Is such a thing possible?

[STT]

By that definition, a priori knowledge is not knowledge, unless “experience of a fact” includes reasoning.

I agree.

 

[fhansen]

We are talking about human.

We are tallkng about how a human aquires knowledge. And one way is that God can infuse or instill it. He can show you.

 

[Vico]

What is the source of intuition. It cannot be vacuum.

God is the source of intellectual intuition. Immediate apprehension of intellectual or immaterial objects is called intellectual intuition. This perception is by our intelligence which is a soul faculty, and the soul is immaterial and immortal.

 

[STT]

God is the source of intellectual intuition. Immediate apprehension of intellectual or immaterial objects is called intellectual intuition. This perception is by our intelligence which is a soul faculty, and the soul is immaterial and immortal.

There are areas in the brain for creation of intuition. You can read more about them in this article. Therefore God is not the source of intuition. Now the question is how we create intuition?

 

[Vico]

There are areas in the brain for creation of intuition. You can read more about them in this article. Therefore God is not the source of intuition. Now the question is how we create intuition?

The immaterial soul and material brain are different and the soul as the attributes of intelligence and will. So that question will not apply in this case.

 

[ANV]

It may be possible but I’m not thinking of any knowledgeable particular case.

 

[ANV]

There are areas in the brain for creation of intuition. You can read more about them in this article. Therefore God is not the source of intuition. Now the question is how we create intuition?

Even in that case it would be the result of material process.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sooooo…it may be possible but no one is brave enough to provide an example .

Well maybe…
“A monokeros does not have two horns.”

Once we understand the material terms we know the statement is always and everywhere true without needing to scour the world for examples that prove it wrong.

Unfortunately I wouldn’t exactly call this “knowledge”.
It doesn’t tell us anything new about the world.
It doesn’t help us reach new conclusions.
It doesn’t tell us if such a thing exists or ever existed.
Nor is its truth really about intuition or infused certainty - the truth simply follows from the definition containing the predicate - a pure matter of the logic of words. Its a mere tautology, a word game not a reality game.

Maybe we could try:
“Every effect has a cause”.

Yet while some would see this as intuitively true not everybody does which suggests this statement means different things to different people.

1. This also may be a mere tautology, a word game.
2. Also, its difficult to prove this statement untrue as science generally says that when we do come across an effect without a cause its an illusion - we simply haven’t yet discovered what the cause is but we will when we get better tools/sensors etc.

 

[STT]

The immaterial soul and material brain are different and the soul as the attributes of intelligence and will. So that question will not apply in this case.

I provide you with evidences that what we call intuition is the result of brain activity. Are you going to reject that?

 

[STT]

Even in that case it would be the result of material process.

That I can agree but how creativity is possible as a result of material process? How intelligent is possible as a result of neurobiological activities?

 

[STT]

Sooooo…it may be possible but no one is brave enough to provide an example .

I already provide you an example: If I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples.

Well maybe…
“A monokeros does not have two horns.”

Once we understand the material terms we know the statement is always and everywhere true without needing to scour the world for examples that prove it wrong.

Unfortunately I wouldn’t exactly call this “knowledge”.
It doesn’t tell us anything new about the world.
It doesn’t help us reach new conclusions.
It doesn’t tell us if such a thing exists or ever existed.
Nor is its truth really about intuition or infused certainty - the truth simply follows from the definition containing the predicate - a pure matter of the logic of words. Its a mere tautology, a word game not a reality game.

So do you believe that the whole branch of mathematics is not knowledge?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I already provide you an example: If I have two apples now, and I plan to add three apples, I will have five apples.

Missed that sorry.
Yes 2 +3 =5 and that is certain, one does not have to scour the world to prove the truth of that.
However one has to have experience of what matter and time (a change of matter) is and grasp what nature, identity, unity and divisibility is in matter before maths become meaningful. One also needs to learn what “add” means. In your example the 5 apples always existed…you simply implied that collocation by proximity was your criterion for the separation into 2 and 3. When you brought them together in close proximity you invented the operation called addition. That is not intuitive, the definition has to be learnt by material experience.

Having said that the above looks to be just a more sophisticated tautology.
Once one understands what all the above material definitions mean then, like a monoceros, certain predicates necessarily follow by the very definition of the terms involved.

