From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 17:51:26 MDT
On Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:43 PM Rafal Smigrodzki rms2g@virginia.edu
wrote:
> Regarding our discussion of the senses as
> the foundation of knowledge: while sense
> information is crucial, the inborn propensities
> I referred to are much more than just edge
> detectors and the like - our whole mind has
> hundreds if not thousands of genetically
> specified modules which channel our
> thinking.
Such as?
Even this does not seem to mean that much. I might have propensity to,
say, come to a certain conclusion. Does that mean my knowledge is
grounded in that propensity? Or, rather, would one want to be aware of
the propensity and find a way to independently evaluate it?
> I am not quite sure how the word
> "foundation" is to be applied here,
True. The problem here is we're using "foundation" in two senses. One
is as the origin of something -- i.e., where it ultimately comes from.
This can be causal or temporal. The other is as a way to evaluate
something -- e.g., something by which something else is justified.
Logically, we could come up with several positions from this. One could
be that the senses are foundational in both senses (no pun intended:).
Another that they are foundational only in the first. Yet another that
they're foundational only in the second. Still another, that they are
not foundational in either sense. (Of course, these are the exclusivist
positions. One could imagine them being only partially foundational. I
take it that fits with your current view given your understanding of the
matter.)
> I know
> you are not a naive realist, but if I were to
> describe the foundation of knowledge, I'd
> say it's a life raft of general intelligence and
> sensory perception floating in a vast ocean
> of mystery. I wouldn't single out either element.
I'm only claiming sense perception is the ground floor -- not the whole
structure. Naive realism, in my view, is refusing to see that sense
perception is limited and even that the mind is limited. With the
example of illusions, for instance, this clearly shows the mind
confusing two (or more) states of affairs, such between hot air rising
and water in the distance.
What is the rest of this structure? Conceptual knowledge. That is a
different mode of consciousness, even if it's based on perceptions in
the sense of originating or being validated by them. But that's another
thread...
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See my incomplete "Free Banking FAQ" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/BankFAQ.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:17 MST