A priori knowledge.

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.

In this perspective the base knowledge that you use to derive A=A is your senses. So, A=A is not really an axiom, it derives from some other basic knowledge that is the real axiom, and that axiom is your senses.

If knowledge does only come from logic reasoning, it can only be infered. Remember that in inference you must derive a conlusion "b" from some thing else you already know, that we will call "a". So, for something to be knowledge, it must be infered from some previous knowledge "a". This "a" needs to be know, what means it must be infered too.

A=A is a conclusion "b" derived from our senses "a". From this we can say that if "a" is know, then A=A can be infered as knowledge by logic reasoning.

How we can know "a" ? We must infer it somehow accordingly to your definition of knowledge, and that is not possible to do. I will agree with you if you say that our senses are obvious or self evident, but I will only be agreeing because "I think so", or by my intuition. Senses cannot be infered.

The best way to explain this, is to show some examples as this logic discussion don´t give you the idea of intuition. For example, you just know that you are alive, you don´t infer it. About the concept of identity, how do you know you are yourself ? You just know it, it is not infered. How do you know when you feel some emotion like fear? Or how do you know you simply hear a sound ? You just know, they are not infered.

If these were obtained via logic reasoning, then you will need to infer them. What means you will need to derive them from some other previous knowledge "a2". Even if you succeed you will need to derive that knowledge "a2" from some other knowlegde "a3", and things will go on like this to infinity.

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.

You say that we realize things like having inner thoughts, and affecting the world. From that knowledge we would infer that we are alive, but to realize these things we just need to feel them, to be aware of them. It is the immediate knowledge that you spoke of, and we need them to make our contrastations.

We need to contrast "something" that we already know, and those things are innate knowledge. If they aren´t they must be infered from something else, and you cannot infer your own senses. You just sense them.

Originally posted by Wesker
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.

An axiom is a sentence that is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing other truths. Axioms are not validified, or justified by any other thing. To say that they are validified, or that they follow a criterium for validation is the same to say that they are infered. Axioms BY DEFINITION are not inferences.

You said that axioms aren´t justified, but also said that they are "validified"(what means justified) by our senses ? That is a contradiction. ARe they justified for you ? Yes or no ?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
You say that we realize things like having inner thoughts, and affecting the world. From that knowledge we would infer that we are alive, but to realize these things we just need to feel them, to be aware of them. It is the immediate knowledge that you spoke of, and we need them to make our contrastations.

We need to contrast "something" that we already know, and those things are innate knowledge. If they aren´t they must be infered from something else, and you cannot infer your own senses. You just sense them.

Again, define innate knowledge. Show where it is, how we can detect or prove it. You keep using the term, but it doesn't fit. Sensory data is lumped on us in droves, and the human brain takes its time to sort it out. But nowhere is it obvious or apparent that "innate knowledge" is neccessary or used. Indeed, I don't see how you can divine that innate knowledge exists if you can't even substantiate what it is, or at what time we use it. I'm saying we contrast what we observe and how these somethings interact in order to make general statements about the world. I've illustrated this point in several posts already, though you seem to just be overlooking it. You're saying there's some innate knowledge that, if I'm reading your post right (And you do need to work on your clarity a bit, because sometimes I'm not sure if you're missing my point or addressing it) is knowledge gained from senses and used in axioms and other forms of reasoning? I'm not even sure where you're going with that.

You see that the ball is red... How is this innate knowledge? How can our sense BE innate knowledge if they only perceive? It is entirely up to the human mind to interprete things perceived. I guess you're mistaking me again- we don't "infer our senses"... We use the data gained from sense to infer things about the real world. That's so damn obvious I can't stress it anymore. You need to clarify your position on "innate knowledge", because I can't see it.

An axiom is a sentence that is taken for granted as true, and serves as a starting point for deducing other truths. Axioms are not validified, or justified by any other thing. To say that they are validified, or that they follow a criterium for validation is the same to say that they are infered. Axioms BY DEFINITION are not inferences.

O rly?

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.
1. A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2. An established rule, principle, or law.
3. A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

Of course, A = A is taken for granted, because otherwise you could not use the idea of identity and existance, and if you disbelieved in those ideas you could not even begin to apply reason in the first place! That's why axioms are accepted as true without proof; they are the precursor to ANY and ALL logical arguments. Every time you begin an argument, A is A is one of the implied premises, because you MUST recognize that things exist and are unique before you can begin to make inferences about them. How do you realize that things exist and are unique? Sensory data. NOT innate knowledge.

You said that axioms aren´t justified, but also said that they are "validified"(what means justified) by our senses ? That is a contradiction. ARe they justified for you ? Yes or no ?

See above. Axioms must be accepted as true or there can be no basis for logical discourse. Axioms are in turn validified by our experience of the world via the senses. Again, where does "innate knowledge" come into play?

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 Wesker
Again, define innate knowledge. Show where it is, how we can detect or prove it. I'm saying we contrast what we observe and how these somethings interact in order to make general statements about the world.

I used the word innate knowledge, to emphasize the point that they can´t be know through reasoning, you know, it is an immediate knowledge when we perceive them. Not that they are totally independent from the experience. I think I should have used intuition instead. Anyway, my point is still the same I have been explaining in my other posts.

Of course, A = A is taken for granted, because otherwise you could not use the idea of identity and existence, and if you disbelieved in those ideas you could not even begin to apply reason in the first place! That's why axioms are accepted as true without proof; they are the precursor to ANY and ALL logical arguments.

Resuming our discussion. I was saying that the first basic knowledge that we have and from where any other thing must be inferred from. Which are the axioms, and which can´t be justified or proved because all inferences are made from them, cannot be said to be knowledge if you can´t infer them.

