Yes. I was born with a biological analogue to a BIOS, ROM, RAM, hardwired impulses, archetypal memories, geometric frameworks and so on and so forth. There are fundamental objects of a priori knowledge. Nipples are one that all mammals share.
It can, but it would need to be proven by prediction, observation and evidence anyway so there's not much point to draw a line between it and any other form of (accurate) analysis.
Although false preconceptions and confirmation biases only occur through a priori which has been inferior or impartial; i.e. neglected pieces of the picture.
>archetypal memories
so you were programmed at the epigenetic level by your fathers semen to stuff creamcakes up and into your face flap? hm
ironically your inability to see how this fits together with that is a resulted of your bad grasp of piss stems.
>>(generations of people brainwashed by threat of violence an excommunication into verbally professing belief in unverifiable nonsense produced a grasp of logic that was very irrational and sought out excuses to avoid solid conclusions; doubting in simple evidence)
is the shorthand version
and now im to lunch
as i possess a brain able to grasp the complex metaphysical goings-on of turning a stove on and waiting for a thing to cook,which is flatly declared something only god could manage by ur dum dum pillo sophy cons
ironically your inability to see how this fits together with that is a resulted of your bad grasp of piss stems.
>>(generations of people brainwashed by threat of violence an excommunication into verbally professing belief in unverifiable nonsense produced a grasp of logic that was very irrational and sought out excuses to avoid solid conclusions; doubting in simple evidence)
is the shorthand version
and now im to lunch
as i possess a brain able to grasp the complex metaphysical goings-on of turning a stove on and waiting for a thing to cook,which is flatly declared something only god could manage by ur dum dum pillo sophy cons
This is very cryptic but I think it basically boils down to: >I'm right about naggers and trannies because... because I just am, okay?!
This question made me laugh...
I thought about this quite a bit...
And my answer to you is : NO
There is no knowledge a priori... where should we find it ? Even if archetypes exist they are to hard to find it doesn't make any sense to search for them... and I never "saw" a platonic idea just with my intellect... you can't find these fuckers anywhere...
a priori knowledge is not possible because there is nothing that could convince you a priori of its truth... you need sensory perception to be convinced of something being true...
>they are to hard to find it doesn't make any sense to search for them
piss flaps to this
>There is no knowledge a priori... where should we find it ? Even if archetypes exist
An example of a priori knowledge is to find a known criminal leaving a crime scene with (evidence of his guilt); and you -know- he's guilty before even noticing the evidence.
> sensory perception
I would argue this has been gained already and that the a priori is more like the successful application of intuition. Like the instincts of a fighter pilot or a fighter it's a massive cup filled with experience. Pleroma. But it could be filled with anything. Vomit. But the truth is demonstrated by the success rate; such as the evidence being in the criminals hands and the judge not even ding to see it before smashing the criminals brains out with his shock stick because the judge just knew.
A posteriori knowledge doesn't exist. Everything you know and will "know" is predicated within your mind, which belongs to the infinite world of Ideas, as demonstrated by Plato (pbuh) in his theory of anamnesis, and later confirmed mathematically by Wittgenstein.
>the infinite world of Ideas, as demonstrated by Plato
pathetic, a squirrel knowing to store food for the winter has a better sense of reality than this. what a waste of a skinsuit and a targeting processor.
If a priori means prior to sense experience we can never get to this state of knowledge directly but only retroactively by subtracting experience from knowledge and then formalizing the remainder. That's why I believe a prior knowledge is incomplete knowledge, or a framework of knowledge. It's less substantial than actual knowledge.
>actual knowledge
What's "actual knowledge" then? If studying a thing to the point of accurate prediction of that ting is "not real knowledge", then pray tell 1) what is and 2) how do you prove it - if the only means of proving it is not important anymore
Math is applicable in the structure of the world and the things inside of it. If math was just abstractions and had no relevance in the world I could see your point
there is no a priori knowledge in math but about math itself... if you applicate it to the structure of the world you do physics... then math is just a language to describe physical events that have to be proved by experiments... the knowledge you gain is not a priori anymore...
Not all math that's applicable to the world is physics. Math is a priori knowledge that can be seen in the world, or experienced, but it doesn't have to be. It depends on what standards you set for something to "exist". But if believe you need experience for knowledge to exist then that rules everything out but a posteriori. But to take a posteriori knowledge to be true, you rely on unverifiable axioms.
>the word math >knowledge isn't real >numbers are better than knowledge >nation hundreds of trillions in debt >economy revolves around financial scams
americans make me vomit
A what?
yeah
Yes. I was born with a biological analogue to a BIOS, ROM, RAM, hardwired impulses, archetypal memories, geometric frameworks and so on and so forth. There are fundamental objects of a priori knowledge. Nipples are one that all mammals share.
It can, but it would need to be proven by prediction, observation and evidence anyway so there's not much point to draw a line between it and any other form of (accurate) analysis.
