The Order of Things......

[worm]

are people born with pre-set knowledge, or are they a blank canvas?

[worm]

But science uses subjectivity to gain objective knowledge.

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[feral chile]

But it never, ever speaks of truth or anything external to the human senses. It speaks of new findings in direct relation to former knowledge and realises the dependency on the human senses. Knowledge that it recognises is completely subject to human experience.

This is why I attack the use of science and athiesm as religion. It is unscientific to believe that the knowledge gathered by science relates to anything external to experience, such as a priori universe of things. This idea was rejected by real scientists in the 17th and 18th century. It's still very popular though among the general population.

[llcoolphil]

Tabula rasa means blank slate. A piori means innate knowledge. I clearly answered your question.

I believe in a blank slate because I do not believe that we are born with knowledge. But I do believe that we are born with a will to life. We shape this will through experience, creating knowledge in the process.

[eFestivals]

I believe in a blank slate because I do not believe that we are born with knowledge.

Right.

So a person is born with zero knowledge of sensation - yes?

[worm]

i agree that it's knowledge that's subject to human experience - observation, replicability etc. But the knowledge sought infers a knowledge of 'that which is perceived' rather than human subjectivity itself (except for biological sciences, obviously). Isn't that what we refer to as objective reality?

[worm]

To believe the blank slate theory is to ignore the overwhelming evidence of the last 40 years because it doesnt fit your opinion. Can you cite me some recent evidence to support your argument?

[worm]

So a person is born with zero knowledge of sensation - yes?

[eFestivals]

They've probably experienced it. They seem to experience in the womb.

OK, let me put it another way....

a person comes into existence with zero knowledge of sensation - yes?

[llcoolphil]

You refer to Pinker. That's covered by a will to life. The will to life is the concept on which all cognitive theory is based Phil.

[worm]

I dont just refer to Pinker i refer to an uncontroversial and overwhelming body of evidence. Now can you cite me some recent research that supports the blank slate? I'll cite mine when i get home! My bet is you have next to nowt from the second half of the last century

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[worm]

OK, let me put it another way....

a person comes into existence with zero knowledge of sensation - yes?

[eFestivals]

No. Existence is primary. So a person exists only once they've been sensed. Once you've sensed consciousness, it exists. Before then, it didn't.

after I'd posted that question I realised that the wording of that question might come up against this response, so I'll have to try again. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's going to be so easy to word it, due to the limits of language.

a person comes into existence - but 'existence' without any actual knowledge of their own existence - with zero knowledge of sensation, yes?

What I mean is that the person is 'there' but not 'aware'. A sort-of "primed and ready to go" state of existence, before 'existence' itself. In the way that they must be to be the blank canvas that you say a person is formed as.

(Let's call it "ready-for-existence" when referring to this state from now on, unless you have a better term?)

Hopefully you've got the differentiation between what I'm trying to ask and what you thought I was asking when you gave the response quoted in this post.

a person comes into existence - actually 'ready-for-existence', a state of being without any actual knowledge of their own existence - with zero knowledge of sensation, yes?

[llcoolphil]

Are you listening to me or not? I clearly said that it is covered by the 'will to life'.

So for example: we're born with a desire - such as the desire to suckle. What I'm saying is that we are not born with a prior knowledge of why we want to suckle or how. What's more, we don't even know now.

Of course we can break it down and say that this experience is pleasurable and that we can do it because we did, but that only leads to the question of why we'd seek pleasure and what the ideal form of it is. And so on and so on and so on.

[windy_miller]

but we can make machines that record sound, so we can tell if something makes a sound if we're there to hear it or not

of course we could suggest that that isn't proof in itself... someone could have pre-recorded the sound...?

Edited March 30, 2011 by windy_miller

[worm]

Yes Im listening. You are citing ideas that are mightily old and have been superceded by a whole mass of neurological research.

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[Ed209]

Returning to quantum physics... It records the sound of the tree falling and the sound of it not falling. Now say the recorder is attached to a rope, so someone can pull it out of the forest without having to venture in and see if the tree has fallen or not. The recorded data will still be in both states until the concious observer plays it back. At that point, it is decided whether the tree fell or not.

Ignoring quantum physics... say the tree does fall, it creates vibrations in the air and the recorder just takes a mathematical copy of these vibrations. It doesn't actually record "sound".

[worm]

a person comes into existence - actually 'ready-for-existence', a state of being without any actual knowledge of their own existence - with zero knowledge of sensation, yes?

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm

[rabid]

is the quantum entanglement interpretation just analogy? Because of course quantum phenomena, including entanglement, are negligible on macroscopic scale and don't have anything to do with trees having fallen or not.

[worm]

is the quantum entanglement interpretation just analogy? Because of course quantum phenomena, including entanglement, are negligible on macroscopic scale and don't have anything to do with trees having fallen or not.

[eFestivals]

When you say that they come into existence it appears to me that you mean the world of sensation, which I believe is a process of having your experience simulated into a body of pre-existing knowledge; pre-existing in the cultural language that you invariably learn.

So I believe that it is the moment that they sense, without knowledge of how, that they enter into existence. But by existence I mean a world of sensation; not necessarily existence.

Do stop with the irrelevant-at-this-point sementics, eh?

You've said that a person starts as a blank canvas. Therefore, as a blank canvas that has to be prior to any sensations, yes?

[worm]

Think what the miller is on about has more to do with cats.

[Ed209]

Think what the miller is on about has more to do with cats.

[rabid]

Do stop with the irrelevant-at-this-point sementics, eh?

You've said that a person starts as a blank canvas. Therefore, as a blank canvas that has to be prior to any sensations, yes?

[worm]

You've said that a person starts as a blank canvas. Therefore, as a blank canvas that has to be prior to any sensations, yes?

Edited March 30, 2011 by worm