There is no innate knowledge in infants.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
61

I have read three Chomsky books–although none specifically on his linguistic topics-- and I had a feeling that I was right that his thoughts are that we do hold innate knowledge…

" Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and René Descartes, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which could not be empirically derived. The environment is too variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics has provided a window into the human mind, and has established scientifically theories of innateness which were previously merely speculative.

One implication of Noam Chomsky’s innatism is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker. The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for the these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism

So, my understanding is that he is saying we hold the basic knowledge of grammar, but still need the external environment to trigger it; but we none the less hold the knowledge…

62

Round and round we go.

Show me supporting empirical evidence from Chomsky. You can’t, it is all philosophical hyperbole without support.

At this point, I’m willing to go further. The fact that Chomsky asserts that grammar, which is actually rather a complex set of rules for governance of language usage, goes beyond hyperbole, it goes straight to idiocy.

Chomsky, and any other linguistic philosopher, can posit whatever cognitive postulates they would like, but without supporting evidence, it is just some academician’s opinion.

Empiricism on the other hand, has and is continuing to study, and already shown to a certain level, that the mirror neuron network is responsible for the behavior of mimicry, both in impetus and repetition. Not withstanding the fact that an individual like Chomsky makes it obvious he has little understanding of how the brain operates, i.e., the brain picks up all sensory stimuli from the environment and catalogs it, the majority of which the conscious is never aware of occurring. This includes facial expressions, inflections, accents, and anything else having to do with speech and language.

Again, there is value in understanding a defect such as autism from sensory deprivation, which under study shows that a young mind without proper stimulus, from other social individuals with already developed language skills, does not develop those language skills, and often does not even show the drive to learn.

Language, like anything non-instinctual, is a learned behavior.

63

primitive knowledge came from a reaction of the interaction with the without by us.

this makes the without the essence of emotions

64

genes are complex enough. obviously

why on earth would you though , use newly born infants as your premise is , while wrong , interesting.

explain further

65

Hmm…sounds to me like an adaptation. :confused:

66

Well, I was mostly wondering where do you get all of this? I mean, migratory behavior of animals? Your posts are replete with information of this kind… ya know, facts n stuff. :wink: And you (seemingly) pull it out of your hat with ease. Tell me you’re reading out of the encyclopedia man! What are your sources?

67

LOL … not at all with ease, but I understand why it might appear that way.

I’ll give you the short of it. Learning process, a lot of it here through ILP. When you seek to do battle with the better intellects; Impenitent, Tabula Rasa, GCT, Satyr, tentative, Bob, Kriswest, Xunzian, Twiffy, siatd, even liquidangel before she changed … you have to get your “ducks in a row”.

Wasn’t so much in my library, and after being shown my mistakes in many areas, was left to the only avenue left open: get more intense about learning what they knew. University websites, purchasing books, time at the library, finding their sources, and what they find valuable.

With this, came my way of learning: the hard way. First look like a jackass, then figure out everyone around you knows more, and find out for yourself what you don’t have.

LOL … never easy. Doesn’t get easier either, but I have a lot more books than I used too … LOL.

P.S. The trinity of primordial pain is Imp, Tabby, and Xunzi … guaranteed to cause migraines, never take more than one per day, or as prescribed by straight jacket technician. Side effects include dizziness, nausea, cramps, bloating, gaseous discharge, involuntary screaming, hair loss due to constant pulling, partial blindness, cathartic epiphany, diarrhea, loss of sex drive and intense desires to drive your car off of the first available cliff. Contact local beer distributor for antidote, complete comatose condition is preferable to consciousness. Other side effects may occur, if condition persists, locate heroin dealer in your neighborhood.

68

I love the out of context quote, truly classic.

New behaviors are a posteriori response. Instinct is involuntary, like vomiting.

Can’t make it any simpler.

69

but genes can encode the ability to Reason and be logical.

with Reason being the most important to my mind.

inotherwords genes can pass on a " talant " of either the Father or Mother.

and be expressed.

