A posteriori vs A priori

May 30, 2005 20:16


In Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links, and Tags, Clay Shirky clearly explains the issue of a posteriori knowledge versus a priori knowledge ( Read more... )

a posteriori, objectivism, philosophy, memetics, dynamism, epistemology, en, relativism

Leave a comment

Comments 14

randallsquared May 31 2005, 04:35:52 UTC
If you believe that meaning is found, rather than created, then would it also be your position that meaning would exist without mind -- if there were no mind in the universe throughout it's existence, would meaning still exist? Perhaps we're talking about different things by the word "meaning"? :)

Reply

randallsquared May 31 2005, 16:07:37 UTC
I think he is just saying that meaning is constrained by reality.

alpheccar.

Reply

salience May 31 2005, 17:24:23 UTC
That doesn't follow. Meaning is a concept that refers to a relationship between consciousness and particular existants. So clearly meaning doesn't exist without mind, since one of the defining participants in the relationshi0p isn't present, but jumping to "meaning is created by mind" is inserting a dichotomy where one isn't needed. Meaning is inherent in the relationship between the perceiving consciousness and the perceived existants, and that is what is discovered.

The trap here is thinking of the mind as something separate from "external" reality, instead of as a full participant in the system that it's observing.

A consciousness can claim meaning where there really isn't any, but we're not talking about pathology or postmodernism.

Reply

kraant May 31 2005, 20:23:56 UTC
Quick question...

Do you believe that mathematics is discovered or invented?

Reply


averros June 1 2005, 10:53:42 UTC
Jorge Luis Borges, "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins"

...one of my favourite essays, actually :)

Reply

fare June 1 2005, 11:19:04 UTC
Note to my gentle readers: Google (and its cache) will find this article for you. Thank you once again, averros.

Reply

The Ultimate Universal Language fare June 1 2005, 11:34:16 UTC
Actually, this rambling about a universal language that defines an objective representation for every meaningful concept reminds me of that project I had to extend Unicode from 32-bit to 256-bit, defining a single unicode code-point for every glyph that a man may ever desire to publish: that is, any document that a man wants to print or otherwise display will have its code point. My thesis might have code point \u18301397114989213916504138087010426783359964432322918138529714566196407282017, whereas a nude photo of Marylin Monroe would have code point \u84007590508399794104443106782133249188872853079298113432894369167235420201227. Of course, each font implementor would be free to display each glyph in any variant that he feels appropriate. Note the difference between the latter glyph in Times and in Vera Sans Mono. One advantage of this scheme is that each and every series of utterances by man can be reduced to a normal form that consists of any one single code point. This also makes Unicode 3000 the ultimate lossless data compression ( ... )

Reply

Re: The Ultimate Universal Language fare June 1 2005, 12:05:30 UTC
Of course, in Unicode 3000, the code point for the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42. If you just print the glyph at a high enough resolution and with the proper font, you'll be able to read it.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up