Knowing how versus Knowing that

[Lev Muishkin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_perception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Stadial development does not support tabula rasa

Lol

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum where people interested in philosophy can discuss the issues.

Evidence for people who are NOT interested in philosophy:
1. Posting references to Web pages or other material written by other people as though that constitutes an argument.
2. People who make rude or insulting posts.
3. Failure to answer simple questions.
4. etc.

Evidence for ignoramuses:

1) People who make rude or insulting posts, in place of actually knowing something.
2) ) Misrepresenting the function of providing references.
3) Being too scared to read what has been linked, because it demonstrates whole disciplines of which they are ignorant.

[Lev Muishkin]

The innate instinct to suckle, to seek nourishment, for instance, was one of the very first instincts, dating back to that very first life form, from whence all have evolved. That's a very long time, approximately 3.5 billion years ago, such that it's surely, firmly, innately rooted. I would say that humans are born with not much more innate knowledge than all the required biological processes that life requires.

Such that anything artificial, not natural to the organism, has to be learned, from the moment of birth on. Like 'knowing that' food comes from a bottle, and 'knowing that' ones hand and arm can be articulated in such a way to in fact manipulate the bottle, then added to many more knowing that's, yielding "knowing how" to feed oneself with a bottle.

Anything not contained in the lifeforms' functioning, outside the lifeforms' body, part of the environment, has to be learned. It's not innate. And it's done so independent of language, or preconceived formulated concepts.

You are way behind the thinking.
Grammar is innate, and so is face recognition; there are also a long list of senses beyond the big five that structure our interpretation of the world we build in our consciousness.
Such apprehension gives our species common ground, far beyond what could ever be expected by a tabula rasa.

How can grammar be innate when different languages incorporate different grammars?

A 'long list of senses' beyond the 5 major ones? I don't think so. Do amplify.

Linguistics tells a different story.
Differences are superficial and accessible by neural modules of all humans as they are universal and innate.

[A_Seagull]

Evidence for ignoramuses:

1) People who make rude or insulting posts, in place of actually knowing something.
2) ) Misrepresenting the function of providing references.
3) Being too scared to read what has been linked, because it demonstrates whole disciplines of which they are ignorant.

Presumably you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that!

[A_Seagull]

Linguistics tells a different story.
Differences are superficial and accessible by neural modules of all humans as they are universal and innate.

Perhaps English is your second language? As the above makes no sense.

[HexHammer]

Linguistics tells a different story.
Differences are superficial and accessible by neural modules of all humans as they are universal and innate.

Perhaps English is your second language? As the above makes no sense.

It should be very obvious that it has nothing to do with language, but lack of rationality.

[Lev Muishkin]

Linguistics tells a different story.
Differences are superficial and accessible by neural modules of all humans as they are universal and innate.

Perhaps English is your second language? As the above makes no sense.

Maybe your own neural modules are not of this world?
If you don't get it then maybe you should join another discussion.

[Lev Muishkin]

Evidence for ignoramuses:

1) People who make rude or insulting posts, in place of actually knowing something.
2) ) Misrepresenting the function of providing references.
3) Being too scared to read what has been linked, because it demonstrates whole disciplines of which they are ignorant.

Presumably you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that!

No it was directed at you: a moron who still thinks humans have only five senses.
What you learn in kindergarten is the version Aristotle gave the world. Science has moved on since then.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I've watched a documentary on both face recognition and the language bit, and they were obviously grabbing for straws, and or straw men. It's BS. The child picked that stuff from day one, via all their senses from the people in their environment.

Mister Wig man, site specific instances of anything that proves they did not pick it up as they grew. All the studies I "witnessed" used children, not infants. We start learning, "knowing," from minute one, actually to some extent while in the womb, at least as far as sound goes.

An infant is nothing but hungry for knowledge, as it instantly understands that it's relatively helpless.

They were simply trying to prove their worth, so as to be published, and that's about it. Food, not for thought, rather just the gullible.

[A_Seagull]

Is there a word for someone who thinks they know the truth but who are, in fact, quite deluded?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is there a word for someone who thinks they know the truth but who are, in fact, quite deluded?

