A priori knowledge.

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.

Maybe it was a misunderstanding in the use of the word, maybe it wasn´t... it doesn´t matter. But I´m using intuition as an understanding without use of reason, somekind of "innate knowledge" or "instinct" like you said. At least it is how it is usually defined.

We disagree about if knowlegde does only come from logic, so I think there is not much discussion to do, anyway here is what I think.

For me instinct would be an example of knowledge that does not come from reason, any axiom of logic would be too. I mean... you cannot conclude by logic reasoning that an axiom is true. There is no way you can prove that A=A for example. Axioms are assumed to be true since they can´t be proved.

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".

I am not trying to justify intuition using logic reasoning. Intuition is beyond logic so it can´t be explained in logical terms. For me, intuition must be understood by itself.

Originally posted by Wesker
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.

Thats what I think, but I call that "unsubstatiated unknow that fills the void" intuition. For me, intuition do the work of filling the voids. This kind of knowledge cannot be justified by logic, so if they are justified in any way, it is done without logic.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I am not trying to justify intuition using logic reasoning. Intuition is beyond logic so it can´t be explained in logical terms. For me, intuition must be understood by itself.

No, you're using intuition as a shoe-in for something to justify logic, but it doesn't fit. You're saying in essence: "Logic cannot validate itself, therefore, intuition must exist to validate/justify logic." This is a poor argument. By trying to move this form of "intuition" outside of logic, you effectively are putting it beyond a logical approach. And since a logical approach is the only objective we have as human beings, you're making the idea of accepting reason subjective, since there is no way you could share with us your own innate knowledge nor could you prove that everyone else who uses reason had the exact same or similar innate experience.

Thats what I think, but I call that "unsubstatiated unknow that fills the void" intuition. For me, intuition do the work of filling the voids. This kind of knowledge cannot be justified by logic, so if they are justified in any way, it is done without logic.

Read above. You are using a subjective, shoe-in term to explain what appears to be a problem with objective logic (That is, that it cannot justify itself) and applying it as the truth. This is not "Reason according to Atlantis001"; this is a debate. You made the assertion that intuition exists and fills in the gap. When it comes to prove or lose it time, you drop the ball. You take axioms as irreducible givens, but you don't take their products- logic, as givens. Apparently axioms do not need justification, but reason does. How do you question it? By a method of reason. Ridiculous. You cannot move outside of reason and judge it or justify it. You cannot. Why? Because there is no knowledge outside of reason. And if there is no knowledge outside of reason, you cannot find knowledge OF reason via insanity or chaos or "intuition". So you are basically trying to say reason is incomplete and demands this ideal of intuition, but you cannot prove it. How would you prove it? Reason. So even in showing something that justifies reason, you cannot justify it in turn.

And assume you justify reason via intuition (Which isn't going to happen), how do you justify intuition? By saying it's illogical? LMFAO.

Please!

So apparently we have to believe in intuition and make a faith-based judgment to justify an objective tool of acquiring knowledge- reason? Did I get your entire stance right?

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

Originally posted by Wesker
No, you're using intuition as a shoe-in for something to justify logic, but it doesn't fit. You're saying in essence: "Logic cannot validate itself, therefore, intuition must exist to validate/justify logic." This is a poor argument.

Logic cannot be justified also, so would logic be a shoe-in term used to justify all logic things? Both logic and intuition can´t be justified(by logic). They are not different in this sense.

Apparently axioms do not need justification, but reason does. How do you question it? By a method of reason.

I am not saying that axioms don´t need justification. I am saying that if axioms are justified, if they are true, then you must have gained that knowledge from some process independent of reason, like 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.

Logic cannot be justified also, so would logic be a shoe-in term used to justify all logic things? Both logic and intuition can´t be justified(by logic). They are not different in this sense.

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.

I am not saying that axioms don´t need justification. I am saying that if axioms are justified, if they are true, then you must have gained that knowledge from some process independent of reason, like intuition.

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.

You are avoiding my points, and ignoring my questions. If that is the only way you can keep your point valid, I´m sorry but I will not discuss with you any more. If you want to keep discussing answer me ; Do you think that only by logic reasoning(deduction, induction or abduction) we can obtain knowledge ?

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 ?