Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

But of course you are just assuming that...

I believe that there are innate ideas; however, most innate ideas that are put forth by humans are tainted by personal ambitions. We have to control this selfish imagination, so we put forth the idea that experience is the basis of knowledge. This works to the better because even though we may throw away a true innate idea that comes along, we are saved from the endless Deano's in the world.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

Absolutely. But the true scientist will accept this because, frankly, sometimes we have no choice. We can still acquire reliable information through scientific method, if not necessarily valid information. Because of this, scientific method can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena, as long as one is fair about it.

The scientician, on the other hand, is the one who will find himself cornered when he utters, "Only empirical evidence counts." To rephrase your point, there is no empirical evidence even for the meaning of the sentence, "Only empirical evidence counts."

If Science defines itself by Method, and not by the nature of proof, there is no contradiction. Only Scientism contradicts itself.
If Religion defines itself through Compassion and not by a MGIBTYG mindset, there is no contradiction. Only Religionism contradicts itself.

With honesty of heart and mind, both Science and Religion bring knowledge and wisdom.

But with ego at the helm, you get a self-serving agenda which spells trouble.

Originally posted by Mindship
If Science defines itself by Method, and not by the nature of proof, there is no contradiction. Only Scientism contradicts itself.
If Religion defines itself through Compassion and not by a MGIBTYG mindset, there is no contradiction. Only Religionism contradicts itself.

With honesty of heart and mind, both Science and Religion bring knowledge and wisdom.

But with ego at the helm, you get a self-serving agenda which spells trouble.

All things in principal are good.

-

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Another simple way to look at it :

We make use of faith, and intuition to create assumptions/premises/axioms. In other words, we need to make use of our faith and intuition to assume empiricism, which denies faith and intuition as valid ways to obtain knowledge. That is a contradiction.

Hm, reading what you posted above, and I think I see your problem...

- Attacking pure empiricism. Anyone who takes philosophy knows the problem with 100% empiricism.

- Advocating pure rationalism. Anyone who takes philosophy knows the problem with 100% rationalism.

To find knowledge, you have to use both tools. Immanuel Kant covered this in his Critique of Pure Reason, but if you really want to challenge an empiricist, I suggest you read David Hume's works. And be prepared; he'll put everything you know to the test.

But the idea of "faith" and "intuition" is ridiculous. As I've said before, those concepts do not even belong in this discussion. Faith is religious in nature, unless you're using it as a shoe-in for belief. And it's pretty damn obvious to any would-be philosopher that you have to believe in knowledge to accept it. The idea of intuition doesn't fit whatsoever, as I've said countless times. By using such words, it's like you're attempting to parallel religion and reason, as you did openly in another thread. And that's the worst comparison you can make.

For the third time you avoid my questions. Is this how you do to keep your view correct, by refusing answers about it so others cannot argue agaisnt you ? Answer them, a simple yes or no will do. I will post them again :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

Logical reasoning isn't limited to just deduction, Atlantis. I think you need to go take a Logic and Reason course, preferably college level. There's deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction does not give new information, since the the conclusion is limited to the terms within the premises. Induction can provide new information based on probability, but it must be based in past experiences. A is A is the most basic of deductive reasoning. To KNOW anything about A, you must know A has identity and that it exists. If you do not know A, there is no process. It cannot lead to induction which leads to new knowledge.

So to come back to your claim, "intuition" does not work. Intuition requires knowledge to make a subconscious guess in order to make a claim. Also, whether or not that claim is true or not isn't implied in the nature of intuition. You're saying to know "A is A", we would have to use intuition. But intuition BY DEFINITION would require previous knowledge of A is A! You've agreed yourself that axioms are self-evident and irreducible. So if the foundations for reasoning are axioms, then it cannot be intuition, because intuition by definition can not intuit axioms.

Or, for the laymen...

Axioms >>> Reason >>> Knowledge >>> Intuition >>> Axioms >>> Reason... etc. etc.

You stuffing intuition in there doesn't work, nor does anything that comes after it. And again, I point out that when you realize an axiom, you are using a form of logic and reasoning.

And if you're wondering how we come up with A is A again.... Look to sensory data which must be present before there can even be awareness of self.

Changing a little the questions for you then :

Do you think that "A = A" can only be know through logic reasoning ? In other words, deduced, induced or abduced by logic ?

Do you think that only by logic reasoning, that is deduction, induction or abduction, we can obtain knowledge ?

Just two more questions..

Originally posted by Wesker
A is A is the most basic of deductive reasoning.

You state that "A=A" is deduced. Deduce for me that "A=A".





Which one ? Deduction , induction, or abduction ?

Just to clarify something(not for the first time) I never said intuition
needs empirical knowledge. Attain yourself to this definition please.

Intuition = Understanding without need of reason or empirical knowledge.

