Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:36 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:31 pm
Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?
That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge.

Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding."

This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated.

Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.

My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.

Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
Noted your points above and I disagree with some of them. Noted you are not very familiar with Kant's philosophy and some of the nuance points of Hume.
I did not direct my comment at you and do not feel under any obligation to respond to your insulting post
Run along
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:31 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 7:33 pm

So you asked two people to do the impossible.
If there was something more specific though...
Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?
That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
That was very condensed. Thanks for writing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12384
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 4:23 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:36 am ...
Noted your points above and I disagree with some of them. Noted you are not very familiar with Kant's philosophy and some of the nuance points of Hume.
I did not direct my comment at you and do not feel under any obligation to respond to your insulting post
Run along
You posted the following asking for "in your own words' and my reply is as above.
What is so insulting in stating you are not familiar with Kant's work.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:54 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:06 am
You have to read the whole SEP article to get an idea what Kant's answers to Hume is about. Even if you do, I believe you would not be able to grasp the whole discussion on this issue.
:lol:
You speak for yourself.
You have to do more than copy and paste.
Tell us in your own words how Kant improves upon Hume's account of causality!
I have responded to your request in my post above what is your response then?

Kant's work is very complex and in 'putting in my own words' will often exclude the critical nuances therein.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:05 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:31 pm
Hume believed that cause and effect cannot be reasoned. Did Kand find an answer for that?
That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
That was very condensed. Thanks for writing.
Thanks
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by bahman »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:57 am
bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:05 am
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm

That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem fro his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
That was very condensed. Thanks for writing.
Thanks
By the way, what is your position on knowledge, do we acquire it through experience or do we know it?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:09 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:57 am
bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 12:05 am
That was very condensed. Thanks for writing.
Thanks
By the way, what is your position on knowledge, do we acquire it through experience or do we know it?
Babies are more or less empty of knowledge.
What they have onboard is mostly potentialities to collect knowledge.
We have all the equipment for spacio-temporal understanding. We know the difference between up and down. We know to find a source of milk, we know hunger and thirst. But the human mammal has the least innate knowledge of any animal. Compare, if you will, the baby deer who is on its legs within five minutes of its birth and able to run. Humans have a long gestation period and a much longer period of childhood and adolescence than all other land animals.
Linguists will tell you that the potential for gathering a langauge is innate. But we do not know any words, a sense of grammar might be inborn. An child can learn any langauge from birth.
Humans are tabula rasa but not completely. We all ahve a basic framework upon which our experience is impressed.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12384
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:58 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:09 pm
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:57 am

Thanks
By the way, what is your position on knowledge, do we acquire it through experience or do we know it?
Babies are more or less empty of knowledge.
What they have onboard is mostly potentialities to collect knowledge.
We have all the equipment for spacio-temporal understanding. We know the difference between up and down. We know to find a source of milk, we know hunger and thirst. But the human mammal has the least innate knowledge of any animal. Compare, if you will, the baby deer who is on its legs within five minutes of its birth and able to run. Humans have a long gestation period and a much longer period of childhood and adolescence than all other land animals.
Linguists will tell you that the potential for gathering a langauge is innate. But we do not know any words, a sense of grammar might be inborn. An child can learn any langauge from birth.
Humans are tabula rasa but not completely. We all ahve a basic framework upon which our experience is impressed.
The law of causality is based on 'EXPERIENCE' and not some pre-existing Laws that are out there independent of human experience.

But there are two types of experience, i.e.
  • 1. The collective experience of living things since 4 billion years ago that is encoded in the human DNA.

    2. The experience [triggered from internal and external] that one encounter after birth.
1. As such ALL humans are programmed with a General and Principle Pro-forma Law of Cause and Effect to facilitate survival.

2. This is a general law which generate the impulse to be aware that "for every effect there must be causes" and "where there are causes, there will be effects".
What is critical is the recognition of this inherent General Principle which is not specific to any cause or effect underlie them.

3. There are specific preprogrammed "cause and effect" algorithm that are innate, e.g. for the newly born, "suck this thing of a particular pattern and milk will emerge" etc.

4. All humans are also programmed with a potential to recognize patterns and cause & effects for experiences after birth. This the so-called pattern of constant conjunction, customs and habits that Hume is postulating with his theory of causation.
This 4 is thus grounded on 1&2 i.e. the General Law of causality and this pattern recognition algorithm, embedded deep in the DNA and brain.
So Hume's theory is not wrong but it is limited to this particular algorithm of pattern recognition and experiences after birth.

