RE: No reason justifies disbelief.
March 25, 2019 at 5:39 pm
(This post was last modified: March 25, 2019 at 5:41 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(March 24, 2019 at 9:40 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: It's certainly possible that intuition is just another example of a subconscious form of information processing, and that this information is itself derived from sensory experience, but I think that a nominally rational intuitionist could object to the formulation above as proceeding from a question begging affirmation of empiricism, and even leverage the same closing remark - that calling every x empirical won't make it so any more than calling some empirical thing intuition would.
I'd point out that you've given no reason to conclude that intuition can't be different from empirical observation and no reason that it would be impossible for intuition to provide knowledge.
Well, I would argue that an intuitionst has not provided any reason for me to think that intuition is in any way ontologically distinct from empirical knowledge. In fact, to the contrary, we have a large body of evidence demonstrating that our brains do exactly that: subconsciously process large quantities of data. And, that this data-processing directly influences our choices and decisions. Calling X empirical because there exists evidence that X is empirical, would be a far more promising argument than calling X non-empirical without any reason to do so, and without being capable of positively describing or identifying what X actually is, lol. They're building a second assumption into the argument without any reason (that I can tell) to do so. "These two things are different, and also, the second thing is its own special, magical thing."
Quote:How could I know that I exist without having a subjective experience first?
Quote:How could you have a subjective experience that didn't proceed from knowledge of self? The existent self may be the axiom from which all statements of experience are made. There is no "I see" without there first being an "I".
Or, perhaps these phenomena are necessarily concomitant.
Quote:A skeptical response here could even be that you don't know that you exist, as you briefly mentioned before...but that you assume it. With -or- without subjective experience, as those experiences can be in error, can be manufactured or populated with unrepresentative contents..or in the case of intuition above as we discussed it, may be happening entirely without your knowledge of them. As innate knowledge would frame it, your self is not the kind of conclusion, but a necessary truth from which those other empirical observations are derived. A favorite of innate knowledge theories are things like axioms and mathematics.
Like before, with intuition, I could stab in the dark with examples but a more direct approach would be to ask if you can state with authenticity that you possess no innate knowledge whatsoever? You seemed amenable to the idea of intuition, albeit leery with regards to it's accuracy, is it possible that innate knowledge presents a similar situation or circumstance?
I mean, an axiom is not absolute knowledge. I can't think of any knowledge that I have that could qualify as distinctively innate, and completely divorced from sensory input. Can you?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
