Knowing how versus Knowing that

[Lev Muishkin]

I think you are expressing Locke's idea of the tabula rasa.
Things have moved on since then, and it is easily arguable that the brain at birth is far from empty, as it was once thought.
What we know in animals and instinct is also part of our reality. We come equipped with spacial awareness, grammar, facial recognition modules, nipple seeking urge, and more.
When we perceive we already have a structure upon which those impressions have to merge.

I think Locke's Tabula rasa was referring to the birth of animal life way back in the dawn of animal evolution. It certainly makes more sense that way.

Locke had no conception of evolution and certainly had no argument against creation.
Locke was trying to emphasise the improvability of all humans regardless of birth, race, nation. IN CONTRAST to instinct driven animals.
He was right to a point, but the idea is useless for understanding basic human psychology and perception. We are fairly blank, but not as blank as you think.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

[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.

[A_Seagull]

I think you are expressing Locke's idea of the tabula rasa.
Things have moved on since then, and it is easily arguable that the brain at birth is far from empty, as it was once thought.
What we know in animals and instinct is also part of our reality. We come equipped with spacial awareness, grammar, facial recognition modules, nipple seeking urge, and more.
When we perceive we already have a structure upon which those impressions have to merge.

I think Locke's Tabula rasa was referring to the birth of animal life way back in the dawn of animal evolution. It certainly makes more sense that way.

Locke had no conception of evolution and certainly had no argument against creation.
Locke was trying to emphasise the improvability of all humans regardless of birth, race, nation. IN CONTRAST to instinct driven animals.
He was right to a point, but the idea is useless for understanding basic human psychology and perception. We are fairly blank, but not as blank as you think.

The philosophy of psychology and perception must incorporate a beginning from a tabula rasa or else it is not fundamental.

[A_Seagull]

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.

I would think that the 'instinct to suckle' can be no more than a few hundred million years old; dating to the time of the first mammals.

[A_Seagull]

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.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

I would think that the 'instinct to suckle' can be no more than a few hundred million years old; dating to the time of the first mammals.

Obviously! I assumed you realized that I was referencing the beginning of life in terms of the innate need for nourishment, which is at the root of suckling.

Where would one draw the line with respect to the first instance of suckling, as it would not happen overnight, yet a very gradual, very slow change over millennia.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
Not at all, I just disagree! I actually think, not simply parrot ones writings.

Grammar is innate,
Then explain different languages, where objects and verbs are said/written/read in different orders. In addition English is read, top to bottom, left to right, while Japanese is top to bottom, right to left. Plus you can't account for what has changed, in any particular language, as one culture has influenced another.

It is not!

and so is face recognition
I disagree, it's learned.

Do you ever read a book or watch a documentary on science and shake your head in disbelief as you witness them contradict themselves, or claim something that can't be known for sure, as it would require travel back in time to do so; Pure speculation? I have!

; there are also a long list of senses beyond the big five that structure our interpretation of the world we build in our consciousness.
Splitting hairs, hey?
If nothing new is posited, what are they worth?
What are the requirements of tenure? Just making a point!

Such apprehension gives our species common ground, far beyond what could ever be expected by a tabula rasa.
And most humans would say so, to elevate themselves. Humans are very selfish! Anything to justify their actions, to be superior, to fuel their ego!
To be chosen by god, AMEN!!

This cannot be news to you, huh?

Can you say, "Conflict of interest?"

[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.
Not at all, I just disagree! I actually think, not simply parrot ones writings.

Grammar is innate,
Then explain different languages, where objects and verbs are said/written/read in different orders. In addition English is read, top to bottom, left to right, while Japanese is top to bottom, right to left. Plus you can't account for what has changed, in any particular language, as one culture has influenced another.

It is not!

and so is face recognition
I disagree, it's learned.

Do you ever read a book or watch a documentary on science and shake your head in disbelief as you witness them contradict themselves, or claim something that can't be known for sure, as it would require travel back in time to do so; Pure speculation? I have!

; there are also a long list of senses beyond the big five that structure our interpretation of the world we build in our consciousness.
Splitting hairs, hey?
If nothing new is posited, what are they worth?
What are the requirements of tenure? Just making a point!

Such apprehension gives our species common ground, far beyond what could ever be expected by a tabula rasa.
And most humans would say so, to elevate themselves. Humans are very selfish! Anything to justify their actions, to be superior, to fuel their ego!
To be chosen by god, AMEN!!

This cannot be news to you, huh?

Can you say, "Conflict of interest?"

I think the best thing you can do, is to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and keep the wool over your face.

[Lev Muishkin]

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

[Lev Muishkin]

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

[Lev Muishkin]

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

Stadial development does not support tabula rasa

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.
Not at all, I just disagree! I actually think, not simply parrot ones writings.

Grammar is innate,
Then explain different languages, where objects and verbs are said/written/read in different orders. In addition English is read, top to bottom, left to right, while Japanese is top to bottom, right to left. Plus you can't account for what has changed, in any particular language, as one culture has influenced another.

It is not!

and so is face recognition
I disagree, it's learned.

Do you ever read a book or watch a documentary on science and shake your head in disbelief as you witness them contradict themselves, or claim something that can't be known for sure, as it would require travel back in time to do so; Pure speculation? I have!

; there are also a long list of senses beyond the big five that structure our interpretation of the world we build in our consciousness.
Splitting hairs, hey?
If nothing new is posited, what are they worth?
What are the requirements of tenure? Just making a point!

Such apprehension gives our species common ground, far beyond what could ever be expected by a tabula rasa.
And most humans would say so, to elevate themselves. Humans are very selfish! Anything to justify their actions, to be superior, to fuel their ego!
To be chosen by god, AMEN!!

This cannot be news to you, huh?

Can you say, "Conflict of interest?"

I think the best thing you can do, is to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and keep the wool over your face.

To be expected from one such as you. Hey I have some quality land I can sell you, pay no attention that it's in a swamp.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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

Because you've read these things, well of course they must be true.

Here I have something for you to read!

Edit: added the letter 'a' to red for read, (damn those sticky keys)

[A_Seagull]

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.