So yes it seems the logic of number is an apriori knowledge whose laws are inherently contained and defined in matter itself. But it takes not inconsiderable experience to learn from matter what number and operations actually mean.

So what?

So do you believe that the whole branch of mathematics is not knowledge?

 

[STT]

Missed that sorry.
Yes 2 +3 =5 and that is certain, one does not have to scour the world to prove the truth of that.
However one has to have experience of what matter and time (a change of matter) is and grasp what nature, identity, unity and divisibility is in matter before maths become meaningful. One also needs to learn what “add” means. In your example the 5 apples always existed…you simply implied that collocation by proximity was your criterion for the separation into 2 and 3. When you brought them together in close proximity you invented the operation called addition. That is not intuitive, the definition has to be learnt by material experience.

I think we learn numbers first then we learn how to add. That at least is how I have been thought.

Having said that the above looks to be just a more sophisticated tautology.
Once one understands what all the above material definitions mean then, like a monoceros, certain predicates necessarily follow by the very definition of the terms involved.

I don’t think so.

So yes it seems the logic of number is an apriori knowledge whose laws are inherently contained and defined in matter itself. But it takes not inconsiderable experience to learn from matter what number and operations actually mean.

I see.

So what?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I don’t think so.

And that comment proves my point…you need more material experience to see the truth of the proposition I just put to you. It isn’t intuitive.

That sounds aposteriori not apriori to me .

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Is creating a prior knowledge possible without an extensive amount of material experience?

The human nervous system is based on symbolic mediation of reality. Hence, it has been observed that people can take in about five things at a single instantaneous glance or touch, which accounts for quite a basis of arithmetic, counting etc. Also, visually, we can soon understand angles and lengths. Now throw in memory, including auditory memory. (I often remember phone numbers half by auditory memory and half by visual memory.) Hence we are almost immediately capable of a great deal.

Traditional methods of counting took in various gestures with the fingers and arms, people standing in rows, tally sticks, etc.

Certain procedures in “philosophising” piggy back on a distinction between a priori and a posteriori which I don’t know much about. However, useful-looking distinctions have been drawn between induction, deduction, inferring, and the like.

I think that some canonical philosophers have overdone the scepticism and ignore that we know more than we are alleged to.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I think categorical and contingent form a useful distinction.

 

[Richca]

Is creating a prior knowledge possible without an extensive amount of material experience?

True knowledge is not created, it is discovered. We have knowledge of lions not because we create them but because lions actually exist outside our minds extramentally. The same goes for our knowledge of the entire external world about us which exists extramentally and by which we have knowledge of it. It is a gross error of some modern philosophical systems or theories of knowledge which disassociate ideas in the intellect concerning external reality from external reality itself from which those ideas have their origin.

 

[Richca]

Moreover how is creating a prior knowledge possible when we know it is distinct from a posteriori knowledge? I mean what is the root of a prior knowledge? The root cannot be experience since that is a posteriori knowledge.

The root of a priori knowledge or reasoning are the undemonstrative first principles of the reason which we do not create but which are discovered. They are naturally in us, innate as it were; they proceed from the intellect or reason by its very nature. These principles are the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of the excluded middle. All right reasoning is founded about these principles.

 

[Richca]

Is creating a prior knowledge possible without an extensive amount of material experience?

Apart from supernaturally infused knowledge from God as other posters have mentioned, the present condition of human beings on earth concerning intellectual or intelligible knowledge is founded upon sensible knowledge, that is, the impressions our five senses receive from the external objects of the world. This is quite self evident as can be seen from people who have some defect of the body or some bodily organ. For example, a person born blind has no knowledge of colors among other things such as what a giraffe looks like. A person born deaf has no knowledge of sounds. So, from our experience of the sensible world, we can rise or reason to the existence of the immaterial such as God, from effect to cause.

 

[STT]

True knowledge is not created, it is discovered. We have knowledge of lions not because we create them but because lions actually exist outside our minds extramentally. The same goes for our knowledge of the entire external world about us which exists extramentally and by which we have knowledge of it. It is a gross error of some modern philosophical systems or theories of knowledge which disassociate ideas in the intellect concerning external reality from external reality itself from which those ideas have their origin.

The primitive didn’t have the knowledge we currently have therefore we gradually created the concepts and give them to our offspring when we were mentally strong enough to first create concepts and then imagine the solution for the problem and also able to communicate it with others through language.