5. What Hume had missed out is the existence of the General Law of Causality i.e. 1 & 2 that is programmed in ALL humans, adapted from 4 billion years of evolution of living things. Hume is referring to the a posteriori experience of cause & effect.

6. What Kant did was to refer to the existence of 1 & 2 which is related to the a priori GENERAL Law of Causality as a Category or Pure Concepts of the Understanding. Kant point is without the embedded Law of Causality [from past experience, not from God] human cannot even cognize the experiences that Hume is rely upon.

7. Btw, Kant proved the theory of causality without reference to experience directly.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:58 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 6:09 pm
By the way, what is your position on knowledge, do we acquire it through experience or do we know it?
Babies are more or less empty of knowledge.
What they have onboard is mostly potentialities to collect knowledge.
We have all the equipment for spacio-temporal understanding. We know the difference between up and down. We know to find a source of milk, we know hunger and thirst. But the human mammal has the least innate knowledge of any animal. Compare, if you will, the baby deer who is on its legs within five minutes of its birth and able to run. Humans have a long gestation period and a much longer period of childhood and adolescence than all other land animals.
Linguists will tell you that the potential for gathering a langauge is innate. But we do not know any words, a sense of grammar might be inborn. An child can learn any langauge from birth.
Humans are tabula rasa but not completely. We all ahve a basic framework upon which our experience is impressed.
7. Btw, Kant proved the theory of causality without reference to experience directly.
:lol:
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12384
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:38 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:58 pm

Babies are more or less empty of knowledge.
What they have onboard is mostly potentialities to collect knowledge.
We have all the equipment for spacio-temporal understanding. We know the difference between up and down. We know to find a source of milk, we know hunger and thirst. But the human mammal has the least innate knowledge of any animal. Compare, if you will, the baby deer who is on its legs within five minutes of its birth and able to run. Humans have a long gestation period and a much longer period of childhood and adolescence than all other land animals.
Linguists will tell you that the potential for gathering a langauge is innate. But we do not know any words, a sense of grammar might be inborn. An child can learn any langauge from birth.
Humans are tabula rasa but not completely. We all ahve a basic framework upon which our experience is impressed.
7. Btw, Kant proved the theory of causality without reference to experience directly.
:lol:
As usual.. no justifications to support your view, so that is a self-insult.
You are ignorant of the point in this case because you do not understand Kant's work.

Kant justification of the theory of causality is a priori and Transcendental not a posteriori, thus independent of experience [nurture].

Personally, I supplements Kant's argument with the sciences [experience based] from evolutionary science, evolutionary psychology, neurosciences, cognitive science and the likes which were not available during Kant's time.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:47 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 8:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Nov 22, 2021 6:38 am
7. Btw, Kant proved the theory of causality without reference to experience directly.
:lol:
As usual.. no justifications to support your view, so that is a self-insult.
You've already blotted your copybook when it comes to posting to me.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem for his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
Excellent! The following is worth repeating:
Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience ... Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world.
It is pure mystic nonsense. The same kind of, "magic knowledge," one has without having to learn anything taught by every religion and modern philosophy. They call it, "inspiration," "intuition," "revelation," or, (in Kant's case) "a priori," or those who are intoxicated with the narcotic of, "evolutionary psychology," "genetic programming."

Whatever its called, it's pure mystic nonsense. There is no knowledge without learning.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 3:49 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:16 pm That is his problem of induction, which is only a problem if you are ignorant of constant conjunction. We can only assume causality, but on the balance of probabilities we can predict the future outcome of known events. Hume was not the skeptic that Kant accused him of being, and was happy to confirm his position on determinism and compatibilism.
It was on this very matter that Kant said he was "interrupted from my dogmatic slumber", yet Kant's solution was to most clearly define metaphysical elements of nature to find direct and indubitable links of causality between elements. A thing which Hume already knew. For my money Hume's objection should always be present in the mind as this presents a sort of scientific humility which Kant lacked.
QM phenomena supports a Humean skepticism leaving Kant in the dark about what the hell is that all about.

Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience, as thought be Locke's tabula rasa, and Hume's insistence that experience is the source of all knoweldge. Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding." This pure understanding is Descartes regurgitated. Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world and it is from that that our experience may be used to guide us to science.
My worry with this is that since our inherent knowledge "pure understanding" is only ultimately derived from our evolved experience we have no special warrent to know reality outside of the narrow confines of the human metric.
Kant knows too well from this that the reality beyind human experience is a constant problem for his ideas and talks much about never knowing the "things-in -themsleves" being never truly knowable.
Excellent! The following is worth repeating:
Kant's main thrust is the idea that we can know more than what can be induced by experience ... Kant is saying that we are born with knowledge about the world.
It is pure mystic nonsense. The same kind of, "magic knowledge," one has without having to learn anything taught by every religion and modern philosophy. They call it, "inspiration," "intuition," "revelation," or, (in Kant's case) "a priori," or those who are intoxicated with the narcotic of, "evolutionary psychology," "genetic programming."

Whatever its called, it's pure mystic nonsense. There is no knowledge without learning.
Sensory input cannot be experience without some structure.
Without some structure all sensory input would be white noise. You cannot be completely born tabula rasa. The inputs have to be tabulated into somehing, esle no baby deer would "know" how to stand up within five minues of birth nor would they be motivated to do so. Human babies would die without the "knowledge" of nipples and the milk they provide.
Obviously with zero sensory input there can be no experience. But that is not to say that sensory input automatically leads to experience.
How can a dog be different from a cat without "genetic programming"? - what you call mystic nonsense. But puppies brought up by cat mothers still end up being dogs. They never learn to purr, cannot land on all fours if thrown from a building, and still tend to do doggy things that cats would never do.
Conclusion We need more than pure experience.
It will only take a minute to agree with this. With an empty brain, a baby opening its eyes for the first time has not possible understanding of what to do with the image. There has to be something interpreting the input.
FOr Kant the givens of pure understanding are space and time. With minor reservations I concur with this,
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:00 pm Sensory input cannot be experience without some structure.
Of course. It's called consciousness.

So long as it is understood that the, "structure," only makes the experience possible and does not predetermine how it is experienced, if there is experience, something must have that experience, whatever you choose to call it.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by Sculptor »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 5:55 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:00 pm Sensory input cannot be experience without some structure.
Of course. It's called consciousness.
Sorry that will just not answer.
What makes a baby deer "conscious" of the fact that they need to stand up in five minutes? Or makes them conscious HOW to stand up?
What makes a human baby immediately "conscious" of hunger and the information that a nipple has milk in it?

So long as it is understood that the, "structure," only makes the experience possible and does not predetermine how it is experienced, if there is experience, something must have that experience, whatever you choose to call it.
The structure EXACTLY determines how the sensory input is translated into experience. THe question is whether of not tha consistituted "knowledge".

For example nervous inputs from the eye is translated BY THE STRUCTURE of the brain as sight, from the ears as sound, and so on.
Without that innate knowledge is all just confused bollocks.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Kant The Indispensable Philosopher

Post by RCSaunders »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 6:43 pm What makes a baby deer "conscious" of the fact that they need to stand up in five minutes? Or makes them conscious HOW to stand up?
I'm sorry, but I have never understood any of those kinds of arguments. I have no idea what you mean by, "know."

Just because something does something does not to me imply any kind of knowledge. The fact that a plant's leaves turn toward the sun does not mean they, "know," to do that. The fact that iron filings will line up along the path of a magnetic field does not mean they, "know," to do that. The fact that an organism with lungs breaths does not mean they know to do that. The fact that a bird uses its wings to fly does not mean it knows to do that. All those things are simply physical/biological processes of varying degrees of complexity that require no knowledge at all.

I think the difference is what one means by knowledge. What I mean by knowledge is that which one holds by means of concepts, i.e. language. If you want to call other things knowledge, well then you do, but this discussion was about Kant's views. As you wrote:
Kant' "I then proceeded to the deduction of these concepts, on the basis of which I was now assured that they are not derived from experience, as Hume had feared, but have sprung from the pure understanding.
Kant is obviously talking about conceptual knowledge not being derived from experience. What you seem to be calling knowledge is just any biological behavior from simple reflexes to complex behavior of the autonomic nervous system. You can certainly call those things knowledge, if you choose, but that's not what Kant was referring to, nor what I am referring to as knowledge.
Post Reply