> "zinnic" gate.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5ad66280-d827-43b7-8040-4f17d4ff9f55@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 5:29 pm, chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jan 6, 8:56 pm,zinnicgate.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
>>> reactivities, amplified by plasticity in neural learning (Baldwin
>>> effect), sufficient for development of the experience-independent
>>> 'knowing' capacity of complex brains proposed by Kant? IMHO it is!
>>> If so, is it not then feasible that the inherent properties of energy,
>>> expressed through evolution of its different physical forms, are
>>> sufficient to engender all forms of 'knowledge' without resort to
>>> 'transcendence' or 'meta physics'?
>>> Or to put it from a non-philosophical, non-human view point:

>

>>> Said the Sage to the tumbling Cell
>>> Your random walk is quite swell
>>> But you're in errata
>>> To think that your data
>>> Is Conscious detection of smell

>

>>> Said the cell to the humbling Sage
>>> In debate I can't engage
>>> But despite your grumbles
>>> I 'know' that my tumbles
>>> Portend a more sentient stage.

>

>>>Zinnic

>

>> A priori is the ground of the possibility of knowledge. It is not
>> "innate" information as such but a way of acting and perceiving
>> without which all sensory data would like white noise.
>> If Kant had been alive today his philosophy would be different in the
>> light of child psychology which has ably demonstrated that we are not
>> born as a complete tabula rasa. Though humans are perhaps the most
>> blank in comparison with other forms of light they are still equipped
>> with "knowledge" such as where to get milk; falling is harmful; space
>> is where your hand is etc.. But do we call this "knowledge". Does a
>> plant have the "knowledge" to reach its leaves towards the sun; a new
>> born deer "knows" how to run from danger?? No experience can teach
>> that.- Hide quoted text -

>

>> - Show quoted text -

>
> My point is that if we accept as "knowledge" an innate capability
> (that informs "a way of acting and perceiving") then that capability
> represents a priori knowlege gained as the organism evolved. This
> would apply to 'instincts' and all other survival responses of
> organisms.
> IMO even simple algorithms in computer programs can be classed as
> knowledge. I remain to be convinced that there is any difference
> between information and knowlede provided that the information is
> acted on. Perhaps someone in this group can set me right?
> infor
>
> ***Just google BOfL archives, and re read whats there .....

> ***Particularly the parts that refer to "no body can set you right"....If
> a
> virus can do it.......