Re: [asa] The empirical basis of knowledge

There is emerging evidence to support the idea that
"intuitive" knowledge is correlated with brain states, and
over the next few days I will try to gather information on
that.

The degree that these are from evolutionary history could
be very small. But I am not talking about "empirical
observations" this implies that it is conscious and
involves reason to some degree. I would prefer the term
"experience". Our interaction with the world around us,
and I mean this in both directions, makes us who we are
and forms all of our a priori knowledge.

This idea is just as consistent with Christianity, as a
materialist view of personhood is, and is probably just
another perspective of viewing the same phenomenon.

And, if this makes my point clearer, I am not a
presuppositionalist.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:58:09 -0400
  "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if all prior intiutions could be particularly
>correlated with brain
> states that in turn could be particularly correlated
>with identifiable
> genetic and environmental factors -- propositions that
>never been
> demonstrated and that there is good reason to doubt --
>why should we stop
> thinking of them as "prior intuitions?" If an intuition
>is rooted in deep
> evolutionary history, it is so far removed from an
>"empirical observation"
> that thinking of it as some kind of empirical data point
>seems to stretch
> the concept of empiricism to the point of becoming
>meaningless. Either that
> or you are heading in the direction of a materialst
>epistemology that denies
> any true "knowledge" and opts instead for mere
>pragmatism.
>
> On 3/20/07, drsyme@cablespeed.com
><drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>
>> My opinion on this is that there are no a priori
>> intuitions. Kant is wrong. Any a priori intuitions
>>which
>> might seem to exist are from "hard wiring" in the brain.
>> Where does this "hard wiring" come from? It is
>> genetically determined for the most part, and some
>> environmental influence during development.
>>
>> So our hardwiring is based on our experiences in part.
>> What about the genetic component? That is also based on
>> experience, not the experience of the individual, but
>>the
>> collective experience of our predecessors that had genes
>> that determine brain structure selected via
>>survivability.
>>
>> So any innate or a priori intuitions are based on
>> experience either personally, or collectively through
>> evolution.
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:02:01 -0400
>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Just a little more on Kant, sense impressions, and
>> >empiricism, which I
>> > happend to see in an article on strategic management
>> >that turned up in some
>> > research I'm doing on a completely unrelated law paper
>> >about trade secrets (
>> > J.C. Spender, *Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic
>> >Theory of the Firm*,
>> > 17 Strategic Management Journal 45-62 (1996)). This
>> >article is about moving
>> > away from the positivist epistemology that underlies
>> >most contemporary
>> > theories of the firm (and my current legal scholarship
>> >is about moving away
>> > from the positivist empistemology that underlies most
>> >contemporary
>> > intellectual property theory). Anyway, here's the bit
>> >about Kant:
>> >
>> >
>> > As realists, we assume reality exists and is knowable.
>> > As empiricists, we
>> > assume that our knowledge corresponds to reality. As
>> >rationalists, we
>> > assume reality's structure is logical. All these
>> >positions neglect the
>> > essence of the Kantian critique which is that our
>> >knowledge is constructed
>> > from sense impressions and cannot, therefore, tell us
>> >anything about a
>> > reality beyond those impressions. While Kant believed
>> >that our experience
>> > was shaped by reality, our knowledge of it was based
>>on
>> >a priori intuitions
>> > and consequently delimited by the available categories
>> >of human
>> > comprehension. Later philosophers, extending the
>> >position which Kant opened
>> > up, argued that the basis of our interpretation of our
>> >experience is as
>> > likely to be in the soft structures of subjective
>> >perception as it is in the
>> > hard reality within which we presume we are contained.
>> >
>> >
>> > Ibid. at p. 48
>> >
>> >
>> > On 3/20/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I'm not happy with the concept of
>> >>"Knowledge", and the idea
>> >> that you can KNOW something is right anyway. What
>>does
>> >>it mean? All it can
>> >> mean is that a fact is determined to be true with
>> >>probability 1.
>> >>
>> >> As a Bayesian, I would say that one has a prior
>> >>probability (prior belief)
>> >> that is then either reinforced or lessened in the
>>list
>> >>of evidence
>> >> observed. I'm not sure what it is that Glenn wants
>>to
>> >>KNOW. To "know" that
>> >> God exists is to be excused having faith. Glenn's
>> >>observation that
>> >> Christians seemed to be happy (I know of at least one
>> >>Christian who has
>> >> expressed suicidal thoughts to me so they clearly
>> >>weren't happy), was an
>> >> empirical observation that influenced his beliefs.
>> >>
