|
On July 21 2010 08:14 Yurebis wrote:prior to the action...
A priori does not mean "prior to the action". It means knowledge attainable via reason alone, prior to experience. In this context, knowing that you can't fly, or that jumping off a building will kill you, is absolutely not a priori knowledge; it's based on your understanding of human physiology and the physical world. (Believing that you can fly without basis is not knowledge at all.)
The word you were looking for was simply "subjective." If he believes he can fly, it's rational for him.
You're right to make your criticism, though, because it didn't make any sense for the poster above you to say that an "irrational" result was produced (and it's sure not "ironic.") He meant a suboptimal result, from the perspective of the two participants.
|
You say prior to experience, but obviously experience has to come from an action, even if the action is just observation... how else can empirical knowledge be built?
And I don't agree that such a thing as "not knowledge" can exist, given a deterministic world.
Whatever though.
|
I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification.
|
United States43448 Posts
On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote:
I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification.
A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc.
|
No offense Rhaegarbeast, but your fancy statements are throwing off your own thread. I understand English isn't your first language, but I find your posts hard to follow because there's a lot of fluff and little substance to be gained from each post purely because you go off on a tangent with wild statements which are almost unrelated (except by perhaps a thin thread).
I didn't read most of the thread after the first few pages, because I personally think philosophy is a waste of time in my lifetime (but useful generations down). and also partly because I am a computer programmer.
In my opinion, I wouldn't be thinking WHAT should I be doing. I would be thinking WHY.
WHY am I stuck in this insane prison with this crazy mage being tortured. And through knowing WHY, we'll understand WHO we are, and by understanding ONESELF, you would understand the situation better. (what can change the nature of a man...)
That's my bit from Planescape Torment done. Or perhaps I was never meant to post in this thread (computer programmer etc.)
|
I'd pull that lever twice.
|
On July 21 2010 08:35 Yurebis wrote:
You say prior to experience, but obviously experience has to come from an action, even if the action is just observation... how else can empirical knowledge be built?
And I don't agree that such a thing as "not knowledge" can exist, given a deterministic world.
Whatever though.
That's why empirical knowledge is a posteriori knowledge and not a priori.
|
On July 21 2010 08:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote:
I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification. A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc.
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
You can say once you understand certain basic mathematical concepts, (the notion of "3" being one) and a whole host of other things that without experience would not be possible, then you can show a triangle to be 3 sided simply on definition and understand it to be true.
As i've said my main gripe is with the term itself and feel it needs greater qualification.
|
I would say that any definition of 'a priori knowledge' should encompass the usual arithmetic. This in turn yields our usual understanding of space ( the canonical example being Euclidian n-space as the Cartesean product Rx...xR of n copies of R endowed with 'the usual metric' d(p,q)=sqrt(p.q) where -.- is the 'dot product' ), in which we may do geometry if we so please.
|
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 08:47 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2010 08:37 XeliN wrote:
I've often considered a priori to be a poor term yet it's so frequently chucked about in philosophical things.
Although I don't think that a priori knowledge is actually possible and the term needs greater qualification. A triangle having three sides is a priori knowledge. It can be demonstrated through definition alone. You don't need to collect a sample of triangles and count their sides etc. You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience. You can say once you understand certain basic mathematical concepts, (the notion of "3" being one) and a whole host of other things that without experience would not be possible, then you can show a triangle to be 3 sided simply on definition and understand it to be true. As i've said my main gripe is with the term itself and feel it needs greater qualification.
In defense of the word, I suggest only that there are both simpler and more complicated examples of a priori knowledge, which may or may not convince you that there's a worthwhile distinction.
(I'm not well-educated in philosophy, but as I understand it, the term of art for distinguishing a priori knowledge that is based on definitions is "analytic", whereas the term for a priori knowledge that is not simply based on definitions -- if you think anything falls into this category -- is "synthetic.")
Simpler: "Nothing is both true and false at the same time."
This is very simple a priori knowledge. Are the concepts of "truth" and "falsehood" simple enough that you can understand them without language? Does this express something that you know even before you know the definitions involved?
More complicated: "There are an infinite number of prime numbers."
This is unavoidable a priori knowledge given the axioms of arithmetic, but it's not obvious upon learning those axioms. Many people might know enough mathematics that this is a logical consequence of the rest of their knowledge, but they still do not know this particular fact. Does that make it different from "self-evident" a priori knowledge like the other examples given above?
|
For the sake of cleanliness, here is a proof of the infinitude of primes:
Definition: A prime number is a number p whose only divisors are 1 and p.
