Post by Eugene 2.0 on Sept 17, 2022 21:08:35 GMT
Plato is considered to be the one of the first of those who followed this theory. Starting from Aristotle that ghost of Plato had been destroying, but not as good as it should be. Briefly, an a priori knowledge means that
We can fairly ask where and how that Y preexisted? And the variety of answers is usually a function of the term the thought. Until the term hasn't defined, no real talks are needed. But this won't save the theory in further, when it tries to double the reality by introducing those preexisted thoughts/ideas/concepts/forms, etc.
What else arguments a priori knowledge has to ride on a horse? It splashes the attention by two things: a) the Meno's paradox; and b) different derivations of the information theory. First may be actualized via this form:
if X knows Y at t1, then there exists Y such that Y is presented in t2, and t1>t2
We can fairly ask where and how that Y preexisted? And the variety of answers is usually a function of the term the thought. Until the term hasn't defined, no real talks are needed. But this won't save the theory in further, when it tries to double the reality by introducing those preexisted thoughts/ideas/concepts/forms, etc.
What else arguments a priori knowledge has to ride on a horse? It splashes the attention by two things: a) the Meno's paradox; and b) different derivations of the information theory. First may be actualized via this form:
1) if X knows Y1 and not Y2, not Y3, ..., not Yn, then X must know how to differ Y1 from the others Y's
2) To be able to differ Y1 from the others Y's is to know Y
The Meno's paradox is (1)&(2). But we can remove (2) saying that it seems ridiculous by itself, and as an implication from (1) it can be removed if to put the different sense into (1). Indeed, it's possible. We can invert it into Bertrand Russell's advice that to know a thing (an apple) is to know about a class of things (the apples). It think that Russell's remark isn't worse, than (1) that isn't seem to be perfect.
Theory of information is a quite complex. It has some troubles within theories, however it usually is being converted into something like this:
Theory of information is a quite complex. It has some troubles within theories, however it usually is being converted into something like this:
For X to know Y is for Nature to have H, and X sees H as Y
Seems to be not a bad definition, but it'll fail anyway. Here's the same problem we can find among any questions about correspondence of models&language or the famous mind-body problem. This doesn't solve the riddle, but just complexes it.
What the thought is anyway? Nobody can state this as like as the previous theories better, so this is another weak spot of a priori theories.
One of lively and many accepted thing that is closed to this theory is the one that says that a human usually repeat the Nature, and his creativity is just a way to re-created something having been created already. As an example, a man saw birds flying and created planes; he found plants to absorb the energy and created electronic photoelements, etc. Partially it could be right, but only partially.
Another thing is a dream. This may be the source for any discoveries. However, dreams are imagination. And there is hiding another critique to this theory that usually used by any a priori rejecters; it says that a person who claims to get a priori knowledge of X cannot disprove that earlier he didn't see, hear, etc something closer to that X. Psychologists (the ones which are skeptical about a priori) would add that subliminally anyone could get anything.
What the thought is anyway? Nobody can state this as like as the previous theories better, so this is another weak spot of a priori theories.
One of lively and many accepted thing that is closed to this theory is the one that says that a human usually repeat the Nature, and his creativity is just a way to re-created something having been created already. As an example, a man saw birds flying and created planes; he found plants to absorb the energy and created electronic photoelements, etc. Partially it could be right, but only partially.
Another thing is a dream. This may be the source for any discoveries. However, dreams are imagination. And there is hiding another critique to this theory that usually used by any a priori rejecters; it says that a person who claims to get a priori knowledge of X cannot disprove that earlier he didn't see, hear, etc something closer to that X. Psychologists (the ones which are skeptical about a priori) would add that subliminally anyone could get anything.