>> >> For some reason (probably irrelevant) T.S. Eliot
>>comes
>> >>to mind:
>> >>
>> >> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
>> >> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>> >>
>> >> (Ash Wednesday).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Iain
>> >> On 3/20/07, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > *You said what basis was there for becoming a
>> >>christian. That isn't the
>> >> > same as saying I KNOW it is right. One believes it
>>is
>> >>right--that is why it
>> >> > is called faith.*
>> >> >
>> >> > Very fair point. OTOH, you didn't really KNOW that
>> >>those Christians
>> >> > were happy, either. The best you could really say
>>is
>> >>that it *seemed to
>> >> > you* that they were happy, since happiness is the
>> >>interior state of an
>> >> > "other" to which you don't have access. Lots of
>> >>people seem to be happy but
>> >> > really aren't -- even lots of Christians. So
>>you're
>> >>still back to some
>> >> > non-empirical foundational assumptions that, in
>>this
>> >>instance, supported
>> >> > your belief that the happiness you seemed to be
>> >>observing in these
>> >> > Christians in some way really reflected their
>>interior
>> >>states.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net >
>> >>wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Iain wrote:
>> >> > > >>Yes and I've read books on the evidence for the
>> >>resurrection, and
>> >> > > I've read atheist websites dissing the whole
>>concept
>> >>as a myth. At the end
>> >> > > of the day you have to decide which one you're
>>going
>> >>to believe, and that
>> >> > > belief is based on conviction and the work of the
>> >>Holy Spirit, and not on
>> >> > > empirical evidence alone, although it's true that
>> >>empirical observations may
>> >> > > incline one towards belief. <<<
>> >> > >
>> >> > > So have I read both sides, and that is why I tend
>>to
>> >>look for
>> >> > > verification elsewhere than at the resurrection.
>>And
>> >>then I get criticized
>> >> > > for doing so upon this list and told how I should
>> >>rest it all at the cross,
>> >> > > which as you note, one can read both sides of the
>> >>issue. Maybe some others
>> >> > > should read those atheist sites to see how
>> >>epistemologically insecure their
>> >> > > belief is.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > And to address the issue of this thread, one must
>> >>distinguish what you
>> >> > > asked from 'knowing'. You said what basis was
>>there
>> >>for becoming a
>> >> > > christian. That isn't the same as saying I KNOW
>>it
>> >>is right. One believes it
>> >> > > is right--that is why it is called faith.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > glenn
>> >> > > They're Here: The Pathway Papers
>> >> > > Foundation, Fall, and Flood
>> >> > > Adam, Apes and Anthropology
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > > *From:* Iain Strachan [mailto:
>> >>igd.strachan@gmail.com]
>> >> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:01 AM
>> >> > > *To:* Glenn Morton
>> >> > > *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
>> >> > > *Subject:* Re: [asa] The empirical basis of
>> >>knowledge
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On 3/20/07, Glenn Morton <glennmorton@entouch.net
>>>
>> >>wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > For Iain, Merv, David Siemans, David W.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Iain Strachan wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > >>>What empirical basis is there in the
>>decision
>> >>to become a
>> >> > > > Christian? At the end of the day, one may see
>> >>evidence that pulls you in
>> >> > > > that direction, but the crucial deciding factor
>> >>was (I always understood)
>> >> > > > conviction by the Holy Spirit. How do you
>>measure
>> >>that empirically? How do
>> >> > > > you measure a "leap of faith" empirically? <<<
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In my personal case, it was empirically obvious
>> >>that the Christians
>> >> > > > were happy, I wasn't and I wanted what they
>>had.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Yes, but that doesn't answer the question. Yes,
>> >>it's empirically
>> >> > > obvious that Christians are happy, but that
>> >>observation doesn't lead
>> >> > > logically to the KNOWLEDGE that Christianity is
>> >>true. People can be happy
>> >> > > because of a self-delusion. In the end you had
>>to
>> >>make a step of faith (as
>> >> > > did I) because you believed that the reason they
>> >>were happy was because
>> >> > > Christianity was true - that the difference it
>>made
>> >>in their lives wasn't
>> >> > > just a placebo effect.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Some will say that the empirical data for the
>> >>resurrection is good
>> >> > > enough for them, for indeed, with out that
>>empirical
>> >>claim of a risen Lord,
>> >> > > Christianity would have been still borne.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Iain
>> >> > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> -----------
>> >> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the
>> >>same box.
>> >>
>> >> - Italian Proverb
>> >> -----------
>> >>
>>
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 20 14:23:25 2007