Ah, I think we're suffering yet ANOTHER definition confusion here, which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Firstly, intuition does not have the definition you claim it does. Really, the idea that intuition can arise WITHOUT reason or empirical knowledge begs for proof, which you have yet to provide. So not only is the term wrong as you're using it, but the idea you're trying to convey can't be substantiated. If you tell any psychologist or well-read philosopher that intuition just sprouts out of thin air without any forethought or subconscious underlyings, they'll laugh you out of their presence.

Second, what definition of axioms are YOU using?

Whatever. Its impossible to argue with you. You will just keep avoiding the subject...

And what subject is that? Come on now... You have such faith and conviction in your stance... Let me see your best form.

the major flaw in thinking of your post is that you seem to think science presents itself as an absolute, it does not. Scientific fact is merely the best answer we can give based on prior knowledge of testing and research via the scientific method. Our science is based completely upon our knowledge......as our knowledge grows our science changes.

see Atlantis, your post would be entirely accurate if the very knowledge we base scientific fact on was claimed to be absolute.....science itself however does not deal in absolutes.

wesker.......while I love your posting and enthusiasm I would like to point something out that I'm sure you already know but probably have never given much thought to.



instinct. it exists without reason or empirical knowledge yet cannot be explained by our science of today. animals are born with naturally adaptations for both predation and defense yet know how to use these without ever being taught, shown or learned of. Some animals are born with behavioral patterns common through the entire species that are not taught to them, shown to them or having them learned it any prior way. A good example of this is baby turtles instinctively heading for water after hatching. Another good example I will give it's own paragraph because it's something that caught my attention years ago and made me extremely curious about the nature of instinct....

A mouse that has never had an encounter with a cat will instinctively run from it. It has no prior information about the cat and knows nothing of the cat's anatomy or physiolgy....it's strong or weak points. It merely knows to run. It just so happens that running is it's only defense against a cat because cats have good eye sight and would pounce on it in a heartbeat. The same mouse encounters a snake for the first time. Without prior knowledge of the snake's anatomy or physiology it instinctively knows to freeze in place, not to move a muscle. It just so happens that snake's have horrible eye sight and detect it's prey sensing heat in motion. If the mouse were to move it would give itself away by it's motion and be killed. Somehow this mouse who knows nothing of either predator instictively knows to run from a cat but to freeze when faced by a snake. Why is that? Science can't explain it. We merely call it instinct and move on.......but what exactly is instinct? It does certainly appear to be knowledge that is attained without empirical knowledge. In your last post you've asked for proof......there is much proof on this whole mouse/cat/snake run down I just gave. It really got me thinking when I watched a documentary on the phenomena of instinct on the Discover channel a couple years ago where this very scenerio was not only discussed but also shown in video form of tests that were done in a controlled lab.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
the major flaw in thinking of your post is that you seem to think science presents itself as an absolute, it does not. Scientific fact is merely the best answer we can give based on prior knowledge of testing and research via the scientific method. Our science is based completely upon our knowledge......as our knowledge grows our science changes.

see Atlantis, your post would be entirely accurate if the very knowledge we base scientific fact on was claimed to be absolute.....science itself however does not deal in absolutes.

No, actually my point is that science is not absolute. I was arguing that not all knowledge come from logic, and reason. Like the knowledge that "A=A" for example, or any kind of a priori knowledge. Like what you were saying about instinct, it is not a logic process, it is just instinct.

I see what Evil Dead's saying, and I've better researched your own position, Atlantis. I do see where you're coming from, though I couldn't get that from your posts without thinking you were way way off. Your using intuitionism logic, which is something I'm nor familiar with entirely (I took formal logic courses, but they were years ago. I've since focused on arguing strategies and philosophy.) I'm not going to argue the concept of intuitionism logic as being valid or invalid because, quite honestly- I'd need to brush up on my formal logic skills to wade through most of the arguments.

But using the word "intuition" I do disagree with. Like I've said and Evil Dead has pointed out, it seems to be a shoe-in for another term, like "innate knowledge" or even "instinct". And the idea of gaining knowledge outside of reason I still disagree with; we may come with a certain mode of operating (Such as possessing instincts, or possessing the ability to sort this from that, etc.), but there's no times after to acquiring reason that we step outside of it and acquire knowledge. After all, knowledge does imply knowing the logic behind something. You cannot have actual knowledge of a horse without applying logic to your observations. So calling instinct or innate knowledge "knowledge" is misleading as well. To have the innate or instinctual bent to adhere to reason does not imply total knowledge of it.

Yes, axioms can't be proven, but in a sense they are still logical concepts, in logical form. Hence, knowledge from logic and reason. Even thinking of a logical form and then acquiring knowledge afterwards goes to prove the point. Let's look at it this way: you HAVE to realize that A is A in order to know anything else in life. You have to be able to realize identity, both of self and of things in nature. Now, since the axiom of A is A is a logical concept, and you must build on that concept to further make arguments and acquire knowledge.

In other words, there's no instance when you learn something and acquire knowledge WITHOUT applying logic and axioms. No one sits there and does nothing and acquires knowledge.

