Thread: Blank Slate?

I believe the same, reason why there is DNA, to transmit information.

I would agree with the blank slate idea, that all knowledge comes from experiences. Knowing how to breath isn't knowledge, its an automatic function of the body. Along the same lines as eating(sucking on anything put in their mouth) and pooping. Which is about the extent of human knowledge for a new born baby. People do have certain characteristics however, and I think the characters play a part in how you view and see new experiences.

So everyone is a blank slate and start off even, but they begin with their own unique perspectives, and the changes in perspective can influence how you take in information. And as you learn more, even your basic perspective can change due to the knowledge you gain.

Well, to avoid confusion, the blank slate idea is not that all "knowledge" (in the philosophical "justified true belief" sense) comes from experience, but rather that all talents, dispositions, preferences, etc. come from experience. One could reasonably and coherently argue that all knowledge comes from experience while still recognizing that the blank slate idea, at least in its strong form, is absurd. It's an antiquated view which, while possibly appealing to some for naive social reasons, we today know to be false as a matter empirical fact. Obviously it's the case that some part of our dispositions come from experience and some part from inheritance.

Originally Posted by DuB

Well, to avoid confusion, the blank slate idea is not that all "knowledge" (in the philosophical "justified true belief" sense) comes from experience, but rather that all talents, dispositions, preferences, etc. come from experience.

yessssss

this is also something I've burnt time on
I agree with it philosophically, if nothing else. recognizing that you are who you are in a way comparable to the way the colour green is the way it is is fantastic

you are the sum of all your parts, and nothing more. everything you see/hear/feel defines what you think and do.

Well the nature versus nurture debate has been going on for long time, and for the longest time people have generally all agreed that it is a mix of the two. The argument doesn't come from people debating which one is right, but on the degree of influence each other have. Do you believe people are mostly influenced by their genes, or mostly influenced by experiences?

My personal theory is that all traits result from experiences, but genetic factors affect how those experiences affect each person.

Originally Posted by Supernova

My personal theory is that all traits result from experiences, but genetic factors affect how those experiences affect each person.

man you guys are good. exactly this.

go ahead, guess what I'm thinking next. go on, guess

Originally Posted by no-Name

yessssss

this is also something I've burnt time on
I agree with it philosophically, if nothing else. recognizing that you are who you are in a way comparable to the way the colour green is the way it is is fantastic

you are the sum of all your parts, and nothing more. everything you see/hear/feel defines what you think and do.

I am unsure of this perspective. I agree that this holds true for individuals with low awareness, but I can't say the same for people who are more aware. Think of it in terms of dreaming and the awareness associated with non-lucid dreams and the awareness associated with lucid dreams. Would you say that if the dream continues on as it would if the individual hadn't become aware, or that the course of action changes when the individual becomes lucid?

Genetics define the potential paths a person's life can take while environmental factors determine which of those paths is actually taken. What we need to do is figure out which human behaviors are genetic and which are a result of conditioning.

Also, I have a feeling a lot of people wrongly attribute a lot of behaviors to genetics.

Originally Posted by MindGames

I am unsure of this perspective. I agree that this holds true for individuals with low awareness, but I can't say the same for people who are more aware. Think of it in terms of dreaming and the awareness associated with non-lucid dreams and the awareness associated with lucid dreams. Would you say that if the dream continues on as it would if the individual hadn't become aware, or that the course of action changes when the individual becomes lucid?

I'm obviously tired, as I don't see the connection. Being aware that you're doing something affects the thing that you are doing, sure. But what's the cause of that awareness?

also fuck yeah Blagle

I have to agree. When we experience things it can sometimes change our view on that experience from before when you didn't experience it.

For instance, if we see an advertisement on helping homeless people then it's easy to say "why don't they just get a job flipping burgers and stop living off of welfare?" but if we experience being homeless then I think it would change most peoples thoughts.

Meaning experience beats previous thoughts.

Some is experience, some is genetics. But how much of each? I don't know. The idea brought up that genetics describe our potential paths and environment describes which ones we'll take is interesting, and a possibility.

Intuitively, to me, it seems that it's mostly experience, as in, we wouldn't have any of the personality traits or thinking patterns we do if it weren't for experience. But, we aren't simply molded by our surroundings. Our complex brains sort through information, making decisions about our personalities and beliefs and the ways way decide to live. We all have the ability to do this. Experience and genetics might shape our ways of thinking, but once most of that is accomplished early in life, the thoughts take on a life of their own and shape most of the personality traits.

The best experiments to consider while arguing this point are cases of identical twins separated at birth. I admit I haven't looked into it much, but I've watched a video about two separated identical twins raised by two different families in different countries, one wealthy the other relatively poor. When they met, they found they differed on a lot of things but also had many surprising things in common. I think the study concluded that they had about as much in common as any two random strangers would, but my memory of the video isn't great.