If knowledge can only be inferred, and axioms can´t, then axioms are not knowledge. So the logic reasoning that you use to justify your knowledge is based on things(axioms) that you don´t know. You are saying that knowledge can only be inferred, and that axioms can´t, but you are ignoring that it will lead to the conclusion that axioms are not knowledge.

Every time you begin an argument, A is A is one of the implied premises, because you MUST recognize that things exist and are unique before you can begin to make inferences about them. How do you realize that things exist and are unique? Sensory data. NOT innate knowledge.

I understand that you are trying to justify, or validate your axioms based on sensory data, but you cannot say that they are inferred(like from sensory data), or they will not be axioms. I believe you mean "No" when I asked if axioms can be justified ?

These sensory data we use to make contrasts, and comparisons, in order to acquire further knowledge, can only be said to be knowledge if you could infer them. Sensory data is not know by contrasting things, but they are used to make contrasts. We do not infer that a ball is red, we know that a ball is red when we see one.

You use sensory data to make all your inferences to obtain knowledge, but how do you know that these sensory data is know to you ? I mean, how can you use sensory data to make inferences to obtain valid knowledge, or truths if you don´t know if sensory data is true(since you can´t "infer your senses"😉 ?

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 Atlantis001
I used the word innate knowledge, to emphasize the point that they can´t be know through reasoning, you know, it is an immediate knowledge when we perceive them. Not that they are totally independent from the experience. I think I should have used intuition instead. Anyway, my point is still the same I have been explaining in my other posts.

Intuition does NOT fit, even with a changed definition. Intuition is based on the subconscious, and it is SEEMINGLY not using reason, but it actually draw on reason and reason's products.

Now, when you can prove to me that intuition/innate knowledge DOES exist objectively, I'll entertain it. You cannot. QED.

Resuming our discussion. I was saying that the first basic knowledge that we have and from where any other thing must be inferred from. Which are the axioms, and which can´t be justified or proved because all inferences are made from them, cannot be said to be knowledge if you can´t infer them.

I've addressed this plenty of times. But let me go over it step by step:

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).

> Let me stop here at this point. You might say "What causes the human being to differentiate A from B based on perception data?" Well, obviously sentient things capable of locomotion, using senses advanced enough to scope five different characteristics of an object MUST know the difference, or the idea of perception could not exist. To perceive is to notice the difference. Otherwise, we would all be staring at a blank sheet of paper, 24/7. Is this innate knowledge? Define innate knowledge in this instance. Certainly, you cannot "intuit" A from B, since intuition requires previous knowledge. Likewise, what is the focus or object of innate knowledge in this case? That of difference? Is that really borne of the human mind, or the natural world?

Step III- A is A. B is B. Concept of existance and identity realized. Watching A and B in nature, one realizes that they not only act differently from one another, but they each act within their own nature; i.e., a lead balloon will not rise up in the air. By observing these objects acting within their nature (Something they cannot escape), human beings realize there is a certain sense of order in nature.

Step IV- Implementation of deeper logic. Using the real world and observation as a model, the human brain constructs reason as the code by which knowledge is gained. Knowledge must be as follows; subject believes in A; subject knows A; subject can provide the logos for A.

If knowledge can only be inferred, and axioms can´t, then axioms are not knowledge. So the logic reasoning that you use to justify your knowledge is based on things(axioms) that you don´t know. You are saying that knowledge can only be inferred, and that axioms can´t, but you are ignoring that it will lead to the conclusion that axioms are not knowledge.

Again, notice the definition of knowledge. The concept of identity is a tool; it is not actual knowledge of any given thing. I may realize that A is A, but that is the tip of the iceberg. Sure, any rational person will agree that we must know A exists and is unique before we can attribute traits to it. In that instance, A is A MUST be present before any other argument concerning A. But is that real knowledge? No. To KNOW A, you would need to know its nature. And that information must be infered. Just realizing that A is A is only the first step. And when you arrive at a level of knowledge, A is A is an implied premise.

There.

I understand that you are trying to justify, or validate your axioms based on sensory data, but you cannot say that they are inferred(like from sensory data), or they will not be axioms. I believe you mean "No" when I asked if axioms can be justified ?

These sensory data we use to make contrasts, and comparisons, in order to acquire further knowledge, can only be said to be knowledge if you could infer them. Sensory data is not know by contrasting things, but they are used to make contrasts. We do not infer that a ball is red, we know that a ball is red when we see one.

You use sensory data to make all your inferences to obtain knowledge, but how do you know that these sensory data is know to you ? I mean, how can you use sensory data to make inferences to obtain valid knowledge, or truths if you don´t know if sensory data is true(since you can´t "infer your senses"😉 ?

EDIT: Didn't notice this part, but I believe I addressed it.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree, but it is rare to see a scientist who recognizes that he need to have "faith" in science, that he need to assume that the scientific method works, and that it can´t be proved it must be believed. Many never thought about this or even realized this.

I agree we can still obtain reliable information by the use of the scientific method(even if it is just an intuition), but the majority of the scientific community will not agree if you say that it was needed to use intuition and faith to make that information reliable. After all it is just our intuition that "thinks" the information is reliable.

And good way that you put it ; there is no empirical evidence that justifies "Only empirical evidence counts."

Because you're using the wrong words.

Say a scientist has to assume something, and hell yes he'll agree. A hypothesis is an assumption by definition. However, an assumption that then has to be proven.

But tell a scientist he has to have faith and he'll scoff at you. Because faith is a belief in something not provable.

Well if the scientific method was devised to deliver relaible information...and then it delivers reliable information, it doesn't require faith to believe in. It's been proven that it delivers what it's supposed to.

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. 😱