Anyway you realize without logic reasoning.

It is an innate knowledge.

Uh, right.

You went from faith in reason to intuition to knowledge without reason to realizing prior to reason.

I think you're trying to identify that prelogic step, but you really don't have much to go on. You can call it intuition, or innate knowledge, or instinct, but one thing you can't do is substantiate it. You cannot even consider anything outside of the rational realm and identify it by itself (Without using reason!), so I fail to see the importance of trying to justify a tool using... itself. It would be like trying to use the scientific method to prove the scientific method, or using the Bible to justify the Bible.

That's where I disagree with intuitionism; the idea of justifying something that cannot be justified since it is in itself a tool for thinking and justification, and then presenting a false dillemma and addiing another piece to the puzzle that cannot even be shown to exist.

Can you show me an instance of a human mind operating at a pre-logic level of instinct, innate knowledge, or your own homegrown intuition? Can you scientifically show me an instance of innate knowledge via behavior? Why is your point of innate knowledge a valid one when it is not provable? You cannot use reason to contrive something outside of reason just because you feel that reason is incomplete. Descartes tried that same pure rationalism must neccessitate into existance bullshit back in the philosophic dark ages when he concluded that because we can think of perfection and God, therefore it must come from God. I'm seeing the same thing here; because reason cannot justify itself, therefore some unsubstantiated unknown must fill the void and justify it, yet remain undetectable and impossible to know.

It's like the Creationism of Realism. And that's understandable when you look at the background of most of its supporters, such as Dummett.

Personally, I've never used "instinct" and "intuition" interchangeably. For me instinct is "prelogical": it derives from biological hard-wiring, genetic instruction; it supplies innate information (not innate "ideas" as I would use the word), but only so far as the genetic instruction goes.

Intuition, on the other hand, I've always seen as "translogical." It is a way of knowing which integrates all previous/lesser modes of knowing/being: genetic, emotional, logical, all tied together through life experience. One can not intuitively know something w/o the experiential elements first; but one can come to an intuitive conclusion which, eg, logic alone may not be able to.

It is interesting to note that scientific endeavors--especially when seeking to break new ground--often begin with a "hunch."

Yeah, intuition by definition is the subconscious previous knowledge acting as a hunch. And only when it comes to fruitation do we label it "intuition".

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Intuition cannot be proved by logic, in the same way A=A cannot be proved. Think in intuition as an axiom.

No, it doesn't work that way. The idea of innate knowledge has to be proven first before we can argue it. Reason DOES exist, since we apply it in our thoughts. Innate knowledge lacks proof, and innate knowledge as being that mandatory prelogic step needs to be substantiated. Again, you cannot answer any of my points directly or deliberately, but you accuse me of such. Ridiculous.



No, logic is the BASIS for justification! Even if you attempted to justify intuition, you would need logic or it becomes a subjective approach. Realize that already. If you attempt to justify reason via intuition, you must subject intuition to logic for justification! And then whatever must justifiy intuition must in turn be justified again, via reason. Don't you see that? You can't CLAIM that reason, the very tool we need, must be justified and then shoe in some random term and call it irreducible. That's called bullshit.



Really? So people can think "A is A" and be devoid of logical thought? Depite the fact that even having axioms in your head implies reason? See, reason and rationality are terms for how the brain objectively and correctly operates as it determines information it received about the world via sensory data. Anyone who cannot tell that A is A is braindead or completely incapable of rational thought. There's nothing to even hint that a person could be devoid of the concept of self and still acquire knowledge.

See, where you and I really differ- you keep saying that intuition is the key to reason. I think it's something more like how we're wired to think. I don't believe there's a choice in it; either you can think and you think naturally along rational lines, or you can't think and you're beyond understanding because you're braindead, crazy, or otherwise in a state of self contradiction. But when you say intuition is acquiring knowledge without reason, you keep skirting the main point- you cannot acquire knowledge without applying reason to sensory data!

Your definition of intuition would have us believe that we just sit there like logs and suddenly have this ephiphany that "Hey, logic is good and right and I want to use it. I have this burst of knowledge and it justifies thinking objectively!". Problems with that?

- You can't even show a shred of evidence for intuition. You can claim it exists, claim it's mandatory, but then you can't even suggest where to look for it. In essence, you're trying to go from definition to reality, like Descartes did with the existance of God. Likewise, if I say a unicorn must exist because my boredom demands it, this doesn't prove that it exists. If I say that knowledge can be acquired through spinning a bottle and taking guesses, that doesn't neccessitate that that is the case.

- Intuition as being a nonlogical state is subjective. If all that validates logic is a gut feeling or hunch, then you'd have to cite where all people have this period of "Hey, you know what... reason exists and is right!" without accidentally... using reason or axioms.

- Again, you can't justify intuition itself. You're trying to make it real by giving it definition and purpose, but you cannot even show me where to find it or infer that it exists. Therefore, you fail.

