Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
Name the instrument that scientifically and accurately quantifies "mind" or "morals" or "meaning." Go ahead.
THE MIND quantifies "mind", "morals" and "meaning". Have you heard of recursion/self-reference?
This is how it works. The English word "I" exemplifies the notion.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
You've misunderstood Hume there. Hume isn't criticizing the ability to choose, but the legitimacy of converting a factual observation into a moral one.
No. I haven't misunderstood Hume. You haven't figured out how fundamental human values are to the PROCESS of choosing. Choosing what? ANYTHING?
Choosing between two different languages to talk about anything. Even philosophy.
Choosing between two scientific models which predict the same observations, but SAY different things about the actual causes ( Newton's theory of Gravity and Einstein's General Relativity).
Choosing the language you USE to talk about deities (Christianity vs Islam).
Choosing how to categorize the world when you think about it.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
Scientists don't trust their subjective experiences: they test them, through the scientific method.
Scientists trust their subjective experience enough to perform actual experiments! If they didn't - why would they even bother?
Which is what I said. I predict ( a priori ). I do experiment. I validate result (a posteriori). Science!
I predict that if I drink water the thirst will go away.
I drink water.
Thirst goes away.
Science!
I predict that if I buy my wife flowers she will smile.
I buy flowers.
She smiles.
Science!
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
That's not what those terms mean, actually.
You are telling me what my words mean to me now? Are you a mind reader?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
A priori implies "known without and independent of experience" and "
a posteriori," is "from or following experience."
What a stupid definition. The second you pop out of your mother's **** (and perhaps even much earlier than that) you can no longer tell the difference between "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge. Because you ARE experiencing, and you are learning - whether you want to or not. Is 2+2=4 a priori or a posteriori knowledge? Is your taste in music "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge? Is your name "a priori" or "a posteriori" knowledge?
What a scientist calls "a priori" is just GUESSING! Based on intuition. A hunch. Prediction ahead of time.
And "a posteriori" is validation - after the fact.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
It's from Kant's analytic/synthetic distinction.
The same distinction Quine dispatched with in 1951?
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 9:43 pm
They refer to different sorts of items of knowledge, not to expectations and validations of the same ones.
How disappointing to find out you didn't actually have any first principles in mind at all. Oh well.
But do observe you making my previous point for me. You have CHOSEN Kant's language to speak ABOUT knowledge.
Why haven't you chosen Popper's language; or Pauli's language; or Feynman's language; or Bayes' language; or Wittgenstein's language; or Quine's language; or Kierkegaard's language.
HOW and WHY did you CHOOSE Kant's language?
