The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to
which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain
knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which
our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense
experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate
source of all our concepts and knowledge.
Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they
argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or
knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide.
Second, they construct accounts of how reason in some form or other
provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists
present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts
of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite,
insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times
opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience
cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then
we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists'
accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge. SEE: Markie, Peter, "Rationalism vs. Empiricism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
Long before I had come to understand this nature of rationalism there
were already signs that such a journey was already being awakened. This was an
understanding for me as to the nature of what could be gained from the ability to visualize beyond empirical nature of our
journey into the sensible realm.
I guess in a such an awakening, as to what we know, there is the realization that what comes after helps to make that sense. So in a way one might like to see how rationalism together with Empiricism actually works. It is not in the sense that I might define one group of historical thinkers to contrast each other to say that one should excel over another, but to define how such a rationally sound person moves toward empiricism to understand the reality we created by experimentation and repeatability that empiricism enshrouds.
So this awakening while slow to materialize, comes from understanding something about the logic of the world and the definitions and architecture of that logical approach. To me in this day and age it has lead to some theory about which computational view could hold the idea about how we might see this reality. I am reticence to view this as a form of that reality. It is for what holds me back is a self evident moment using deducted features of our reasoning, which could move us to that moment of clarity.
The Empiricism Thesis: We have no source of knowledge in S or for the concepts we use in S other than sense experience Empircism -
Empirical fact would not be the basis of reality for
Nick Bostrum's simulation argument for instance. I hope to explain why.
The basis of this association(Rationalist, or, a Empiricist) is whether
one gains by a deductive method, or, an inductive method. A sense experience tells us, science as we know it, is inductive. We
must garner repeatable experiments to verify reality, a rationalist, by
logic and reason of theory alone. Verification, comes afterward. This for a rationalist is a deductive
something which can be true, can be "innate" before we accept the
inductive method means, that is it can be rationally ascertained. It is only after ward that such a process could be said to be true or false.
If the late character of our sources may incite us to doubt the
authenticity of this tradition, there remains that, in its spirit, it is
in no way out of character, as can be seen by reading or rereading what
Plato says about the sciences fit for the formation of philosophers in
book VII of the Republic, and especially about geometry at Republic,
VII, 526c8-527c11. We should only keep in mind that, for Plato,
geometry, as well as all other mathematical sciences, is not an end in
itself, but only a prerequisite meant to test and develop the power of
abstraction in the student, that is, his ability to go beyond the level
of sensible experience which keeps us within the "visible" realm, that
of the material world, all the way to the pure intelligible. And
geometry, as can be seen through the experiment with the slave boy in
the Meno (Meno, 80d1-86d2), can also make us discover the existence of
truths (that of a theorem of geometry such as, in the case of the Meno,
the one about doubling a square) that may be said to be "transcendant"
in that they don't depend upon what we may think about them, but have to
be accepted by any reasonable being, which should lead us into
wondering whether such transcendant truths might not exist as well in
other areas, such as ethics and matters relating to men's ultimate
happiness, whether we may be able to "demonstrate" them or not.See: Frequently Asked Questions about Plato by Bernard SUZANNE
When you examine deeply the very nature of your journey, then, you
come to realize what is hidden underneath "experience." So while being
an empiricist, it is necessary to know that such a joining with the
rationalist correlates with the reasoned only after the mentioned
experience. These are "corollary experiences," which serve to identify
that which had been identified long before the sensible world had been
made known.
|
|
|---|
Paradoxically,
it was Einstein who reluctantly introduced the notion of spontaneous
events, which might after all be the root of Bellʼs theorem. The lesson
for the future could, however, be that we should build the notion of locality on the operationally clear 'no-signalling' condition—the impossibility of transferring information faster than light. After all, this is all that theory of relativity requires.
The moral of the story is that Bellʼs theorem, in all its forms, tells
us not what quantum mechanics is, but what quantum mechanics is not. Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so... -
|
Empiricism then is to validate as a corollary that which had been
cognate(maybe poor choice of word here but instead should use
cognition). This does not mean you stop the process, but to extend
the visionary possibility of that which can be cognitive....peering into
the very nature of reality. Becomes the "
we should build the notion of locality on the operationally clear 'no-signalling' condition."
Here the question of entanglement raises it's head to ask what is really being trasmitted as the corrallary of information, as a direct physical connection in a computational system. In a quantum gravity scheme what is exchanged as a spin 2 graviton we might examine in the corollary of this no signalling condition but as a direct understanding of gravitational signalling.?
Such an examination reveals the Innate process with which we may already know "some thing," is awakened by moving into the world of science. While we consider such computational reality in context of a ontological question, then, such a journey may be represented as the geometry of the being which reveals a deeper question about the make-up of that reality.
Affective Field Theory of Emotion regarding sensory development may aid in the journey for
understanding the place with which "the idea/form in expression
arises," and that which is reasoned, beyond the related abstractions of
"such a beginning," by becoming the ideal, in the empiricist world.