Although false preconceptions and confirmation biases only occur through a priori which has been inferior or impartial; i.e. neglected pieces of the picture.
>archetypal memories
so you were programmed at the epigenetic level by your fathers semen to stuff creamcakes up and into your face flap? hm
deduction presupposes synthetic judgements, which are unknowable
ha sure, come up with more words to avoid reaching the conclusion that your society and culture are bunch of criminals.
>thread about epistemology
>we live in a society
god, I hate this board
ironically your inability to see how this fits together with that is a resulted of your bad grasp of piss stems.
>>(generations of people brainwashed by threat of violence an excommunication into verbally professing belief in unverifiable nonsense produced a grasp of logic that was very irrational and sought out excuses to avoid solid conclusions; doubting in simple evidence)
is the shorthand version
and now im to lunch
as i possess a brain able to grasp the complex metaphysical goings-on of turning a stove on and waiting for a thing to cook,which is flatly declared something only god could manage by ur dum dum pillo sophy cons
This is very cryptic but I think it basically boils down to:
>I'm right about naggers and trannies because... because I just am, okay?!
yes but i was talking about germans and church priests, same thing though.
No, only a priori intuitions. Knowledge, by definition, is supported by evidence
Kripke
>Knowledge, by definition, is supported by evidence
literally the opposite
knowledge is evidence, anything else is an infinite regress of evidence
Yes, we know what is Good.
hard to know
This question made me laugh...
I thought about this quite a bit...
And my answer to you is : NO
There is no knowledge a priori... where should we find it ? Even if archetypes exist they are to hard to find it doesn't make any sense to search for them... and I never "saw" a platonic idea just with my intellect... you can't find these fuckers anywhere...
a priori knowledge is not possible because there is nothing that could convince you a priori of its truth... you need sensory perception to be convinced of something being true...
>they are to hard to find it doesn't make any sense to search for them
piss flaps to this
>There is no knowledge a priori... where should we find it ? Even if archetypes exist
An example of a priori knowledge is to find a known criminal leaving a crime scene with (evidence of his guilt); and you -know- he's guilty before even noticing the evidence.
> sensory perception
I would argue this has been gained already and that the a priori is more like the successful application of intuition. Like the instincts of a fighter pilot or a fighter it's a massive cup filled with experience. Pleroma. But it could be filled with anything. Vomit. But the truth is demonstrated by the success rate; such as the evidence being in the criminals hands and the judge not even ding to see it before smashing the criminals brains out with his shock stick because the judge just knew.
No, knowledge by definition is a posteriori. Else, tell me what you understand by knowledge and then we can start aguing
A posteriori knowledge doesn't exist. Everything you know and will "know" is predicated within your mind, which belongs to the infinite world of Ideas, as demonstrated by Plato (pbuh) in his theory of anamnesis, and later confirmed mathematically by Wittgenstein.
>the infinite world of Ideas, as demonstrated by Plato
pathetic, a squirrel knowing to store food for the winter has a better sense of reality than this. what a waste of a skinsuit and a targeting processor.
If a priori means prior to sense experience we can never get to this state of knowledge directly but only retroactively by subtracting experience from knowledge and then formalizing the remainder. That's why I believe a prior knowledge is incomplete knowledge, or a framework of knowledge. It's less substantial than actual knowledge.
>actual knowledge
What's "actual knowledge" then? If studying a thing to the point of accurate prediction of that ting is "not real knowledge", then pray tell 1) what is and 2) how do you prove it - if the only means of proving it is not important anymore
Yes. Will and intuition. Will precedes intuition.
This is the Christian view by the way…
Yes, math is a priori knowledge
we mean knowledge about the world though...
math is no knowledge about anything but itself...
Math is applicable in the structure of the world and the things inside of it. If math was just abstractions and had no relevance in the world I could see your point
there is no a priori knowledge in math but about math itself... if you applicate it to the structure of the world you do physics... then math is just a language to describe physical events that have to be proved by experiments... the knowledge you gain is not a priori anymore...
Not all math that's applicable to the world is physics. Math is a priori knowledge that can be seen in the world, or experienced, but it doesn't have to be. It depends on what standards you set for something to "exist". But if believe you need experience for knowledge to exist then that rules everything out but a posteriori. But to take a posteriori knowledge to be true, you rely on unverifiable axioms.
Are you one of these retards who start oozing cum when they see mandelbrot set because omfgz maths irl?
>the word math
>knowledge isn't real
>numbers are better than knowledge
>nation hundreds of trillions in debt
>economy revolves around financial scams
americans make me vomit
I wonder if a roach operates entirely on a priori.
Nut
as you can see here in this thread... the only thing you stumble upon if it comes to a priori knowledge is basically some nonsense...
So we got it clear once and for all...
There is NO a priori knowledge about this world