Wesker, you are just assuming that logic is absolute, and that it is needed to justify everything. There is no way you can prove that by logic. You would say that it obviously happens because logic cannot justify itself, but that is not the point. The point is that if logic cannot justify itself, it is impossible to know logically that logic is valid.

Do you think that only by logic reasoning(deduction, induction or abduction) we can obtain knowledge ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Wesker, you are just assuming that logic is absolute, and that it is needed to justify everything. There is no way you can prove that by logic. You would say that it obviously happens because logic cannot justify itself, but that is not the point. The point is that if logic cannot justify itself, it is impossible to know logically that logic is valid.

Do you think that only by logic reasoning(deduction, induction or abduction) we can obtain knowledge ?

Wow, a broken record.

Logic is the most objective method we have for determining validity and accuracy of knowledge. Everything we know, everything we're discussing, is based on logical thinking. Even when you justify things, you apply logic. If you attempt to justify logic, you operate under the premise that logic itself is somehow not objective and absolute. Then you proceed to USE LOGIC to prove it's "incomplete". Do you NOT realize the contradiction in that method at all?

Again, I ask: can you justify the Bible WITH the Bible, Atlantis? Can you justify the scientific method WITH the scientific method? No, you cannot. Because to have justification, you must have something prior to it that can justify it, and than that in turn must be justified. And so on. But what you fail to realize in embracing intuition is that you CANNOT even substantiate the innate knowledge! You cannot even begin to explain to me where it is, how it works, or anything! You take axioms to be self-evident and irreducible, but their products- logic and reason, somehow requires a justification? Again, you cannot provide me answers without using reason, so in using reason you VALIDATE IT YOURSELF. I hope you're catching all these points in bold. Even if you attempted to invalidate or justify reason, you must apply reason. It IS the basis for all objective thinking in the human brain, period. Case closed.

And again, for the last time- we come to knowledge by using logical form and plugging in sensory data into the variable slots. In other words, you cannot come up with A is A unless you have something not A to compare it with. How do you get that? Sensory data. Unless you want to try and justify our senses now? Really, how "anti-real" can you get?

QED, Atlantis. Come back when you have an argument.

Yes, only by logical reasoning can we acquire knowledge. I answered this.

Let me reiterate that so it's totally clear: reason is the most objective tool we have. Through it, we acquire knowledge. Nothing else acquired outside of reason can be considered knowledge. For example, you claim that intuition gives us "knowledge" to justify reason. This isn't knowledge. Knowledge of reason would imply knowing the logos behind it. Logos demands reason behind that. It's inherent in the term itself.

SO....

If I were to show you a picture of a random creature you have never seen nor heard of before, and all you witness is just the image, would you rightly have knowledge of it? To what extent? Why would you be able to have even limited knowledge of the creature? Because you used reason to identify its characteristics in contrast with everything else you've ever seen.

When you show me how knowledge can be acquired without reason, I'll fully entertain it. Just shoving the term "intuition" out there and saying it is "neccessary" is hardly convincing.

If only by logic reasoning(deduction, induction, abduction) we can obtain knowledge, A=A is not knowledge because it is assumed a priori, not deduced, induced or abduced. In the same way, logic is not proved, it is assumed a priori like the axiom A=A. These things cannot be know by logic reasoning. If they can it is possible to prove it by deducing, inducing, or abducing it.

Intuition cannot be show because I am assuming it a priori, not deriving it by logic reasoning.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
If only by logic reasoning(deduction, induction, abduction) we can obtain knowledge, A=A is not knowledge because it is assumed a priori, not deduced, induced or abduced. In the same way, logic is not proved, it is assumed a priori like the axiom A=A. These things cannot be know by logic reasoning. If they can it is possible to prove it by deducing, inducing, or abducing it.

Intuition cannot be show because I am assuming it a priori, not deriving it by logic reasoning.

Okay, something slipped by you, apparently.

A=A is LOGICAL FORM. It is a logical concept. When you realize A, the implied premise is you are contrasting it with NOT A. To give something identity, you must be able to infer that it is different from something else. Now, A is A is the most primitive and basic of mental products; you MUST know this to advance any further in acquiring knowledge. After all, you cannot know anything until you know there is something (Or rather, many somethings.) And we acquire knowledge by noting the natures of all the somethings we observe via our senses.

Now, the idea of intuition cannot even be infered or realized as an axiom. For one thing, the term is incorrect: intuition is a gut feeling call based on subconscious prior experiences. So let's say you use innate knowledge instead (Which you did).... You must now substantiate innate knowledge. You cannot just give it a definition and claim it MUST exist and this somehow validifies it and creates it. See, you can't bring axioms to me on a plate, but how you acquire knowledge of A is A in the first place is to recognize things in the natural world. You SEE, HEAR, SMELL, etc. that A is different from B and B from C and so on. You could not divine that there is an A unless you had observed it. The concept may be purely mental, but the variables to fill in the gaps must come from the real world first (and later on, THEN you can abstract.).

