|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Jan 6, 2008 12:56
The existence of several kinds of knowledge has been postulated in
several posts to this NG. In discussions of Kant's philosophy there is
general acceptance of experiential knowledge but strong contention as
to the existence of an experience-independent knowledge (innate, a
priori) required for manipulation (understanding?) of experiential
knowledge.
An analogy might be the input to a computer (experienced knowledge)
and the manipulation of the input by the installed program (experience-
independent (innate) knowledge. An objection to this analogy is that
computer programs are derived from the phenomenal consciousness of
human programmers.
This is not an objection in the analogy of the 'random walk' of
chemotaxic bacteria as they tumble up or down chemical concentration
gradients. In this case the chemical gradient is experienced knowledge
and the capacity to respond in a manner advantageous to survival is
the experience-independent (innate, intuitive, a priori) knowledge.
The latter is not derived from any other consciousness but from
selective trial and error over eons of evolutionary processing.
Is this progressive selection of appropriate physiochemical
reactivities, amplified by plasticity in neural learning (Baldwin ...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Jan 6, 2008 21:31
On Jan 6, 1:56 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:> The existence of several kinds of knowledge has been postulated in
> several posts to this NG. In discussions of Kant's philosophy there is
> general acceptance of experiential knowledge but strong contention as
> to the existence of an experience-independent knowledge (innate, a
> priori) required for manipulation (understanding?) of experiential
> knowledge.
> An analogy might be the input to a computer (experienced knowledge)
> and the manipulation of the input by the installed program (experience-
> independent (innate) knowledge. An objection to this analogy is that
> computer programs are derived from the phenomenal consciousness of
> human programmers.
> This is not an objection in the analogy of the 'random walk' of
> chemotaxic bacteria as they tumble up or down chemical concentration
> gradients. In this case the chemical gradient is experienced knowledge
> and the capacity to respond in a manner advantageous to survival is
> the experience-independent (innate, intuitive, a priori) knowledge.
> The latter is not derived from any other consciousness but from
> selective trial and error over eons of evolutionary processing.
> Is this progressive selection of appropriate physiochemical ...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Jan 7, 2008 06:47
> On Jan 6, 1:56 pm, zinnic gate.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> The existence of several kinds of knowledge has been postulated in
>> several posts to this NG. In discussions of Kant's philosophy there is
>> general acceptance of experiential knowledge but strong contention as
>> to the existence of an experience-independent knowledge (innate, a
>> priori) required for manipulation (understanding?) of experiential
>> knowledge.
>> An analogy might be the input to a computer (experienced knowledge)
>> and the manipulation of the input by the installed program (experience-
>> independent (innate) knowledge. An objection to this analogy is that
>> computer programs are derived from the phenomenal consciousness of
>> human programmers.
>> This is not an objection in the analogy of the 'random walk' of
>> chemotaxic bacteria as they tumble up or down chemical concentration ...
|
| Show full article (2.44Kb) |
| 13 Comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 7, 2008 07:33
The first time I presented my view on this in this newsgroup it was
ridiculed as the 'tabula bloata'. I have no objection to that, or any
other, characterization if it conveys a relationship with the 'tabula
rasa'.
We enter the world with a 'book of knowledge' (our physical being) which
is encoded with all the knowledge we are capable of learning. We first
learn to read
that 'book of knowledge' through our senses which serve as the key to
decode it. The 'tabula rasa' can then be viewed as a blank slate upon
which we record our interpretations and keep track of what we read
(i.e., a diary).
If nothing else, you must admit that it does add some interesting nuance
to: "Know thyself".
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: zinniczinnic Date: Jan 7, 2008 09:25
On Jan 7, 9:33 am, TRISEC...@ webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote: > The first time I presented my view on this in this newsgroup it was
> ridiculed as the 'tabula bloata'. I have no objection to that, or any
> other, characterization if it conveys a relationship with the 'tabula
> rasa'.
