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 ?
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.
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!
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 ?
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?
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.
....
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...
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.
I have explained to you the deal with innate. I used innate in a particular way to say that intuition is something that we are born capable to do one level or another, logic reasoning must be derived from it(in my view). I said intuition is an immediate aprehension of an idea, this does not implies that knowledge that comes from intuition is innate. Intuition gives us NEW knowledge, and I have said that. I never said that knowledge that comes from intuition has always been there(or is innate). Quote me where I said it !
You pick a word that I use, and generalize it to everything else so you can have argumentation to do, and now its me who are arguing semantics. You are ignoring my explanations, and you keep arguing about something I was not saying, and which is completely out of league.
My point is that you cannot justify reason because you will need some basis that can´t be justified, since not everything can be infered. What I have told you a lot of times. Now, you want to use my same argument against me, as if was I who wanted to prove the validity of logic.
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.
Look here, I am being honest with you in this discussion. I am not using semantics here, and I presented precisely my point of view in many different ways. If you can´t see what my point is, you are not reading my posts. It is a damn lie to say that I don´t have a point, in all I said.
You are very convincing in distort everything I said, but you do not assume responsability of any particular point of view, so you make argumentation impossible. When I point a flaw in your agument, you say that I´m using semantics. I am not being stupid with you, or offending anyone. You are the only one acting childish here putting that sig over there because you got irritated. You want to be taken seriously with that ? If you cannot take a discussion seriously, I should have been done with it since it started.
That sig was poking fun at the argument you don't have, Atlantis. No sense in getting bitter over it. You cannot prove up. Your argument falls flat. You keep saying I'm not reading what you're posting, but I am. And you claim to NOT be arguing semantics, but that's exactly what you're doing. Just in case you aren't familiar with the term:
se·man·tics ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.
You say: "Intuition means knowledge that is NOT innate knowledge OR knowledge by product of reason."
Everything official says: "Intuition is a hunch, infered by the subconscious operating on former experiences, emotions, and knowledge."
Winner: Official source.
Intuition does not fit.
But then you went ahead and retconned intuition. See, initially, it was prereason and you said it was innate knowledge. I pointed out innate knowledge can't be substantiated and that the claim isn't falsifiable. You switch gears and claim that intuition isn't innate knowledge either. So I point out you still can't substantiate this "intuition". All you have is a false dillemma and a cocked-up definition for a shoe-in term. That's it. Where your whole stance goes wrong is to claim that reason NEEDS justification. When you must justify reason, you must operate outside of it to do so. But there is no such knowledge outside of reason. There's nothing. You cannot have this "intuition" spring out of thin air, justify reason with "knowledge" (But what KIND of knowledge? How can knowledge be gained outside of reason?) So even by your definition of intuition, it cannot exist by itself, since it claims to have nebulous knowledge outside of reason.
Now, I've pointed out that knowledge cannot exist without knowing the logic behind something's nature. Our ways of thinking are structured by our perceptions, and by our way of observing the world as it works. Even realizing A is A isn't knowledge; it's an observation that's built upon. You can observe that something is unique, but this does not constitute knowledge of it. Knowledge comes from knowing the nature of it. So while you can say A is a ball, that is not knowledge. If you say A is a ball: it is round, three dimensional, and operates under the principles I would give to the concept of "ball", then you could say you had some knowledge of A and only then.
How do you propose to challenge what I've set forth? Repeating intuitionism again? Saying that I ignore your posts and argue semantics? How are you going to prove your case without proving it, Atlantis? You can't. And that's just what you're doing; nothing. I've put forth a very good and fairly complete argument for my side. You're giving me some sort of pseudo-faith-based subjective argument that relies on semantics and a violation of Occam's Razor on top of a false dillemma.