There is no innate knowledge in infants.

[Joker]

@October

You may be interested in this book:

tinyurl.com/2gldld

(The Blank Slate by Stephen Pinker.) He tries to refute the “tabula rasa” idea.

I have read all the counter ideas and they sound baseless.

[Joker]

@Michael Joespeh

so wait… you’re saying that… babies… are not capable of complex thought?

OUTRAGEOUS.

(sarcasm)

Yes I believe babies are incapable of complex thought. Shocking I know.

[Joker]

@Bane

Interesting discussion! Are thoughts or ideas like instincts kept in the DNA code?
Can instincts be thought of as thoughts or ideas? I don’t think so.
So what exactly is this knowledge, thoughts, or ideas we are talking about?
Are we prone to certain thoughts or understandings due to something in our genetic makeup?
In a way, it sort of reminds me of the old, “Can virtue be taught?”

Instinct = Momentary thinking or a reflex of physical stimuli.

Knowledge,thoughts and ideals is everything else beyond that.

[Joker]

@Mastriani

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…

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.

Language also first started out by primitive human beings imitating other animals.

The first language of human beings was facial expressions or grunts like that of other apes.

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

@Xunzian

If genes aren’t complex enough to encode any elements of character, then instinct cannot exist in nature.

If thoughts have no material basis (we are born as blank slates) materialism goes by the wayside.

Is not instinct the primitive feeling of emotions?

I would argue that human beings are born with emotions and all forms of knowledge are creations of various emotions. Emotions came first before that of introspective knowledge.

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

this makes the without the essence of emotions

Emotions are instinctual.

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

genes are complex enough. obviously

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

explain further

Provide evidence or stay silent.

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

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.

BS. Prove it.

[pardicat]

@Joker

@Jakob

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

What is your basis for this other than speculation?

It is a fact jack.

( Science magazine.)

Provide the article please?

[Joker]

@Impious

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

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

Please explain.

[Joker]

@pardicat

@Joker

@Jakob

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

What is your basis for this other than speculation?

It is a fact jack.

( Science magazine.)

Provide the article please?

I was reading a public magazine at a library.

[pardicat]

@Joker

@pardicat

@Joker

@Jakob

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

What is your basis for this other than speculation?

It is a fact jack.

( Science magazine.)

Provide the article please?

I was reading a public magazine at a library.

oh…

[north]

@Joker

@north

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

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.

BS. Prove it.

I can and can’t prove my stance.

my Father was a thinker to me , not in a philosophical way , at least not very philosphical but nevertheless a thinker. to him a problem was unresoveable. so he looked at it differently , what ever got in his way to get to his goal was a situation.

I am a thinker.

and I remember when I was between 10 and 12 years old saying to him , things need to change. he was some-what angry with me . he asked what do you mean! I did not know ! I was thinking before I was aware I was thinking! odd really .

this is how I know , at least for my self that some talents are passed on

[boagie]

@Joker

Innate ideas are wrong due to the fact that genes are not complex enough to encode ideas and the newly born human brains are so underdeveloped that they cannot think complexly.

( What are other people’s view?)

Joker,

This is probably true in the common understanding,though neurology not traditional philosophy will answer these questions in future.An infant is I would say pure potential,its first context in the world is itself,in its psychosomatic totality.Its properties,talents,temperaments and general abilities are pretty much the luck of the draw.With all the ways there are to be fit for the context of the world at large,meaning potentials for survival,it seems doubtful there is not something,some collection of knowledge aquired through the experience of its species,so are we dealing with a blank slate,no I do not think so.One major tendency which has doubtless played a significant role in our survival is being social animals,this tendency we are born with and also born with the tendency to aquire language.

Schopenhaur stated that the only real innate knowledge we are born with is that of time,space and causality.This but comes in handy for trying to describe our relations with object,or the world at large.We are raised to believe in individuality rather than our commonalities,perhaps this is why most people cannot understand that what they cherish as identity,individuality,separateness is not absolute,at birth you are not an entirely new individual,but built upon the blueprints of your parents your ancestors ect…, for a novice such as myself knowledge is limited,perhaps it is also over all,but, is the infant a blank slant ------------- not a chance! Though the information may indeed not be considered within the defination of idea or concept,but might be the very ground upon which these concepts are built.

[Mastriani]

his is probably true in the common understanding,though neurology not traditional philosophy will answer these questions in future.An infant is I would say pure potential,its first context in the world is itself,in its psychosomatic totality.Its properties,talents,temperaments and general abilities are pretty much the luck of the draw.With all the ways there are to be fit for the context of the world at large,meaning potentials for survival,it seems doubtful there is not something,some collection of knowledge aquired through the experience of its species,so are we dealing with a blank slate,no I do not think so.One major tendency which has doubtless played a significant role in our survival is being social animals,this tendency we are born with and also born with the tendency to aquire language.

Schopenhaur stated that the only real innate knowledge we are born with is that of time,space and causality.This but comes in handy for trying to describe our relations with object,or the world at large.We are raised to believe in individuality rather than our commonalities,perhaps this is why most people cannot understand that what they cherish as identity,individuality,separateness is not absolute,at birth you are not an entirely new individual,but built upon the blueprints of your parents your ancestors ect…, for a novice such as myself knowledge is limited,perhaps it is also over all,but, is the infant a blank slant ------------- not a chance! Though the information may indeed not be considered within the defination of idea or concept,but might be the very ground upon which these concepts are built.

