This conversation has been scattered over several threads. Though I'd try to
get it into one, with a more descriptive title.

"galathaea" gmail.com> wrote in
news:1169342043.710220.246870@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Good question! I'll give my answer later, but first:

Publius wrote:

What knowledge of reality, (by reality I mean things existing and not
requiring imagination e.g. god and the socialist's *the greater good*
are two examples entirely founded upon imagination, I digress) what
knowledge of reality can be obtained with *a priori* which is not
directly linked to and or which can not, in its origin of meaning, be
reduced right back down to an irreducible and sensory level of
perception?

For example, the origin of the concept of the meaning of time is, its
direct link to sensory existence is, its a relational concept,
specifically it is used to measure the duration of action, one or more
entities in motion / action in relationship to each.

Michael Gordge

Sure; supporters of some kind of a posteriori fundamentalism could
defend their radical empiricism by simply proclaiming that experience
follows lawful patterns in brute fashion. There's no need for normally
undetected substrates of neurons, atoms, and etc to actually be real,
which would undermine the phenomenal world in human perception as mere
appearances. Nature would only act as if everything emerged from such
microchemistry and Democritean entities (in fact, this seems to have
been the position of the Machian neutral monists, who were inspired by
Hume).

Yet, while they might be able to defend their views, they still
couldn't eliminate the a priori slash metaphysical folks. As Bertrand
Russell once pointed-out (but not at all in these exact words), naive
realism eventually screws itself by leading to things like
neuroscience, particle physics, and general relativity --providing
direct or indirect evidence for such. One can still assert naive
realism is possible, but naive realism traitorously allows indirect
realism to be possible too.

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

alkaline wrote:

Oh my gawd, please dont tell me that you reckon that the idiot *set of
all set* bimbo Russelll is any different at all in his process of
reasoning to any other brain dead Kantian.

MG

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote in
news:1169449848.692353.187140@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Your question is (*ahem*) question-begging. You implicitly define "reality"
as meaning knowledge gained from sensory experience ("things existing and not
requiring imagination"). Then you ask "What knowledge of reality is gained *a
priori*?"

Well, none, of course, because *a priori* knowledge is not gained via the
senses. Hence, by your definition, any knowledge known *a priori* would not
be knowledge of "reality."

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

Tell us what sense you used to learn that A is A, Mike.

Publius wrote:

Nope other way round, I define knowledge as man's grasp of reality, and
sensory reality exists as it exists independent of man's mind, and it
exists in reality without contradiction, therefore non-contradictory
*identification* of what exists is an excellent standard to have to
determine man's knowledge of what is real.

I say that reason is man's only means of knowledge, reason I have
defined as, *non-contradictory identification and integration of the
perceptions of man's senses,*

(note I realize you Kantians all say that is not the definition of
reason and yet you all fail to give one, and also note, that IS the
meaning of reason I use)

There has to be something existing to experience, to gain the knowledge
of, you cant gain knowledge of nothing in reality.

Publius wrote:

George Dance wrote:

Typical Kantian asking questions without any context.

e.g. to give 1 a meaning in reality, then it must be linked to a
existent single unit.

Sooooo what *A* are you talking about? be specific.

In *A is A* A represents the same existent in reality, e.g. a dog (A)
and a cat (B) can not both exist where the other exists at the same
instant. i.e. Only A can be where A is at the same instant.

So not enough context George, the first *A* has to be related to
something in sensory reality and non-contradictory identification gives
the confirmation of the *is A*

A dog is not a cat, its a dog.

Alway directly link what you say to a sensory existent in reality
George, because if you dont then its come from your fucking Kantian
brain dead mind, e.g. god.

Michael Gordge

galathaea wrote:

Typical Kantian asking a question without context.

Experience of WHAT? You cant experience nothing, so describe it, does
it smell, does it move, does it have legs, is it animal vegetable or
mineral? check the infomation of your perceptions against what you
already know, is there a contradiction etc etc etc.

If there's nothing in sensory reality that you are tryng to identify
then UP GO THE RED FLAGS ***BEWARE*** because it could be a mystic or
Kantian trying to get you to accept an idea born nowhere but inside
their heads.

An idea born in the head and not in any way linked to sensory reality
is something to be very dubious of, e.g. god of course and silly Kant
and George and Timmmm and knucmo and immortal and chazzzzz and oh dear
there's far too many to name, so please dont feel bad if I've left you
out, claiming that the existents in reality giving rise to the concepts
of space and time cant be sensed, what fucking idiots.

Michael Gordge