[_ Old Earth _] The heathen foundation of Empiricism

[The Ascetic Crusader]

The Peripatetic axiom is: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses." (Latin: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu") the Peripatetic school of Greek philosophy, which Aristotle established, held the principle, and it forms the basis of Empiricism.

What do you Christians think of this ?

 

[jwu]

Should Christians reject everything that wasn't a Christian invention?

 

[ArtGuy]

I think that's a pretty good maxim. In order to ponder something, it must first be experienced by means of the senses. You can't, for example, imagine the color blue if you've never seen anything but mixtures of red and yellow. All the mind can really do is take what you know and make interesting combinations of the constituent elements. This is how one can imagine a unicorn without having ever experienced one - you can simply imagine a horse combined with the horn of another beast, and voila.

This is sometimes used as evidence for the existence of God - the human mind, being finite in nature, cannot conceive of the infinite on its own. Since human beings have come up with the idea of the infinite, we must, therefore, have experienced the infinite. Since the universe is finite in nature, this "infinite" must come in the form of an infinite deity. It's not a super strong argument, but it's interesting enough.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I think that's a pretty good maxim. In order to ponder something, it must first be experienced by means of the senses. You can't, for example, imagine the color blue if you've never seen anything but mixtures of red and yellow. All the mind can really do is take what you know and make interesting combinations of the constituent elements. This is how one can imagine a unicorn without having ever experienced one - you can simply imagine a horse combined with the horn of another beast, and voila.

This is sometimes used as evidence for the existence of God - the human mind, being finite in nature, cannot conceive of the infinite on its own. Since human beings have come up with the idea of the infinite, we must, therefore, have experienced the infinite. Since the universe is finite in nature, this "infinite" must come in the form of an infinite deity. It's not a super strong argument, but it's interesting enough.

It's hardly an argument at all, since you could make the argument that the limited capacity of the human mind leads to the expectation of continuity without end.

 

[Duder]

,

The Peripatetic axiom is: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses." (Latin: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu") the Peripatetic school of Greek philosophy, which Aristotle established, held the principle, and it forms the basis of Empiricism.

What do you Christians think of this ?

Hello, AC -

Interesting topic for a change, dude.

I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the axiom that nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses. I think that Kant was correct: we cannot be totally tabula rasa prior to experience. If we were, we would have no faculties for organizing and understanding the experiences we have. Life for us would be no more than a stream of meaningless and nonsensical impressions and stimuli.

,

 

[ArtGuy]

I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the axiom that nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses. I think that Kant was correct: we cannot be totally tabula rasa prior to experience. If we were, we would have no faculties for organizing and understanding the experiences we have. Life for us would be no more than a stream of meaningless and nonsensical impressions and stimuli.

One could look at that as simple programming in the human mind, sort of like the BIOS in a computer. Some low-level coding to allow for things like imprinting on the mother after birth, recognition of the need for food and comfort, and so on. Beyond these basic things, a lot of what an infant perceives is just a stream of meaningless impressions. Repeated exposure to these things allows the child to understand them, and these experiences create the sort of context that allows for the interpretation of new experiences.

Really, I don't know if the basic coding necessary to allow the human mind to process information at birth would really count as "something in the intellect". Really, all you need is a set of instructions that convert experiences into concepts.

 

[Duder]

I cannot wholeheartedly agree with the axiom that nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses. I think that Kant was correct: we cannot be totally tabula rasa prior to experience. If we were, we would have no faculties for organizing and understanding the experiences we have. Life for us would be no more than a stream of meaningless and nonsensical impressions and stimuli.

One could look at that as simple programming in the human mind, sort of like the BIOS in a computer. Some low-level coding to allow for things like imprinting on the mother after birth, recognition of the need for food and comfort, and so on. Beyond these basic things, a lot of what an infant perceives is just a stream of meaningless impressions. Repeated exposure to these things allows the child to understand them, and these experiences create the sort of context that allows for the interpretation of new experiences.

Really, I don't know if the basic coding necessary to allow the human mind to process information at birth would really count as "something in the intellect". Really, all you need is a set of instructions that convert experiences into concepts.

Greetings, Artguy -

I'll betcha any apparent dsagreement we have about this will boil down to differences of definition. I would say that the inborn coding you mention is part of the intellect, while you seem to think it inheres in some pre-intellectual domain.

Naturally, I think my way of catagorizing it is better!

Our mothers addressed us as infants and told us, "That is a tree, that is a ducky, and that is a cloud. This is oatmeal - open wide, dear." I maintain that whatever rudimentary process we used to make sense of all this, it was essentially intellectual. I can't think of any reason to call it anything else.

Moreover, I believe there are examples of things we could not have begun to grasp without some a priori knowledge. Take arithmetic. That one and two make three cannot be an empirical, seeing-is-believing fact. Why not? Because one, two and three are not things. You can see two bass in a fishpond, you can hear two raps on the door, and you can feel two punches in the boxing ring. You can sense many things to which "two" seems to apply. But no one has ever seen "two". If you doubt it, try saying to the person next to you, “I saw two this morning.†The inevitable response is, “Two what?†There seems to be no way of deriving general numerical facts from sense experience.