Also, we can infer that reason exists because we apply it in our thinking and behavior. Every time we think we reaffirm reason as existing. However, this shoe-in term for intuition cannot be infered in this manner. You cannot SHOW me where intuition comes into play, nor can you indicate a situation where I could attempt to observe it or its effects. And in doing this, you fail to give it true meaning. After all, the only knowledge we have of this world are of things in it, their natures, and how their natures interact. This includes the human mind. If you cannot observe intuition or its effects, and you cannot do much more than give it purpose and definition but no substance, then it stands to reason that it probably does not exist. In other words, if I neccessitate as Descartes did by pure reason that God MUST exist because his existance is neccessitated by the argument I have constructed, this does not mean he DOES exist. Anything claimed must be proved. I can claim that there is an invisible midget on my shoulder who is intangible to the human touch, and virtually undetectable by human senses, but this does not mean he really exists. The claim is not falsifiable, like your claim about the existance and operation of "intuition".

So I hope you've understood this post, because the last eight or nine went right over your head. There is a defect in pure reason, and I think you're finding that out right now- the tool is only as good as the jobs we apply it to. But that's not a defect in the tool itself so much as in its use. Verstehen Sie jetzt?

I sorry but I do not agree, but I think I see where our views are really diverging.

You are saying that A=A is infered in someway, but axioms are not infered. Just a posteriori knowledge is infered. So you must be taking A=A as a posteriori knowledge, no problem with that. In inference you must derive a conclusion "b", from "a" that is something that you already know. What is this base knowledge "a" from where you are taking the conclusion "b" that A=A ?

I'm not entirely sure if I understand exactly what it is you've said here... But let me see if I can address it anyhow:

A newborn humanbeing experiences almost immediately the world via the senses. There are different, contrasting things discovered by the senses. Light and nonlight. Round and not round. Moving and not moving. Differences in smell, in touch, in taste. Being assaulted with all this sensory data we eventually notice that there are two kinds of stuff: A and not A, B and not B, and so on. If a baby sees motion, it can contrast it with nonmotion. If it hears a loud sound, it can contrast it with silence. By taking sensory data we can see that if A were to mean, for instance, the loud sound, there must be not A perceived to make that call. In other words, you would not take notice of a loud sound if you did not know the absence of it or something other than it. Also, you could not detect movement if you had nothing to contrast it to. This is pretty evident.

Now, an axiom is self evident because it can be verified by our senses with relatively little internalization. We don't really have moments where A and not A aren't apparent except in cases of extreme rarity. But we experience it young as sensing beings an through this we learn the most basic of knowledge foundations: axioms. And building on axioms we have logic. Now, anyone who can read this thread understands logic to some degree or another. Perhaps their use of it isn't perfect, or perhaps they aren't even aware of their actual level of reason (Which is why intuition CAN be argued as a post-reason idea; I can intuit that there's something wrong with a picture, but consciously I may not be able to make the distinction right off the bat.) But each person must use reason to do anything else involving thought. To recognize my words, you must realize that the letters are unique and have identity. You cannot intuit this in your definition; that is, you cannot derive the knowledge of this letter being unique without first having contrasted it with say, blank space or another symbol. You must apply logic to the data in order to come up with knowledge. There is no other way. To say otherwise would be tantamount to saying we can acquire knowledge of the world via insanity or irrationality.

And keep in mind, the definition of knowledge is that one must believe A, know A, and provide the logos for A.

Still missed the point; this is how we determine real knowledge. You may ASSUME that you are yourself, or assume that you are afraid, and that may SEEM like intuitive knowledge, but you cannot truly know that without applying some form of logic. Again, I'm submitting that knowledge cannot be known without applying logic and logic principles. And in order to make those principles work, there must be sensory data to fill in the blanks. You must observe the natural world before you can internalize it and then make an effort to know it.

How do you know you're afraid? Because you've noticed the pysiological changes in yourself before. Because you've contrasted it with being not afraid. You may recognize immediately that there IS a change, but you do not have knowledge of the nature of that change and all it entails. You are lacking -knowledge- of anything beyond the immediate moment. And only later on, when you can draw back on that and establish that you WERE afraid.

How do you know you are alive? Well, you realize that your body can affect things in the real world. You realize that your body has needs. You realize that you have inner thoughts. From all this, you come to the inference that you ARE alive. This is not innate knowledge.

Let's keep in mind that knowledge in the strictest sense is complete, or close to complete knowledge. Being aware of changes and knowing the nature behing them are two totally different things.

EDIT: Since axioms has more than a few definitions, let me try and relate the one I'm using: an axiom is the most basic logical form and argument. It's the foundation for reason, which encompasses all human thought. Axioms require no real justification because they are evident by our senses. If you in turn demand that sense be justified, you might as well stop arguing because you're in the realm of nonsense (Because if you refute all sensory data and you question reason, this debate is concluded. I cannot argue with you anymore.)

