Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
I have some preliminary questions before I can accurately state my current position (which I may not be able to do, but we'll see.) Please be mindful that I have never taken a philosophy course and all of my philosophical education has come from books I have sought out or information on the internet. So I may ask some questions that might seem "dumb", but I ask them in all earnestness to learn more.
|
Don't worry about it. I'm not an expert or anything and have only taken a few classes on philosophy myself. A lot of my understanding has come from reading on my own and talking with my wife, who minored in philosophy. I'll try to answer your questions the best I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
I suppose my main question here, is about the terms "intellectual and deductive". Are these not, in some way, drawn from sensory and perceptual events themselves? What I mean is, in order to intellectualize or deduce anything, must it not draw from the original senses and perceptions that built the framework which allows for intellectualization and deduction? Is there such a thing as "pure" intellectualizing, "pure" deduction, severed from at least a primary sensory experience?
|
I'm going to throw out a few broad terms and ideas here that might not address Transhumanist ideas and concerns. Stop me if I make an assumption you don't agree with.
Clearly to exist is to experience, but reduced and regressed as much as possible, we could theorize (for the sake of argument) that there is a being who is blind, mute and deaf, that doesn't need to eat or drink, and is suspended in mid-air. Like a disembodied consciousness I guess, with no frame of reference. Descartes came up with the line: "I think, therefore I am." Even filtered through human language I think this is compelling, because the above consciousness might not be able to articulate that thought without language, but it would still be self-aware. And that self-awareness is proof in and of itself that it exists, and it is purely within its own mind.
I'm not sure if that answer helps or not, but the idea is basically that if something by definition exists I don't have to experience it to know it's true.
"The inspiration of rationalism has always been mathematics, and rationalists have stressed the superiority of the deductive over all other methods in point of certainty. Certainly numbers do not have a tangible existence in the world. They exist in our collective consciousness. And yet they are not arbitrary products of our imaginations in the way that fictional characters are."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
The Allegory of the Cave automatically casts doubt on sense experience.
|
Exactly. This is a very famous example.