Originally Posted by DuB

Well, to avoid confusion, the blank slate idea is not that all "knowledge" (in the philosophical "justified true belief" sense) comes from experience, but rather that all talents, dispositions, preferences, etc. come from experience. One could reasonably and coherently argue that all knowledge comes from experience while still recognizing that the blank slate idea, at least in its strong form, is absurd. It's an antiquated view which, while possibly appealing to some for naive social reasons, we today know to be false as a matter empirical fact. Obviously it's the case that some part of our dispositions come from experience and some part from inheritance.

Actually that's not my understanding of tabula rasa. The empiricists and rationalists were very concerned chiefly about the basis of epistemology. In simple terms the rationalists believed all truths were a priori and the empiricists believed all truths were a posteriori. Although Locke used the metaphor for humanist reasons and justifying egalitarianism, its original use was broader and metaphysical; it is a vivid metaphor for the empiricist position that no truths are universal and inherent to reality, but rather from birth the patterns of our surroundings percolate through our minds, and these things, and only these, are what we come to perceive as true. I personally think this view is the correct one... I'd say I'm an extreme empiricist. I can't think of any truths which can be established a priori; I think all claimants to such truths are tautological.

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually that's not my understanding of tabula rasa. The empiricists and rationalists were very concerned chiefly about the basis of epistemology. In simple terms the rationalists believed all truths were a priori and the empiricists believed all truths were a posteriori. Although Locke used the metaphor for humanist reasons and justifying egalitarianism, its original use was broader and metaphysical; it is a vivid metaphor for the empiricist position that no truths are universal and inherent to reality, but rather from birth the patterns of our surroundings percolate through our minds, and these things, and only these, are what we come to perceive as true. I personally think this view is the correct one... I'd say I'm an extreme empiricist. I can't think of any truths which can be established a priori; I think all claimants to such truths are tautological.

So the empiricists are attacking the idea that our perceptions of the world mirror the the way the world really is? And that all experiences have to pass through a mental filter to be regarded as truth? I think every one can agree that perceptions can be deceiving but isnt the basis of epistemology ultimately sense-data? I mean its our best tool for understanding the world even though it is flawed. I think the pragmatist theory of truth( basically whatever works,or is consistent) can work with the empiricist notion of truth because the pragmatist recognizes that sense-data can be deceiving but basically we have no other way of knowing the world. We cannot step outside of the world to understand it, and perceive the world as a thing-in-itself, we can only understand the world by being engaged in it

What you said basically fits pretty neatly into the empiricist position actually. The answer to your question is simply 'no', and I can't really say much more without your explaining of why you think I meant that. I'm saying that our only handle on truth comes from observation, not that what comes from observation is not true.

A good example is 1 + 1 = 2, which almost everybody seems to think is a priori. Is it true? What does it even mean? Well, what do numbers mean? In my opinion they are best interpreted as place holders for certain situations involving kinds of object common to experience. 2, for example, is a place holder for 'one object and another object'. So how do we know 1 + 1 = 2 is true? It is because in all situations where one object (of the kind we allow to be described by numbers) and another are placed together, we get two. So, 1 + 1 = 2 is not a priori obvious, but rather is a place holder for an infinitude of possible scenarios involving real objects, which we know to be correct by observation, which has percolated into our brain to use my previous phrase and become an accepted fundamental truth.

What of the a priori position, that 1 + 1 = 2 is obvious without reference to the real world? Well, I think that's totally meaningless. It's just symbols on a screen, how could it possibly be true or false? 1 + 1 = 3 is just as valid a statement if none of those symbols refer to anything. Can you disprove it?

Originally Posted by Xei

What you said basically fits pretty neatly into the empiricist position actually. The answer to your question is simply 'no', and I can't really say much more without your explaining of why you think I meant that. I'm saying that our only handle on truth comes from observation, not that what comes from observation is not true.

A good example is 1 + 1 = 2, which almost everybody seems to think is a priori. Is it true? What does it even mean? Well, what do numbers mean? In my opinion they are best interpreted as place holders for certain situations involving kinds of object common to experience. 2, for example, is a place holder for 'one object and another object'. So how do we know 1 + 1 = 2 is true? It is because in all situations where one object (of the kind we allow to be described by numbers) and another are placed together, we get two. So, 1 + 1 = 2 is not a priori obvious, but rather is a place holder for an infinitude of possible scenarios involving real objects, which we know to be correct by observation, which has percolated into our brain to use my previous phrase and become an accepted fundamental truth.