But axioms are neccessary for any other kinds of thought. Axioms aren't intuitive knowledge, or innate knowledge... it's contrasted ideas from observation. Axioms are not irreducible because they appeal to some sense of innate knowledge, but irreducible because they are validified by our senses and our way of coming to experience the world.

"I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen J. Gould

For the sake of discussion: a child sees that an apple = an apple, or that a chair = a chair. At some point, as his cognitive prowess develops, he can transcend the sensory data of pairs of entities and formulate, as a concept, that A=A without having to test every single pair.

What, then, makes A=A an axiom? The initial sensory experiments of comparing specific pairs of entities, or the logic which enables the conclusion to leap past the testing of every single pair? Or is it the combination: sensory + logic?

I think you touched on it pretty well; at one point, the human mind uses logic to realize that A is A and doesn't have to contrast it with everything else to affirm this. It infers that A is A and that there's not more of A hidden elsewhere, or some other such bizarre observation.

What is it in us which recognizes the usefulness of logic? Not just formal logic, but organizing sensory data into meaningful cognitive maps, maps which allow prediction and inference? Apparently, there is great evolutionary advantage to approaching the world this way. We use logic and find it "good" because those organisms that didn't were less likely to survive and pass on logic-friendly genes.

Perhaps this is our "innate knowledge," what I would call instinct, not intuition.

Maybe it's a matter of Which-came-first: sensation or instinct? Mentation certainly wasn't first, and formal logic was last on the knowledge-acquisition scene. At the very edge of life, where pre-biotic operations meet biotic, what is it that turns the former into the latter? When does "knowing" become an evolutionary player?

Originally posted by Mindship
What is it in us which recognizes the usefulness of logic? Not just formal logic, but organizing sensory data into meaningful cognitive maps, maps which allow prediction and inference? Apparently, there is great evolutionary advantage to approaching the world this way. We use logic and find it "good" because those organisms that didn't were less likely to survive and pass on logic-friendly genes.

Perhaps this is our "innate knowledge," what I would call instinct, not intuition.

Maybe it's a matter of Which-came-first: sensation or instinct? Mentation certainly wasn't first, and formal logic was last on the knowledge-acquisition scene. At the very edge of life, where pre-biotic operations meet biotic, what is it that turns the former into the latter? When does "knowing" become an evolutionary player?

Let me address your post first.

Innate knowledge COULD be instinct, I agree with that. I think the term intuition is misleading and incorrect. The Encyclopedias and the dictionaries confirm that using it in this case is, since it implies subconscious knowledge.

But how does one isolate and identify instinct? How do you differentiate what is "human instinct" from what is outside influenced, or perhaps just a matter of proper stimuli? I agree that the human brain operates on natural principles, but I do not think we have enough (Or perhaps better to say, we don't have enough evidence and argument here) to determine what is and isn't instinct, and how it works, or why. I personally feel that we come to know of logic because of how the world works- it operates by rules. Those rules aren't always apparent, but for the most part, they are. Cause and effect is very apparent. We can realize that things have different natures with enough information. What I suspect is that we don't start to acquire real knowledge before we apply this same natural order of things onto our own mental observations and information we've received via the senses.

I mean, when you're a baby, precious little is understood. Actually, newborn eyesight is pretty poor, and the human brain needs time to develop in order to make full use of its senses. But instead of saying each baby is born with some unsubstantiable form of instinct that allows it to impose it's own rules on nature, I suggest it's the other way around; as impressionable beings, nature imposes a sense of order and regulation on our thinking. If cause and effect did NOT exist in the real world, we would not use it as a form of logic. There would be no conditional if, then arguments. So logic is a reflection of reality imposing on the human mind how things -should- operate. And because nature is more consistant than not, we gravitate towards reason.

I'm not saying 100% instinct or innate knowledge cannot exist or work; I'm saying we can't pull one out of a hat and examine it. The very concept is too nebulous to say "This is what it is and this is what it does." Like I said to Atlantis; we cannot derive what exists solely through definition.

Originally posted by Wesker
I'm not saying 100% instinct or innate knowledge cannot exist or work; I'm saying we can't pull one out of a hat and examine it. The very concept is too nebulous to say "This is what it is and this is what it does." Like I said to Atlantis; we cannot derive what exists solely through definition.

I agree that pulling out of a hat should be avoided, if at all possible. Occam's Razor, as you know, demands we keep things as simple and straightforward as possible. Perhaps once our knowledge of the human genome is "perfected" (whatever that might mean or entail), trying to determine what is or isn't instinct might then no longer be a hat to pull from. We do know there are human instincts (eg, the startle response), but what part instinct plays in logical knowing is, as far as I know, undefined

Still, in speculation, in applying the broad brushstroke of evolution, it would seem to me that since logic is such a profound part of the human experience, one could rest assured (?) that there must be some prelogical impetus, something in our genetic hardwiring which, at least, "starts the ball rollling" on the way to building logical cognitive maps of not just our sensory experience, but metacognitive, metametacogntive and so on experiences.