It is tempting to ascribe the concept of number to experience, though. I can throw one wad of paper into the trashcan, and next throw two wads of paper into the trashcan. If I then examine the contents of the trashcan I will see that it contains three wads of paper. I have performed this sort of experiment many times, and the result is always the same. This might make me conclude that one and two make three, and to insist that numerical truths come from experience.

But then, David Hume says “Nice try!†(I didn’t know he was here!!). “The problem is that no matter how many times you run that experiment, there is no guarantee that you will always get the same result when you look in the trashcan. Just because the sun has risen on every morning of your life does not mean that it will rise every morning for all eternity. In fact, I promise you there will come a day on Earth when the sun will not rise. Seeing something happen over and over again might tell you that something is likely, but not that it is certain.â€Â

And yet, we feel very strongly, don't we, that one and one is certainly two, with no possibility of deviation? How do we get this certainty? Empirical knowledge is uncertain - we know this. If we really are sure that one and one is two, then this knowledge would have to be a priori, because of induction's built-in uncertainty.

What do you think, Artguy? Are arithmetic facts just habits of thought, or are they certain truths?

 

[Soma-Sight]

The Peripatetic axiom is: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses." (Latin: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu") the Peripatetic school of Greek philosophy, which Aristotle established, held the principle, and it forms the basis of Empiricism.

What do you Christians think of this ?

I hope you dont drive, go to the doctors, or read the Bilbe.

The internal combustion engine was invented through empiricism.

Medical Science was founded on the laws of Nature and empiricism.

And the Bible was WRITTEN by men who had EXPERIENCES through the senses!!!!

 

[ArtGuy]

I'll betcha any apparent dsagreement we have about this will boil down to differences of definition. I would say that the inborn coding you mention is part of the intellect, while you seem to think it inheres in some pre-intellectual domain.

Yes, that would appear to be the case.

Naturally, I think my way of catagorizing it is better!

Yes, well, my way comes with a secret decoder ring. Advantage: Me!

Seriously, I don't think either of our methods are inherently superior - they're just different. Using your definitions, there is, indeed, an aspect of the intellect that precedes experience. Using mine, there isn't. (Probably - this is still subject to some debate, I suppose.)

Moreover, I believe there are examples of things we could not have begun to grasp without some a priori knowledge. Take arithmetic. ...

See, now this is something that has always been of great interest to me. I subscribe, more or less, to empiracal realism as far as numbers go. I think that numbers, like everything else, can only be absorbed into our intellect by experience. I would put great weight behind your crumpled paper example, though I would also tell Hume that he was onto something.

While there are objective truths (or at least we may pretend there are for the sake of argument), the nature of our minds makes it impossible for us to be 100% sure about anything. This brings us to one of those trite "OMG we're in The Matrix!!" thought experiments, but those ultimately have value. It's impossible for us to discern between real and fantasy, because we're ultimately at the mercy of our senses. We have nothing to go on but them, and so we have to rely on what they tell us, and on what our brain does with this information.

What does all this mean with regards to empirical realism? Well, for one thing, the fallibility of our senses is by no means a death knell for realism. Whether or not there exists objective truth is a separate issue from whether or not we can ever know it. Consider a certain leaf on a certain tree in a certain jungle in South America. There is either a frog on that leaf right this moment, or there isn't. Neither of us are ever going to know which it is, but that doesn't stop there from being a definite answer to that question.

Similarly, while the limitations of the brain/sense construct makes it impossible for us to know, for certain, whether or not we've got the details right regarding the precise nature of the number 12, that doesn't mean that 12 doesn't definitely exist as a real, though of course intangible, quantity.

So I say to Mr. Hume:

"You're correct in your observations, but you're mistaken if you think that has an relevance to the question of mathematical realism. Also, you're writing is boring as hell, and more than a little out there. Seriously, man, lay off the shrooms."

 

[Duder]

.

Yes, well, my way comes with a secret decoder ring. Advantage: Me![

Hi, Artguy -

Dang! My synthetic a priori comes with no decoder ring. But I do have good news: I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance...

I subscribe, more or less, to empiracal realism as far as numbers go. I think that numbers, like everything else, can only be absorbed into our intellect by experience. I would put great weight behind your crumpled paper example, though I would also tell Hume that he was onto something.

While there are objective truths (or at least we may pretend there are for the sake of argument), the nature of our minds makes it impossible for us to be 100% sure about anything.

Sorry to interrupt in the middle of a paragraph, but I feel that that statement was a bit too strong. Yes, we can doubt 99.9% of everything with a Cartesian-style project, but eventually we get down to propositions upon which doubt can find no traction - the most basic of which are the facts that thought and experience do happen. Something, as opposed to nothing, is definitely going on here.*

This brings us to one of those trite "OMG we're in The Matrix!!" thought experiments, but those ultimately have value. It's impossible for us to discern between real and fantasy, because we're ultimately at the mercy of our senses. We have nothing to go on but them, and so we have to rely on what they tell us, and on what our brain does with this information.