Lemma: Any natural number can be written as a product of primes.
Proof: Suppose there are numbers that cannot be written as a product of primes. Then by well-ordering there is a smallest such number n. Since n is not prime, n=pq with p,q not products of primes and less than n. This contradicts the assumption that n is the smallest such number.
Theorem: There are an infinite number of primes.
Proof: Suppose there is a finite number of primes p1,...,pn, and write k=p1...pn+1. Then no pj divide k, and by our lemma the list cannot be complete.
|
I apologize, I guess I should have thought harder if I wanted an example that wouldn't get some dude dragging the whole thing further off-topic.
|
I'm sure someone asked this already, but what happens if both prisoners pull the lever at exactly the same time?
|
Cool discussion so far.
My way of approaching this would be, "It would depend whether or not you believe you have any worth/value to still be alive in the world".
Let's say you have kids and or someone to take care of, basically an emotion that makes their life priority over yours (something I personally believe in).
The problem is the other person is in the same situation because he is 'identical'. From there I'd judge the wizards truthfulness.
a. The wizard is telling the truth and we both don't pull the lever and suffer because we want to live
b. We pull the lever when we need to e.g. we don't want to lose a limb so we can continue our duties as 'parents/guardians', thus when i pull the lever:
1. both of us die, because we pull it at the same time (wizard was honest),
2. i die, and he goes free (wizard was lying about ABSOLUTE IDENTICAL-NESS) but it's not like I can sustain pain forever so i take the risk
3. he dies, i go free (wizard was bullshitting)
4. nothing happens (wizard was bullshitting)
It's not like you can control your fate if you are the 'experiment' of a being that has the power of life and death. It's a simple leap of faith wherein you realize that your ability to live is NOT in your hands anymore but at the MERCY of someone else.
For the sake of referencing the BATMAN DARK KNIGHT thing with the 2 boats, although they were at the MERCY of the JOKER. The JOKER didn't make anyone undergo physical 'torment' nor prove that he had the power of LIFE AND DEATH like this mage in the OP is described to have. If the OP included a time limit with no physical torment nobody would pull the lever and let e.g. the mage do it (or batman come save them)
(tbh to make the movie more interesting and extremely rated R the joker should have said something like someone will die/fingers will be cut every minute a decision is not made)
1. a human being should intrinsically look out for other human beings like 'all organisms'
2. being at the mercy to make a decision by another human being without physical torment/suffering should not threaten you ever
Until then suffering/pain/death is a personal decision. Think of being abducted as a spy by the enemy. They want you to choose to spill your information through torture.
1. I have integrity and I want others to live because I have VITAL INFORMATION on e.g. how to stop the enemy from creating more DEATH and thus I endure torture and choose death.
2. My life is important and I sell out but many others die because of me spilling my information. But in return I can still take care of my loved ones (unless I get them killed because of this information anyway)
TLDR: i'd pull the lever after i've suffered to my personal limit, because there would be nothing else for me to do at the mercy of a superior being and given that the only loss in life would be myself or the other guy IF the mage was telling the truth.
FOR ALL I KNOW there could be 6 billion other people in the other room or the lever could destroy the entire universe.
The problem I guess is putting faith in a lever created by a mage (a proven superior organism with the power of life and death) with conditional suffering.
Contradicted by putting faith in a detonator created a human (e.g. the joker) with a time limit.
Now if the the detonator also had conditional suffering added to the decision making process then things would get more interesting...
|
Hehe just found out that RhaegarBeast posted this same thing on Tribal Wars forum...always nice to see another TWer around;) it's funny to see that both threads have very similar comments, especially comparisons to TDK dillema
|
|
|
Yeah.. I've pretty much given up on this thread. I'm just going to sit back, grab some popcorn, and continue to be amused...
|
On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote:
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience.
This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes.
While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
|
On July 22 2010 06:39 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote:
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience. This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes. While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori.
I would be very careful with that statement...
|
On July 22 2010 06:42 JinMaikeul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 06:39 kzn wrote:On July 21 2010 09:45 XeliN wrote:
You can not even arrive at a definition or understanding of anything without experience... knowledge is dependent on experience. This is false. You do not need to experience a triangle to know that is has 3 sides. If it has three sides, it is by definition a triangle. This is true regardless of whether or not someone knows it, and is true in all possible universes. While you might have to "experience" the proof of it to, personally, come to know it, it is knowledge that is true prior to experience, hence a priori. I would be very careful with that statement...
It is patently true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
