The foundation of objective materialism is the theory that the human brain has an innate capacity for knowledge. This is the answer to the arguments that knowledge is neither innate (which it is not), nor can it be learned or understood without prior knowledge. Aristotle writes in his Analytica Posteriora, “So it emerges that neither can we possess them from birth, nor can they come to be in us if we are without knowledge of them to the extend of having no such developed state at all. Therefore we must possess a capacity of some sort, but not such as to rank higher in accuracy than these developed states. And this at least is an obvious characteristic of all animals, for they possess a congenital discriminative capacity which is called sense-perception” (31-36).

The brains capacity for sense-perception is what allows it to accumulate knowledge. Knowledge is the de facto result of sense-perception, where as understanding is a reflection concerning the experience. It was not until Immanuel Kant that a rationalist was able to create dualistic, or synthetic, categories sufficient to define an innate capacity for knowledge, but because Kant’s system depends solely upon itself for proof, it begs the question. Thankfully we have the science of neurology which has vastly expanded our knowledge and understanding of how knowledge is accumulated, processed, and stored. The better we understand how knowledge is accumulated, processed, and stored, the more explanatory power we have in demonstrating the objectivity of our sense-perceptions.

What interests me are arguments to the contrary, that there is no capacity for knowledge in the human brain, or that within the human brain rests universal, innate knowledge that can be accessed through divine will, meditation, or some other spiritual activity. Does anyone have any arguments like that that they would like to share?

__________________
[I][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Proud to be an American...[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][I]"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House[/I][/FONT]

The principal difference between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is the capability of abstract reasoning through the process of "time-binding." See Alfred Korzybski, Time-Binding: The General Theory First Paper (1924).

One of many principal differences, when it comes to our ability to reason. But what I'm looking for is people that disagree with the existance of an innate capacity for knowledge. Those are the arguments that may serve to undermine materialism.

__________________
[I][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Proud to be an American...[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][I]"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House[/I][/FONT]

It remains unclear to me what you intend by "What interests me are arguments to the contrary, that there is no capacity for knowledge in the human brain,".

What is a "capacity for knowledge"? Obviously our brains are capable of knowledge; if it's not the brain, what would it be?
The use of the word "knowledge" is troublesome too, as it is generally used to refer to true/justified/belief; I would have preferred a clearer definition. Would "acquired data" fit?

What does "universal" mean in this context?

Does it has anything to do with the value of the knowledge in question (whether it is true, false, neither...)? So far we're talking only about pieces of informations if I'm correct, so it's weird to see them qualified of "universal".

I'm sorry for not understanding at all your intent here; it looks like Nemo is off topic too so maybe you could clarify

__________________
Before you hit the button, check if every single word that you wrote is a step towards truth. Then delete those words that are unnecessary.
In return, I'll be trying to do it, too. And then we might have some meaningful discussion.

Spinoza speaks of the mind’s intuitive knowledge of God, but this reference is more to Nature than in a spiritual sense. See Benedictus (Baruch) de Spinoza, The Ethics, Part II, “Concerning the Nature and Origin of the Mind,” (1677).

I see no profit in repetition.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

Knowledge is all very well and good.
Cats know that fire is warm. Goats know that vegetables are good to eat.

The Wisdom to use knowledge is far more important.
To be able to deduce a probability based on acquired observation is something animals can do, however humans are far more able to make the calculations required for the most profitable course.

When it comes to gathering knowledge, science is generally limited by it's outward view.
The science of neurology is useful for looking at others for answers. It gives an idea of what goes on in the mind but can't help understand it any better.

The science of meditation is useful for looking inwards for answers. To gain more understanding of your own mind gives more answers than you can easily comprehend.

Knowledge is the means of capacity, for we are all only as much as we know; and to be without knowledge is to be blind and helpless - both for being unable to see what is lacking or how to find it. For all that we know, self-knowledge is the most important, for it is the prerequisite of wisdom, which is the goodness of knowledge. Even so, knowledge need be coupled with good intent to be virtuous; for knowledge applied to bad ends leaves its means unaccountable.

Acquired date through sense-perceptions is what I mean by knowledge. It is very easy to know something and not understand it, which is why knowledge is different than understanding. Knowledge doesn't require the use of language or logic, as these are the utilities of Reason which is what we use to make sense of, or understand, things. A justified belief is a matter of understanding, and is commonly defined as when our understanding of knowledge is accurate and lacks contradiction. But this is also why we cannot know that we know, because we don't have any objective experience of knowledge itself. The very concept of knowledge is something that is understood.

Many dualists believe that knowledge is universal and is discovered. By universal I mean complete, whole, total, etc. Materialists view knowledge, not as universals, but as specific pieces of data stored in the brain through sense-perceptions.

__________________
[I][FONT="Book Antiqua"][SIZE="3"]Proud to be an American...[/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[FONT="Book Antiqua"][I]"Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is almost always somebody screwed up." - House[/I][/FONT]

Thanks for the clarifications Radio_Frequency.

Firstly, if I may insist: what about the "capacity for knowledge"? What do you mean when you say you are looking for arguments according to which "the brain doesn't have a capacity for knowledge"?
You surely don't mean that we are unable to acquire data through sense perceptions . Or do you use "capacity" as in "method"/"gift"? In which case you would be arguing that our existing capacity to acquire data is not due to our body's structure but to external, universal factors? That still wouldn't make much sense to me, but it would be a little better...

Secondly, you say that dualists believe that "knowledge is universal and is discovered". I have trouble understanding this statement if knowledge is defined by "acquired data". Do you agree that we certainly do not "discover" our sense-perceptions, we create them?

So did "knowledge" in that sentence mean "true informations"? Or even "truth"?


PS: you see why I think the use of the word "knowledge" for "acquired data" is problematic.



As for me, I'd be a materialist - data only exists through the interpreter; beliefs only exist through the believers; and I define truth as "an understanding of reality" (truth would therefore be a state of comprehension), and think it is, in its litteral form, totally innaccessible for us. I think in an almost instinctive way that dualism is a nonsense fueled by human arrogance (no matter how much I think about it, I fail to see any merit to it even though I know many great minds believed in it), so I should not be able to help you find arguments for it :/

Maybe it would be different if I was a religious type

__________________
Before you hit the button, check if every single word that you wrote is a step towards truth. Then delete those words that are unnecessary.
In return, I'll be trying to do it, too. And then we might have some meaningful discussion.