70

LOL! Personally, I’m pretty terrified of siatd. LOL!
Thanks for the reply :laughing:

71

Once you pick the millions of prickly spines off his outer shell, he’s a very intelligent and entertaining young man. He’s good people, don’t be fooled.

72

Then it boils down to: what is knowledge? (I think your definition is vague).

Instincts can lead to (drastically different) new behaviors via evolutionary adaptation.

Birds can warn other birds of a predator approaching, thus passing on “knowledge” of incoming danger.

73

No, that is not “knowledge”, you are directly pointing at the fear instinct and the associative autonomous response. Like emesis, there is an area of the bird’s brain that receives a hormone indicator that the visual cortex has identified a predator, this sends out another hormone, in conjunction with adrenaline, that signals that the larynx in the bird should constrict the muscles of the airway, which causes sound to be produced.

In stark contrast to this, we could look at the learned behavior of the bottlenose dolphin. During peak grunion season, a pod of Atlantic bottlenose will drift in towards the shore line, (they may have learned where their prey are likely to be from tidal changes and algae concentrations in the currents, or by seasonal light or hormone traces in the currents, or it may be instinct). One member of the pod will go to the bottom where a shoal of grunion maybe, and pound the sea floor with ultrasonic sound, (which they have learned causes the grunion to surface), and the other members of the pod will catch as many as they can. Another instance of what a learned behavior looks like, (their use of their ultrasonic abilities would qualify as “tool usage”, an indication of knowledge), is also in the fact that they have self-awareness, and awareness of the other members of the pod, i.e., they will take turns chasing the grunion out of hiding, so that all members have a fair chance at feeding, (exhibiting beneficial social behavior).

The difference in behaviors is considerable.

74

yes

to the last statement

75

Unlearned instincts are not a product of knowledge. Learned instincts are.

76

Tabula Rasa was preneuroscience. The idea that we mentally begin with a clean slate is somewhat true. There is no software in our brains saying “do this.”

We do know today there’s a genetic predisposition which influences us to make cognitive reactions. The hypothalimus is triggered with certain stimuli (eg: a “shock” in the motor control of the brain) to release hormones such as adrenaline. In turn, nerves and cells of the body react to hormones by behaving a different way. (Eg: Adrenaline triggers nerves and muscular twitch fibers which makes us move and sense). The stimulus-response cycle. So for example, babies have a genetic predisposition that if they fall on the floor, there’s an automatic reaction that they will try to move more and scream, etc. (assuming it wasn’t traumatic enough to make them unconcsious)

In that sense we have an instinctive software. There are things we’re programmed to do. Because it’s indeed genetic, there’s little we can do to change it after birth (at least nothing uncovert and unexpensive).

The brain is indeed still in a transient state of growth in the first six years of life, which reminds us the crucialness to not just think of babies as little plants to grow up into humans. Their little experiences haunt their lives.

The moral being- don’t kid yourself. You’re stuck thinking things that nature stuffed you in. But a little cognitive therapy can help you convince yourself of things that you want to be convinced.

77

Hi Gaia,

Yeah, that’s basically what John B. Watson said, which is a step forward from the Lockian view of the tabula rasa. For Watson, there were about 3 or 4 fundamental instincts that we are born with (the fear reaction was one of them… I forget the rest… sucking must be another). From there, we exercise these instincts randomly and over time, get conditioned operationally.

I think you’re right that the leaps forward we have made in the neurosciences in the latter half of the twentieth century is really painting a picture of human behavior that doesn’t quite fit with the old blank slate view. It seems that environmental experiences not only furnish us with knowledge and memories of the world that make learning possible, but they are also essential to the development of our sensory apparatuses. If we were deprived of visual stimuli for the first five years of life, for example, our chances of ever developing sight would be severely cut. The blank slate view assumes, and requires, that all our sensory channels be fully developed at birth - otherwise, how could anything be written to the slate?

78

What is your basis for this other than speculation?

79

It is a fact jack.

( Science magazine.)

80

I am just asking that the metaphyiscal meme believers provide some proof for their silly beliefs.