Regardless, whatever "innate knowledge" might exist, "intuition" is not the word I would use for it, at least not in the context of this discussion.

Originally posted by Mindship
I agree that pulling out of a hat should be avoided, if at all possible. Occam's Razor, as you know, demands we keep things as simple and straightforward as possible. Perhaps once our knowledge of the human genome is "perfected" (whatever that might mean or entail), trying to determine what is or isn't instinct might then no longer be a hat to pull from. We do know there are human instincts (eg, the startle response), but what part instinct plays in logical knowing is, as far as I know, undefined

Still, in speculation, in applying the broad brushstroke of evolution, it would seem to me that since logic is such a profound part of the human experience, one could rest assured (?) that there must be some prelogical impetus, something in our genetic hardwiring which, at least, "starts the ball rollling" on the way to building logical cognitive maps of not just our sensory experience, but metacognitive, metametacogntive and so on experiences.

Regardless, whatever "innate knowledge" might exist, "intuition" is not the word I would use for it, at least not in the context of this discussion.

Yeah, like I said, it's possible. We might be hardwired to realize reason, since reason is similar to the natural order of things and would be of most benefit to us as a living and surviving being. It's also possible that we only think of reason because of alien transmissions which are virtually undetectable and compel us to think and act as we do. While I do understand what you're saying and agree, I don't accept instinct or innate knowledge as fact just yet. We have a ways to go yet. But excellent touching on Occam's Razor.

Originally posted by Wesker
It's also possible that we only think of reason because of alien transmissions which are virtually undetectable and compel us to think and act as we do.

Actually, that would explain a lot

In one form or another, we have been on this planet for 3 + billion years. Knowledge is energy, and energy is never lost.


I feel better now.

You got a lot off your chest, Shaky.

Originally posted by Wesker
You got a lot off your chest, Shaky.


It was one of those intense ideas.

Bah, no getting spiritual in the philosophy section! You might encourage someone. lol

Originally posted by Wesker
Bah, no getting spiritual in the philosophy section! You might encourage someone. lol


Don't get me started.

Intuition does not require previous knowledge, it could be influenced by it of course, but it does not need it to exist. The knowledge that intuition gives is not "innate", but intuition gives you new knowledge without use reasoning.

Originally posted by Wesker
Step I- Perception of many differences in senses.

Step II- Human being gets different sensory perceptions of A and B. Human being concludes that A cannot be B, and vice versa, because of differences in perception (The very nature of A and B are different).

You must assume first that your perceptions bring you real knowledge of the world in step I, to start to make the inferences in step II. How do you infer that information from the senses constitute knowledge ?




If A is A is a premise, it is not infered. Premises are assumed a priori. Premises are presumed to be true. If A is A works like a premise at the "level of knowledge", then your knowledge of A is A is presumed, assumed, but not infered.

You have agreed before that for logic argumentation to even exist there must be somethings that must be agreed in, and taken as granted to be true(what means that they are not proved, obviously). Logic is presuming that those things are true, not proving them.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Intuition does not require previous knowledge, it could be influenced by it of course, but it does not need it to exist. The knowledge that intuition gives is not "innate", but intuition gives you new knowledge without use reasoning.

Look, I realize you're the Semantic God of KMC and that you won't stop using this word because you saw it in a book somewhere, but it's INCORRECT. And again, you cannot show me how to acquire knowledge without reason!

QED!



Let me get this straight... You're questioning the validity of the senses and reason at the same time?

Wow, Ayn Rand would have a fieldday with you, Atlantis. You are asking me in a nutshell to validify both the senses and reason.... without using either. There IS no method of knowledge outside of those spheres, Atlantis, but if you find it, I'm SURE you'll get the Nobel prize for sure. I suspected you were an anti-realist, but now it's official.

IF you don't believe in the senses as valid methods of perception AND you question reason as "needing" justification, THEN you are hopeless in a debate because you are operating IRRATIONALLY.

How do you intend to answer those questions, Atlantis? Credo quod absurdum?



....

I argued this point to you like twenty posts ago, Atlantis. Way to loop. I already pointed out, as did Illustrious, that ABSOLUTE knowledge is not possible with our current tools. Absolute knowledge (100% proof) requires a level of experience with something that is near impossible to achieve. You cannot have PURE knowledge of something unless you knew its nature completely, from the color and shape down to the atomic level. You would have to have complete knowledge of this A in ALL cases at ALL times. It would require a brain bordering on the omniscience to acquire this. We already acknowledged this, as did ancients thousands of years before you or I.

It is POSSIBLE that what we perceive as A is nothing more than uniform energy curving around space-time in a manner which makes it appear different to us. It is POSSIBLE that we are all "ghosts in machines" as Descartes suggested. It is POSSIBLE that we are dreams of an ant in another universe where the sand is bold red and the sky is emerald green. It's also possible that you're violating Occam's Razor by attempting to assign the role of justification outside of our sphere of knowledge. We know as human beings only what is within our senses and our capability as reasoning beings. We cannot know anything more. Your concept of intuition is a slap in the face to philosophers who seek the truth. You arbitarily assign definitions, causes, and values to things you cannot attempt to question without using them.

