40mph is not the same as a set of non-speeds which being at 40mph is. It is impossible to have a determinate list of the speeds which 40mph is not. Coupled with the fact that 40mph is not a negative quality.
So now I'll contrast your example with an analytic a priori knowledge claim: "All bachelors are unmarried."
To have this knowledge claim you need to know what 'unmarried' is and what a 'bachelor' is, but as a disanalogy, with 40mph, you don't have to know all other concepts of speeds which are not 40mph, but you must have at least one concept. So this would entail that your statement would be a priori in the broad sense (synthetic), but not in the narrow sense, because true a priori knowledge claims come from knowing all the implied concepts of a proposition.
| Simon says... wrote: |
p.s. I am also curious as to the extent that "conceivability" is a justification of a priori knowledge. On one hand, just because I can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it isn't true, a blind man cannot conceive of red (if he has been blind all his life) because he has no frame of reference, yet the colour red exists. However, on the other hand, just because something is "inconceivable" by humans doesn't mean that "god" or any other divine being can conceive of it either, particularly when the very reason that humanity cannot conceive of something is NOT because of a lack of frame of reference, but because the two facts that we are trying to conceive of cancel each other out similar to what happens when you add 4 to -4, and get 0, a.k.a. NOTHING, the absence of existence...
What are your thoughts? |
Your question up there about the blind man, I agree with, he needs a causal grounds for his belief of what the colour red is, and what the language denotes. He can refer to the colour red, but he himself cannot verify his claim, only people of his linguistic community who can see and identify the colour red from other colours and shades.
What Izzy mentions as the blind man is able to conceive is a conflation of the ideas of potentiality and actuality, he has the potential to conceive, but he cannot, because he has no way of forming that belief and knowledge causally. She is also conflating the ideas of reference and conceivability, one does not need to have a concept of something to refer to it. The blind man does not need to 'know' red in order to make propositions about it or containing it.
PS.Don't bring god into epistemology. Your point about non-existence and nothing is metaphysically wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NameRemoved
Joined: 28 Dec 2009
Posts: 642
|
| Post: #5 Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
stax wrote:
| Quote: |
| What Izzy mentions as the blind man is able to conceive is a conflation of the ideas of potentiality and actuality, he has the potential to conceive, but he cannot, because he has no way of forming that belief and knowledge causally |
A blind man can conceive colour by his senses, by feel..he can be taught blue is cool..hot is red, heated fire and so on..yellow is a joy colour playful colour so take him to a park on a sunny day and he can sense the colour yellow..white is the fridge freezer ice etc..etc..note I didn`t say he can perceive it ..he can conceive |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stax
Joined: 27 Sep 2009
Posts: 13
|
| Post: #6 Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| *Izzy* wrote: |
stax wrote:
| Quote: |
| What Izzy mentions as the blind man is able to conceive is a conflation of the ideas of potentiality and actuality, he has the potential to conceive, but he cannot, because he has no way of forming that belief and knowledge causally |
A blind man can conceive colour by his senses, by feel..he can be taught blue is cool..hot is red, heated fire and so on..yellow is a joy colour playful colour so take him to a park on a sunny day and he can sense the colour yellow..white is the fridge freezer ice etc..etc..note I didn`t say he can perceive it ..he can conceive |
Red being hot is not a necessary component of what makes red, red, your fallacious account of conception is due to you not taking into account the 'core' element of what red is, it is, totally, given meaning by its visual component- not through tactile or other associations one can make. A conception of redness equating to it 'being hot' is not a true conception of what red is. No matter what internal mental factors, they cannot influence the true referent of what 'red' is.
Also you're mistaking the idea of what to conceive means, to conceive a property/object/idea is to be able to refer to it and make true or false propositions about the referent that correlates to your experience.
The blind man has no real experience of what 'redness' is, because to experience red is to visually perceive it.
So because he has no 'raw' experience of what red is, he cannot make propositions that can be verified by his own experience, only others. This is the reason why he can still successfully refer to red (this does not entail conception) and make propositions about it, because other people can verify his propositions on the colour red against their conceptions of red.
Eg Blind man says, "The colour red is a property of most fires."
If he had a conception of red, he could go out, observe 'most' fires, and verify whether or not red is a property of them. Because he can't (he's blind- red being a visual property) he relies on other people's conceptions of red and fires observed to verify his position.
This is the difference between potential and actual conception. He has potential, because he can go and verify his propositions about the colour red with the aid of others, but actual conception is when you can do it yourself; you and I (assuming we're not blind) can go out and observe fires and see their inherent redness, and form conceptions about things which have redness. You can also apply your knowledge of what red is to other concepts, e.g. you can imagine a red car in your head, the blind man cannot. He can say "some cars are red", but this actually doesn't refer in any way to his knowledge of what cars and redness are, they are propositions not causally grounded in beliefs about what this particular object and property are respectively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 668
|
| Post: #7 Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Truth begins with declaration.
"I declare that a thing cannot be what it is and also what it isn't."
A mind cannot function without that declaration. The DNA establishes that in a mind before it is even conscious. And from that one logic, all else is determinable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