>
> We enter the world with a 'book of knowledge' (our physical being) which
> is encoded with all the knowledge we are capable of learning. We first
> learn to read
> that 'book of knowledge' through our senses which serve as the key to
> decode it. The 'tabula rasa' can then be viewed as a blank slate upon
> which we record our interpretations and keep track of what we read
> (i.e., a diary).
>
> If nothing else, you must admit that it does add some interesting nuance
> to: "Know thyself".
>
> Tony, philosopherhttp://www.geocities.com/trisector/
>
> So many misconceptions, so little time. ...
|
| Show full article (1.04Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Jan 8, 2008 08:14
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:33:50 -0500, TRISECTOR@ webtv.net (Anthony G.
Rubino) wrote:
>
>The first time I presented my view on this in this newsgroup it was
>ridiculed as the 'tabula bloata'. I have no objection to that, or any
>other, characterization if it conveys a relationship with the 'tabula
>rasa'.
>
>We enter the world with a 'book of knowledge' (our physical being) which
>is encoded with all the knowledge we are capable of learning. We first
>learn to read
>that 'book of knowledge' through our senses which serve as the key to
>decode it. The 'tabula rasa' can then be viewed as a blank slate upon
>which we record our interpretations and keep track of what we read
>(i.e., a diary).
>
>If nothing else, you must admit that it does add some interesting nuance
>to: "Know thyself".
>
|
| Show full article (0.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Malrassic ParkMalrassic Park Date: Jan 7, 2008 12:46
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:33:50 -0500, TRISECTOR@ webtv.net (Anthony G.
Rubino) wrote:
>
>The first time I presented my view on this in this newsgroup it was
>ridiculed as the 'tabula bloata'. I have no objection to that, or any
>other, characterization if it conveys a relationship with the 'tabula
>rasa'.
>
>We enter the world with a 'book of knowledge' (our physical being) which
>is encoded with all the knowledge we are capable of learning. We first
>learn to read
>that 'book of knowledge' through our senses which serve as the key to
>decode it. The 'tabula rasa' can then be viewed as a blank slate upon
>which we record our interpretations and keep track of what we read
>(i.e., a diary).
>
>If nothing else, you must admit that it does add some interesting nuance
>to: "Know thyself".
>
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 8, 2008 17:02
>
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>
>Even if there were tabula bloata, it
>couldn't be a priori, but would be
>contingent upon whatever our physical
>being happens to be.
>
I don't understand the reason for the objection .
'Whatever our physical being happens to be', it would still present a
limit of knowledge available to any individual. For example, one library
may have more, or different, knowledge available than another library.
The availability of knowledge is no indication of how much is known, how
accurate, or useful, that knowledge might be, etc. What is certain is
that it has no value if it is not read.
|
| Show full article (1.74Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 9, 2008 23:43
> The first time I presented my view on this in this newsgroup it was
> ridiculed as the 'tabula bloata'. I have no objection to that, or any
> other, characterization if it conveys a relationship with the 'tabula
> rasa'.
>
> We enter the world with a 'book of knowledge' (our physical being) which
> is encoded with all the knowledge we are capable of learning. We first
> learn to read
> that 'book of knowledge' through our senses which serve as the key to
> decode it. The 'tabula rasa' can then be viewed as a blank slate upon
> which we record our interpretations and keep track of what we read
> (i.e., a diary).
>
> If nothing else, you must admit that it does add some interesting nuance
> to: "Know thyself".
>
> Tony, philosopherhttp://www.geocities.com/trisector/ ...
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: brian fletcherbrian fletcher Date: Jan 9, 2008 23:45
> zinnic
> I like your idea that 'experience' decodes the inherent book of
> knowledge. Life forms learn from the environment whereas inaminate forms
> simply react.
>
> I'm glad that you appreciate my view.
>
> Though it may appear to be nit picking, I was careful to avoid saying
> that experience decodes the inherent book of knowledge. Rather, I
> presented experience as the key to that process only. If experience did
> the decoding directly, all that would be produced is an epiphenoma.
> Reason would not be needed. It is a conscious (person) decoder that uses
> that key of experience to make reasonable sense of those experiences.
Also true, but the unconscious decoder becomes conscious "of itself".
BOfL
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