My vocabulary is not huge, so I cannot help you.

I hope you're not talking about me, I don't necessarily believe so, but one can never know for sure, sometimes.

Some people ever want to elevate themselves, sometimes through that which they claim to believe, quite possibly to the point of being godlike. I try and keep myself humble, to keep my feet firmly planted on the ground, I have always refused to be conceited, I am nobody, nothing special at all. I just do my best to use rational thought including all those things that are obvious to me that I have in fact learned, not only in books, but through observation. I never reach way above my head for anything fantastical. So no one can sell me swampland, and I cannot be bought or sold, to any bidder at all. I use my 57 years of education and wisdom. Such that what is apparent, usually is the case, yet I always remain open to anything, that is indeed, logical!

[HexHammer]

Is there a word for someone who thinks they know the truth but who are, in fact, quite deluded?

Charlatan?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Is there a word for someone who thinks they know the truth but who are, in fact, quite deluded?

Charlatan?

That's one possibility, fool also comes to mind as well as swindler, con artist, quack, fraud, mountebank, phony, cheat, fake, pretender, con, sham, imposter, rip-off artist, and there are indeed a lot of them around here, isn't that right Mr. Hammer.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Lev speaks of theories and there are many, just as well there are those learned that dispute those theories as they often lack scientific rigor, and are really more of a "soft science," often filled with strawman arguments, selectively picking supporting evidence and foils as well as intellectual dishonesty, misrepresenting the views of others, and a faith in simple solutions to complex problems.

My own experience is highly supportive of a 'version' of the Tabula rasa. And that's the problem I have. Many that only read/learn of these things, (they are not the ones writing these things), simply clones, parrots, yet not really quite that either, can usually only see black or white, either that it's right or wrong. I never see things that way, which is why I absolutely hate those that try and quantify me in a single word, as it's not possible. Those that try and pigeon hole others so as to dismiss them quickly, are severely missing the boat, because 'nothing' is ever black or white, rather only ever multitudes of shades of grey. There are good and bad, right and wrong contained in everything, including beliefs, theories on both sides of this particular argument.

In truth we don't "know" yet. The "science" is ongoing. But it's certain that environment trumps genetics, nay, environment actually shapes genetics, so says epigenetics, yet I've always known this to be true, long before the term was coined. Just lucky I guess. At least as to this one thing, out of the billions of possible things. Yet there are other things...

Of course everyone's mileage may vary.

[Lev Muishkin]

I've watched a documentary on both face recognition and the language bit, and they were obviously grabbing for straws, and or straw men. It's BS. The child picked that stuff from day one, via all their senses from the people in their environment.

Mister Wig man, site specific instances of anything that proves they did not pick it up as they grew. All the studies I "witnessed" used children, not infants. We start learning, "knowing," from minute one, actually to some extent while in the womb, at least as far as sound goes.

An infant is nothing but hungry for knowledge, as it instantly understands that it's relatively helpless.

They were simply trying to prove their worth, so as to be published, and that's about it. Food, not for thought, rather just the gullible.

Try to avoid the Discovery Channel.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I've watched a documentary on both face recognition and the language bit, and they were obviously grabbing for straws, and or straw men. It's BS. The child picked that stuff from day one, via all their senses from the people in their environment.

Mister Wig man, site specific instances of anything that proves they did not pick it up as they grew. All the studies I "witnessed" used children, not infants. We start learning, "knowing," from minute one, actually to some extent while in the womb, at least as far as sound goes.

An infant is nothing but hungry for knowledge, as it instantly understands that it's relatively helpless.

They were simply trying to prove their worth, so as to be published, and that's about it. Food, not for thought, rather just the gullible.

Try to avoid the Discovery Channel.

Your false assumption, yet you must be familiar. I do not currently have cable or satellite TV. But you're wrong anyway, because appearing in the documentaries that I watch, are the leading scientists in their field of study. I only have OTA TV, so I'm watching PBS, which also has the most unadulterated, by propaganda, news casts. But who are you to say, which of the opposing views by scientists currently studying such things, are right or wrong? Of course the same thing goes for me. I tend to believe those scientists that my experience seems to indicate.