What of the a priori position, that 1 + 1 = 2 is obvious without reference to the real world? Well, I think that's totally meaningless. It's just symbols on a screen, how could it possibly be true or false? 1 + 1 = 3 is just as valid a statement if none of those symbols refer to anything. Can you disprove it?

I agree I think truth is established by empirical observation and I didn’t mean to come off as saying that all observations are deceiving, what I meant was sometimes our perceptions can be distorted (by our inescapable subjectivity, our temporal existence, our perception of time as linear, etc) for example the appearance of the stick bent in water. I have never considered numbers being place holders for real objects that is a very interesting view of math. Propositions like 1+1=2 are only meaningful in context. A hammer for instance is only meaningful if it is complemented by wood, nails, houses, etc. The only value symbols have are the values attributed to them by conscious beings in my opinion. I cant disprove it but if I use the system of replacing numbers with real objects you introduced, then 1+1=3 is not a valid statement.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Also: check up some Kant. He didn't agree with the blank slate as much as you do: he, like you, felt there were some fundamental 'categories of understanding' implanted from birth. How else could there be understanding if the only thing that happened was an imprint of sensory information? If you just write something on a piece of paper, is there intelligence in that paper? Of course not. In a similar vein: if you just write something on your 'hard disk' inside of your brain, is there intelligence in that brain, then?
So, Kant asked, doesn't the information have to be processed in some sort of meaningful representation that the brain can work with? If so, there should be categories of thought inside of you from the very beginning? Concepts like 'quantity' and 'if->then' relationships?

So, even though there are valid criticisms to Kant, if you feel like it (since it is pretty interesting from a historical 'evolution of western philosophy' point of view), read Kant's 'critique on pure reason'.

Else (or in addition to that, of course), just go check up some studies of neuroscience/developmental psychology. I'm sure there is some good information out there pertaining to these kinds of a priori knowledge (think instincts, etc. Of course, see Pinker above as well).

Originally Posted by CryoDragoon

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Also: check up some Kant. He didn't agree with the blank slate as much as you do: he, like you, felt there were some fundamental 'categories of understanding' implanted from birth. How else could there be understanding if the only thing that happened was an imprint of sensory information? If you just write something on a piece of paper, is there intelligence in that paper? Of course not. In a similar vein: if you just write something on your 'hard disk' inside of your brain, is there intelligence in that brain, then?
So, Kant asked, doesn't the information have to be processed in some sort of meaningful representation that the brain can work with? If so, there should be categories of thought inside of you from the very beginning? Concepts like 'quantity' and 'if->then' relationships?

So, even though there are valid criticisms to Kant, if you feel like it (since it is pretty interesting from a historical 'evolution of western philosophy' point of view), read Kant's 'critique on pure reason'.

Else (or in addition to that, of course), just go check up some studies of neuroscience/developmental psychology. I'm sure there is some good information out there pertaining to these kinds of a priori knowledge (think instincts, etc. Of course, see Pinker above as well).

That is a very interesting example and makes alot of sense. Although Kant is not a confusing as Hegel I still have some trouble understanding his work sometimes but your explanation of his views have helped me tremendously. I have Critique of Pure Reason but I have only read his Refutation of Idealism not the whole book but I have a renewed interest in him now so Ill pick it back up. And yes Steven Pinker is way rad! I just started The Blank Slate which is why I started this thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually that's not my understanding of tabula rasa.

It may well be the case that the original concept of tabula rasa referred to an empiricist theory of knowledge. I can't really speak much to that possibility beyond saying that it's not how I've come to understand the term. At any rate, it is certainly the case that the term as invoked today is most commonly taken to denote a theory of dispositions rather than a theory of knowledge, and as such it is commonly identified with behaviorist thinkers such as John B. Watson, who famously asserted: "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors" (1930). So the blank slate, in this sense, is ultimately an empirical claim.

Originally Posted by Xei

A good example is 1 + 1 = 2, which almost everybody seems to think is a priori. Is it true? What does it even mean? Well, what do numbers mean? In my opinion they are best interpreted as place holders for certain situations involving kinds of object common to experience. 2, for example, is a place holder for 'one object and another object'. So how do we know 1 + 1 = 2 is true? It is because in all situations where one object (of the kind we allow to be described by numbers) and another are placed together, we get two. So, 1 + 1 = 2 is not a priori obvious, but rather is a place holder for an infinitude of possible scenarios involving real objects, which we know to be correct by observation, which has percolated into our brain to use my previous phrase and become an accepted fundamental truth.

I hold a very similar view, and interestingly I actually used the same 1+1=2 example in the recent past while writing a paper advancing a philosophy of science based in empiricist views of knowledge. I may think about posting an edited version of that essay here on the forum, although parts of it are going to be redundant with the views that I've expressed here.