|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 8, 2007 04:58
> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception.
>
> Kantian Knucmo has claimed, in his so called *refutation of Michael
> Gordge's doctrine*, that space and time are two such examples of man's
> concepts, used in the quest of man's knowledge, which are not directly
> linked to, which are not derived from, which can not be reduced right
> back down to an irreducible and sensory level of perception, he claims
> space and time exist as concepts not linked directly to sensory
> evidence / matter.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 8, 2007 04:59
> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception.
>
> Kantian Knucmo has claimed, in his so called *refutation of Michael
> Gordge's doctrine*, that space and time are two such examples of man's
> concepts, used in the quest of man's knowledge, which are not directly
> linked to, which are not derived from, which can not be reduced right
> back down to an irreducible and sensory level of perception, he claims
> space and time exist as concepts not linked directly to sensory
> evidence / matter.
|
| Show full article (1.41Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jan 8, 2007 12:06
> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception.
>
> Kantian Knucmo has claimed, in his so called *refutation of Michael
> Gordge's doctrine*, that space and time are two such examples of man's
> concepts, used in the quest of man's knowledge, which are not directly
> linked to, which are not derived from, which can not be reduced right
> back down to an irreducible and sensory level of perception, he claims
> space and time exist as concepts not linked directly to sensory
> evidence / matter.
>
> Now, given also that Kantian Knucmo likes to consider himself a bit of
> a whizkid at things logical, he should therefore have no problem
> explaining the meaning of both space and time without resorting to any
> sensory evidence and examples.
> ...
|
| Show full article (4.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 1Z1Z Date: Jan 13, 2007 09:08
> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception.
How about the concept: "cannot be reduced right back down to an
irreducible and sensory level of
perception" ;-)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: 1Z1Z Date: Jan 13, 2007 09:12
knucmo wrote:
>> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
>> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
>> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
>> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
>> perception.
>
> Simple: Experience or sensory perception is not possible without the
> forms of space and time, which are known a priori.
So we "know" apriori that space is Euclidean, while knowing aposteriori
that it isn't. How does that work?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Jan 13, 2007 14:25
knucmo wrote:
> They are part of the *intellectual structure*
knucmo there can be NO *intelligent structure* without sensory data to
identify. If your claim is that man can have any idea concept theory of
knowledge at all without sensory matter, then that places you fairly
and squarely in the mystic's camp of stupidity.
Space IS matter and must be identified without contradiction to have
any meaning at all in man's quest of his knowledge.
Now knucmo, explain, which means, give a rational definition of space
WITHOUT reference to sensory matter.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Jan 8, 2007 02:12
I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
perception.
Kantian Knucmo has claimed, in his so called *refutation of Michael
Gordge's doctrine*, that space and time are two such examples of man's
concepts, used in the quest of man's knowledge, which are not directly
linked to, which are not derived from, which can not be reduced right
back down to an irreducible and sensory level of perception, he claims
space and time exist as concepts not linked directly to sensory
evidence / matter.
Now, given also that Kantian Knucmo likes to consider himself a bit of
a whizkid at things logical, he should therefore have no problem
explaining the meaning of both space and time without resorting to any
sensory evidence and examples.
His challenge is to explain *10 minutes ago* and to do so, without
resorting to any sensory evidence.
Michael Gordge
|
| |
| 134 Comments |
|
|
Author: Chris H. FlemingChris H. Fleming Date: Jan 8, 2007 02:53
> I challenged Kantian Knucmo, as I have many other Kantians now at this
> forum, to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory
> of man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can
> not be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception.
>
> Kantian Knucmo has claimed, in his so called *refutation of Michael
> Gordge's doctrine*, that space and time are two such examples of man's
> concepts, used in the quest of man's knowledge, which are not directly
> linked to, which are not derived from, which can not be reduced right
> back down to an irreducible and sensory level of perception, he claims
> space and time exist as concepts not linked directly to sensory
> evidence / matter.
Einstein couldn't, so I'd be interesting in seeing someone that thinks
they can.
|
| Show full article (1.25Kb) |
| 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: mikegordgemikegordge Date: Jan 8, 2007 02:56
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
>
> Einstein couldn't, so I'd be interesting in seeing someone that thinks
> they can.
Are you saying Einstein could explain *10 minutes ago* without using
any link to sensory evidence?
MG
|
| |
| 11 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: knucmoknucmo Date: Jan 8, 2007 16:45
> Of space and time
>
> knucmo wrote:
>> I have never claimed they are not linked to experience whatsoever,
>> either.
>
> On the contrary, that is precisely what you have done, the challenge
> was, *to give an example of any idea, any concept, and or any theory of
> man's knowledge which can not be directly linked to, or which can not
> be reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
> perception*, you replied space and time were two such concepts or
> ideas.
>
> I then asked you to define or explain the meaning of space and time,
> you replied, they exist as something presupposed, FFS knucmo, the
> mystics's god is a *presupposed* non-material non-sensory existent too.
You fail to see the distinction! Yet again. Ahh, I should be so
surprised.
|
| Show full article (3.64Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
