>>11865905>not being able to tell the differenceIt's about not being able to even realise that you can move around? That there are physical objects right there?
> that's a pretty selfish viewpoint?Not an argument?
>the rest of reality depends upon your ability to experience or differentiate itBut if you can know space time and logic a priori, non-empirically, through pure thought and rationality and only that, then even if I can't see or feel I should be able to somehow deduce that space and time and logic exists. That's the definition of a priori knowledge, no?
> atoms don't have senses. how do atoms know that other atoms exist that they can bond with?>when you're getting surgery and you go unconscious, does the universe stop existing?Now you're just memeing at this point. A priori only applies to rational creatures. Doesn't matter if they could sense or whatever if they can't think they can't have a priori knowledge ever.
Maybe go read up definition of words before you use them.