In short, you are not operating on a rational level, and this argument is concluded. You cannot be reasoned with.

Originally posted by Wesker
Look, I realize you're the Semantic God of KMC and that you won't stop using this word because you saw it in a book somewhere, but it's INCORRECT. And again, you cannot show me how to acquire knowledge without reason!

QED!



Let me get this straight... You're questioning the validity of the senses and reason at the same time?

Wow, Ayn Rand would have a fieldday with you, Atlantis. You are asking me in a nutshell to validify both the senses and reason.... without using either. There IS no method of knowledge outside of those spheres, Atlantis, but if you find it, I'm SURE you'll get the Nobel prize for sure. I suspected you were an anti-realist, but now it's official.

IF you don't believe in the senses as valid methods of perception AND you question reason as "needing" justification, THEN you are hopeless in a debate because you are operating IRRATIONALLY.

How do you intend to answer those questions, Atlantis? Credo quod absurdum?



....

I argued this point to you like twenty posts ago, Atlantis. Way to loop. I already pointed out, as did Illustrious, that ABSOLUTE knowledge is not possible with our current tools. Absolute knowledge (100% proof) requires a level of experience with something that is near impossible to achieve. You cannot have PURE knowledge of something unless you knew its nature completely, from the color and shape down to the atomic level. You would have to have complete knowledge of this A in ALL cases at ALL times. It would require a brain bordering on the omniscience to acquire this. We already acknowledged this, as did ancients thousands of years before you or I.

It is POSSIBLE that what we perceive as A is nothing more than uniform energy curving around space-time in a manner which makes it appear different to us. It is POSSIBLE that we are all "ghosts in machines" as Descartes suggested. It is POSSIBLE that we are dreams of an ant in another universe where the sand is bold red and the sky is emerald green. It's also possible that you're violating Occam's Razor by attempting to assign the role of justification outside of our sphere of knowledge. We know as human beings only what is within our senses and our capability as reasoning beings. We cannot know anything more. Your concept of intuition is a slap in the face to philosophers who seek the truth. You arbitarily assign definitions, causes, and values to things you cannot attempt to question without using them.

In short, you are not operating on a rational level, and this argument is concluded. You cannot be reasoned with.


Well done Janus...

Thank you. I'll be here all week.

I've already spoken at length about this, Atlantis.

First point - "Intuition" does not exist as you claim it does. It is not a shoe-in term. There is no official language source that backs up your definition. Ergo, it is not a real definition. Use the proper term.

Second point- You cannot substantiate innate knowledge. At all. You have an idea, and an ad hoc definition behind that idea, but you have no SUBSTANCE. You cannot show me intuition in the real world. You cannot infer it, you cannot prove it, you are making a claim that is NOT falsifiable. And in doing that, you are committing a logical error on par with Creationism and I.D.

Third point- Now you claim that you aren't saying intuition is innate knowledge. But where does it come from? Can you explain this? Intuition is somehow NOT innate and it's NOT derived from logic... How can it exist? How can we acquire NEW knowledge from something that cannot even be proven by human reason?

Fourth point- Your "point" is moot; you cannot justify anything without logic. Therefore, logic itself cannot be subjected to itself in order to justify itself. This is evident. You've said this. But then you go on to make the CLAIM that logic NEEDS justification. That is, instead of logic being valified in its use because it is the sole basis for understanding and knowledge in the human mind, you go on to claim that some nebulous, incorrect term must somehow wedge in there and provide NEW knowledge.... But you can't tell us what this knowledge is, how intuition can in turn be justified, why intiution would be objective, nor can you fit it anywhere in the interalization process I thoroughly mapped out in my previous posts.

Let's face it- you don't have a damn leg to stand on. I think it's funny... I came into this debate without a clear goal or point, and you were the exact opposite. And yet it is you who are found to be lacking in reason and understanding while my point becomes clearer and more accurate each post. You don't even answer all of my points; you just regurgitate the same nonsense over and over again. I really don't think you know anything about what you're talking about. But I do. And your argument lacks substance, just like your idea of intuition. Now, this argument is done. Unless you can come back swinging with something that makes rational sense, don't bother.

QED.

Whatever you say. I have a point, and I know I am not arguing semantics. I will say no more.

I suppose this one got buried.

A pity. I rather enjoyed it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I suppose this one got buried.

A pity. I rather enjoyed it.

I am glad this nonsense was buried. The whole point of this thread is to equate belief based on faith with belief based on reason, as if all types of belief are equal.

Yeah, which I realized right off the bat. That seems to be Whob's argument in another thread, only... more ridiculous.

Ah, the memories. Good thread. Back in my prime.