It’s just obvious when a person A) knows nothing about current neuroscience and B) knows nothing about children.

1. Before making claims its important to have read current science/empirical articles ~ language is not instinctive or a tendency, it is a learned behavior through mimicry. We have the potential for capacities of intellect, of which language is a part. Without the extensive mapping of the mirror neuron network, and individuals to watch and learn from, we would grunt and howl like the rest of the hominid family.

2. A child has zero sense of time, space or causality. Especially the earlier the age, as in an infant. My first two children were day sleepers, night alert, the third was middle day/middle night, and only the last one was on a “regular” schedule of sleep and alertness. The point being, time is meaningless to a child, and until they are habituated into watching for and understanding the clock, it is of no interest to them. Space and causality aren’t even worth addressing, it is just beyond ludicrous to even discuss, the mind of child is completely devoid of any understanding or concern to understand such concepts.

3. Schopenhauer should have stuck to what he knows, groundless propositions.

4. Hominids are not automatically social, in actuality the opposite is more factual. Sociality is coercively forced on children.

[boagie]

"It’s just obvious when a person A) knows nothing about current neuroscience and B) knows nothing about children.

1. Before making claims its important to have read current science/empirical articles ~ language is not instinctive or a tendency, it is a learned behavior through mimicry. We have the potential for capacities of intellect, of which language is a part. Without the extensive mapping of the mirror neuron network, and individuals to watch and learn from, we would grunt and howl like the rest of the hominid family.

2. A child has zero sense of time, space or causality. Especially the earlier the age, as in an infant. My first two children were day sleepers, night alert, the third was middle day/middle night, and only the last one was on a “regular” schedule of sleep and alertness. The point being, time is meaningless to a child, and until they are habituated into watching for and understanding the clock, it is of no interest to them. Space and causality aren’t even worth addressing, it is just beyond ludicrous to even discuss, the mind of child is completely devoid of any understanding or concern to understand such concepts.

3. Schopenhauer should have stuck to what he knows, groundless propositions.

4. Hominids are not automatically social, in actuality the opposite is more factual. Sociality is coercively forced on children.
   [/quote]

I take it then that yours is the last word on the topic,assumeing you have read the latest scientific information,and your children have made you somewhat of an authority.There is no need to be rude,if your premise is correct why not just post the latest scientific information.There is a great deal that is not apparent in the infant which must be there for later development of the individual,I was not speaking of only the apparent,but what might be deduced from the apparent.I should like to hear further on your profound knowledge of Schopenhaur,Kant also shared in some of these groundless propositions,Nietzsche as well,please do expand.

If you love Jesus honk!!

[arie.yeo]

completely depends what you define knowledge as.

infants have instinct: they prefer symmetrical faces to non-symmetrical faces. they have VERY basic knowledge, yes. they can tell that a very loud bang is a threat to their safety. they probably have the same knowledge as an ape? but with a much bigger capacity for learning more.

i think the 5 senses can teach an infant a lot, even without the presence of another living being around. the ability to experience pain, bitterness/sweetness etc. is probably enough for primitive survival.

[Mastriani]

@arie.yeo

completely depends what you define knowledge as.

infants have instinct: they prefer symmetrical faces to non-symmetrical faces. they have VERY basic knowledge, yes. they can tell that a very loud bang is a threat to their safety. they probably have the same knowledge as an ape? but with a much bigger capacity for learning more.

i think the 5 senses can teach an infant a lot, even without the presence of another living being around. the ability to experience pain, bitterness/sweetness etc. is probably enough for primitive survival.

Knowledge is information stored from experience in capability of application, you are describing instinct, predetermined autonomous response.

It isn’t a matter of “my definition” or “your definition”, it is a matter of empirical basis.

Sensory perception is a matter of physical function of organs and biochemistry, and has nothing to do with knowledge or instinct.

As I said, sometimes it’s just obvious.

[Kriswest]

At what age are you all talking about? what age for infant? The age is a crucial part here because I don’t think you all are on the same boat.

Fetal to 3 mo.

3 mo. to 6 month

6mo to 9 month

9 month to 12

12 month to 15 mo.

16mo to 19 mo.

What is the age bracket folks? because each is different.

[Mastriani]

@Kriswest

At what age are you all talking about? what age for infant? The age is a crucial part here because I don’t think you all are on the same boat.

Fetal to 3 mo.

3 mo. to 6 month

6mo to 9 month

9 month to 12

12 month to 15 mo.

16mo to 19 mo.

What is the age bracket folks? because each is different.

?

Not really, until about 18 -24 months, you are still dealing with an almost entirely instinctual being. Even in the first year of actual knowledge use, as in development of personality traits, you are dealing with instinct and mimicry almost to exclusion.

[Kriswest]

Um not really , It is a yes but no thing. There is a graduation for each stage. each child develops with in norms and then outside of norms. A child that is barely touched or interacted with will be slower to develop. A child that has constant interaction with other creatures or has just sound and eye contact develops differently , then you have the infant that has all senses massaged constantly this infant will develop quite fast.

Each stage is different on what develops.

Like I said our son knew us when he was birthed. During his stay in hotel womb, we bombarded him with our voices, using different tones etc… He knew us. and was very happy to be in our arms, yet, anyone else held him, he hated it. LOL poor kid was stuck in the corner of the nursery behind incubators. He would not stop crying and yelling for anyone but, his father and me.

Once an infant can walk it leaves infancy and is a toddler this occurs anytime after 12 months.