Response to Aly's Post: "Conception"

I agree with Aly, that the idea of creating the world is interesting, if problematic. If nothing exists until we create it, then how do we know if anything really exists? What are the parameters of  existence? Do you have to be able to see it for it to exists? That doesn't make sense when you think about mirages, you can see them, but they are not real. They are the mind playing tricks, so sight cannot be the determining factor, or if it is, it can only be a part of the whole determination process. So there are five more senses, is smelling something enough to make it exist? Maybe, maybe not, it is possible to catch a whiff of something based on imagination and memory rather than on an actual scent. Taste could be a good indicator, but then again not everyone can taste the same range of things, so in that case, it could be considered real for one person and not for another. What about hearing? People hear voices that are not connected to bodies a good amount of the time, I know I do. If I am upstairs, I can hear my mother calling me, even when she didn't or the storm door opening when it didn't (that I might attribute to the wind, or I could be crazy). So I will rule hearing alone out. That leaves touch. I think being able to touch something would be the most important factor in determining whether or not something exists. Knowing that you could put your hand on it and physically feel it, in my opinion, is more powerful than seeing, hearing, tasting, or smelling something, though I would not rule them entirely out in the overall consensus. 

(Link to Aly's Blog: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/)

A Priori or A Posteriori?

"But though all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it all arises out if experience." How is it possible to know things before you know things? In terms of sight, I understand that you can know you are seeing before knowing the word for the action. But how does this work with things like math and other such subjects you are not inherently knowledgeable about? Is this statement in favor of the idea of a priori knowledge or is it observations of actions and everyday events that we experience before the introduction of teaching, similar to that of learning the word for seeing? In this case, when you are taught something, you end up learning to associate words with things that you indeed already know, but previously did not have words for. So how does this explain math or science? How do we already know scientific and mathematical things before being taught? Then again when you think about it, if you were to already know things, but learn the words, is it really a priori or is it a posteriori? The whole idea of knowing before knowing is confusing---how is it possible?