Well, you prickly empirical realist you, I am an objective idealist, so I say we are in a matrix of sorts. I think all of this universe, with it's many different places and things, comes from one "projector". If you want some reason for thinking so, we could discuss Bell's Theorem of non-locality. Bell implies, to my way of thinking, that the concepts of there being different places, different things and different times are products of the human mind. The human mind decodes the "beam from the projector" and gives us the universe we see.

That brings me back around to Kant**. He split reality into two parts: noumena, the "thing-in-itself", and phenomena, the world as it appears though human spectacles. Space, time, quantity, and several other such concepts are not part of the thing-in-itself, but concepts built into the human intellect - things every human brings to the table when he arrives. Hence, we have no choice but to place things in space, observe events in time, and understand reality in terms of number.

Notice how scientists carry Kant around with them (even if unconsciously). They never presume to tell you "how things really are". That would be to presume to know the thing-in-itself, which is forever out of reach of the human mind (said Kant). Recall the Copenhagen stance toward quantum reality: "Don't discuss it!"

And if you look deeply into the philosophy of science, I think you'll find that number is seen as a useful phenomenal tool, but not necessarily a feature of the world-in-itself. Does math apply to the in-itself world? We don't know and we can't find out, because we cannot step out of the human way of thinking where number is built-in.

Looking at reality and seeing numbers does not tell us that there are numbers in the world. It tells us that there are numbers on our lenses.

What does all this mean with regards to empirical realism? Well, for one thing, the fallibility of our senses is by no means a death knell for realism. Whether or not there exists objective truth is a separate issue from whether or not we can ever know it. Consider a certain leaf on a certain tree in a certain jungle in South America. There is either a frog on that leaf right this moment, or there isn't. Neither of us are ever going to know which it is, but that doesn't stop there from being a definite answer to that question.

.................There was a young man who said "God
.................Must find it exceedingly odd,
.................That the tree, as a tree,
.................Continues to be,
.................When no one's about in the quad."

................"Young man, you're astonishment's odd.
.................I'm always about in the quad -
.................And that's why the tree
.................Continues to be -
.................Since observed by, yours faithfully, God."

Similarly, while the limitations of the brain/sense construct makes it impossible for us to know, for certain, whether or not we've got the details right regarding the precise nature of the number 12, that doesn't mean that 12 doesn't definitely exist as a real, though of course intangible, quantity.

That is true. Twelve could be a real thing that exists out there independent of us. But where is twelve? Where does it live? You'd just about have to place it in a Platonic realm of Forms, wouldn't you?
:D



____________________

* I may be wrong, but I think Descartes went too far in allowing "I think therefore I am" as unassailably certain. Yes, he did detect thought as he reflected on the contents of his awareness. But I have doubts that he was able to detect an "I" that was having the thoughts.

Descartes fell prey to a linguistic convention that insists that whenever there is an action, there must be a subject that performs that action. An example of that convention is the "it" in the sentence "it is raining".

If Descartes wanted to cut out all doubt, he should not have assumed that there was an "I" who does the thinking. That "I" is an elusive phantom who can never be caught in the act.

This is largely tangential - hence the footnote.


** No, I'm not a Kantian. If you must know, I'm somewhere between George Berkeley and old Heraclitus.


.

 

[Drew]

I wondered if this sort of topic would ever come in these forums and I have not been disappointed......

I think there is a little irony in the following. Just as Kant distinguished the "thing-in-itself" from the "appearance", I have never read his "Critique of Pure Reason", having been warned that it is impenetrable. I have read things about this work and have some casual acquaintance with Kant's views. So I guess I have not read "the thing in itself" and rely on "appearances".....

Anyhoo, although this reading was done at least 10 years ago, Kant's "transcendental idealism" struck me as correct - we must bring certain faculties to experience - otherwise we would see a jumble of uncoordinated sense data.

Looking at reality and seeing numbers does not tell us that there are numbers in the world. It tells us that there are numbers on our lenses.

I think this is correct. Didn't Kant say something like: "Reason without sense experience is empty, while sensations without reason is blind"?

Here, reason = a priori intellectual elements that are brought to sense experience.

I understand Kant as basically saying the following about "numbers" - without the sense experience of seeing 12 apples, 12 cats, 12 stars, etc, numbers would never arise in human culture. On the other hand, unless the mind adds structure to such sense experience, numbers would never have arisen either.

Is it not fair to say that Kant charts a middle course between pure empiricsim and pure "rationalism" - the notion that certain truths can be deduced independent of sense experience?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I've heard it pointed out that logic is something that has to be in some way part of nature because there are parts of logic that must exist in our minds by our experience of them. Plurality and the AND connective for instance. You cannot have AND without plurality and vice versa. But the mind sees plurality and sees the implication of AND.

There is a structure to nature and our brains adapt to that structure in order to understand it.