There is no requirement and probably no evidence for a priori.

[Amorphos]

There is no requirement and probably no evidence for a priori.

I’d like to discuss the idea of an all knowing individual [as assumed in the idea of an ‘ubermensch’], some believe such a concept explains a priori. Or any part of that, all of which I contest.

I don’t think we have a priori if we are thinking of that as some kind of unlearned knowledge. I’d say we have the ability to know; perception + an incredible ‘computer’ as the brain, and that device can interpret collocative information [patterns, signals etc] such that the perception can build an image of a thing.

It starts with an infant feeling shaped objects and building models of that in the mind. I assume its something like fractals going on here, except as the informations are scaled up in the brain they don’t simply repeat the shapes of the initial information. Such that the brain takes the mass of information from the senses, then calibrates it into a collated pattern or image, which is then turned into the holistic shape and info the mind can understand as corresponding to an effective representation of external objects. So the external information is literally turned into language and visualisations of the world, and without that process knowledge initially may not be gained.

Hence no requirement and probably no evidence for a priori.

It may be possible that ‘the listener’ or perceiver, can use the mind to glean informations not from the world as part of the artistic process; intuition and inspiration, but babies don’t do that, nor do they have masses of knowledge.

I don’t know how a person with all knowledge without learning it can exist?


_

[SparksNow]

A priori, such as you describe above, is impossible - instinctive 'knowledge' exempted. But that opens up a grey area...

I assume its something like fractals going on here, except as the informations are scaled up in the brain they don’t simply repeat the shapes of the initial information. Such that the brain takes the mass of information from the senses, then calibrates it into a collated pattern or image, which is then turned into the holistic shape and info the mind can understand as corresponding to an effective representation of external objects. So the external information is literally turned into language and visualisations of the world, and without that process knowledge initially may not be gained.

One thing I have to ask here:

What is the relation of the brain and the mind in your opinion?

You say the: the "mind can understand as corresponding to an effective representation of external objects"; but what and where is the mind in your view?