Tabula Rasa

[nerdanel]

Whether due to nurture or nature, I cannot hit a ball to save my life, and so I shall self-excommunicate out of the baseball thread lest I be unceremoniously ejected by a Marshal who is wielding the dreaded Thread-Splitting Bat. Or something.

In any case. Tabula rasa. It's a fascinating notion, though one about which I'm insufficiently educated.

The Cliffs' notes summary of the thesis, as I posted in the baseball thread from Wikipedia, is as follows:

Tabula rasa (Latin: scraped tablet or clean slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world.

Proponents of tabula rasa favor "nurture" in the nature versus nurture debate. Modern genetic research finds that genes have a significant effect on personal characteristics. Some traits are more strongly influenced by experience, such as one's language, religion or some elements of sexual identity, and other traits are more strongly influenced by genes, such as IQ, alcoholism, or certain other elements of sexual identity.

I am fascinated with the idea as laid out by Locke in his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Due to lack of time, I shall borrow a brief summary of the essay I found online, to jumpstart the discussion.

Locke proposed to “enquire into the original certainty and extent of human knowledge.” In order to examine and investigate this more extensively, he began what is now known as his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (Cranston, 1957). Locke begins this famous essay with a refutation of the doctrine that certain principles are innate. Instead, he suggests that certain principles have been thought to be innate only because men cannot remember when they first learned them. He believed that human beings are born in total ignorance, and that even our theoretical ideas of identity, quantity, and substance are derived from experience (Cranston, 1957). In other words, Locke thinks of the minds as a blank slate, or tabula rasa. Instead of knowledge being innate, Locke writes “all knowledge is founded on and ultimately derives itself from sense, or something analogous to it, which may be called sensation (Cranston, 1957).”

Sensation is the basis of Locke’s argument for knowledge not being innate, but another main point in his essay is ideas and perception. Locke believes that we not only have ideas in our mind, as is traditionally thought, but that we have ideas when we see, hear, smile, taste, or feel. Basically, Locke felt that ideas are interconnected with sensation. Locke defines an idea as “the object of the understanding, whether it is a notion, an entity, or an illusion.“ There are two types of ideas in Locke’s view: those ideas which are simple, that the mind receives passively and which are perceived immediately through either external or internal senses (thought), and complex ideas, which the mind produces by exercising its own powers.

Perception is an important part of the idea stemming from sensation model that Locke proposes. According to Locke, there are three different and distinct elements of perception: the observer, the idea, and the object the idea represents (Cranston, 1957). Locke says that knowledge is “nothing but the perception of the connection of and agreement or disagreement and repugnancy of any of our ideas.” He also believes that perception is a “species of understanding,” so that ideas are based upon perceptions and what we perceive is always an idea, distinct from a thing. Locke also believes that there are different types of knowledge, such as intuitive knowledge, demonstrative knowledge, and sensitive knowledge.

Locke proposes that one’s knowledge is sometimes intuitive, such as when the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement between ideas immediately without the influence or intervention of any other ideas. An interesting caveat of this is that Locke believed that people have intuitive knowledge of their own existence, “we perceive it so plainly… that it neither needs nor is capable of any proof (Cranston, 1957).” Knowledge can also be gained through the medium of other ideas that are proposed, which is considered demonstrative knowledge. The third type of knowledge that Locke proposes is called sensitive knowledge. This type of knowledge is that which is present before our senses at any given moment and at any given time (Cranston, 1957). Whatever falls short of these types of knowledge is not knowledge according to Locke, but in fact just faith or opinion, which seem to be inferior to knowledge and the understanding of ideas. Overall, Locke believes that our knowledge of the identity and diversity of ideas extends only as far as our ideas themselves; for our knowledge of their co-existence extends only a small amount due to the fact that knowledge of any necessary connection between primary and secondary qualities is unattainable.

What say you folks? Any merit to tabula rasa? And here's an interesting twist: is one's view of the tabula rasa notion modulated by one's status as an atheist, agnostic, or religious person? Are religious people more or less likely to receptive to the idea that we are "blank slates" at birth in any sense?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting, nel. I'll come back and answer your question after I have had sufficient time to think about it.

I am, however, going to move this thread to Tol Eressëa, as I think it would be more properly placed there.

[axordil]

While much (but not all) of the "wiring" is in place at birth, the final physical development of the brain isn't done till age 20 or so, and it can be affected by the same interactions with the world that start filling that brain up with ideas in the intervening 240 months.

So in terms of possessing knowledge, we come into the world pretty blank--but it's the blankness of an empty database schema, not a featureless sheet of paper. We are not born with language or music, for example, but the average human brain is exceptionally well-suited for both, which only makes sense, since they are the products of the human brain.

One can argue for a moral or ethical tabula rasa separately. And one probably should.

[Sassafras]

Thanks Nel!

I'll limit myself for now to copy/pasting part of my PM to you on the subject.

That said, it's an absolutely fascinating subject and one that has intrigued me for decades. I think I fall on the side of 'nature' slightly modified by nuture ..... the more I observe myself and other humans the more I think that the wiring of our instinctive brain controls the majority of our actions/re-actions.

[nerdanel]

For those with the time and mental energy, the full text of Locke's essay.

[truehobbit]

I think it's been found that many things the mother does during pregnancy already shape the future human - so it would seem that we are not entirely a 'tabula rasa' at birth.

However, this concept, IMO, is one of the most beneficial findings in the development of Western thought.

The question is usually shortened to 'nature vs. nurture', and to lean toward either has profound consequences to how human beings are viewed.

If all that you are is 'nature', then no one is to blame for things that go wrong with you, but, equally, there's not much point in trying to improve you.

If all that you are is 'nurture', then the parents of a baby are facing an immense task, and the fact that children often turn out differently from what parents were aiming for becomes a real problem.

The beneficial aspect is that the concept implies that what you are can be influenced, which means that with the right influence, everybody could be a wonderful person. It gave rise to no end of pedagogical ideals.

The whole enlightenment idea(l) of 'let's create good people' hinges on this concept, and even with all the negative aspects such ideas bring with them, it creates an amazingly hopeful outlook on mankind.

Personally, I'd say it's most likely a mixture of both. We do carry certain talents and inclinations with us when we are born, and there probably are impressions that have already formed us to a certain degree even before birth - but the actual and final filling of the slate only starts the moment we are born.

Any merit to tabula rasa?

Not sure what you mean by 'merit'.
It certainly seems the more scientific concept.

And here's an interesting twist: is one's view of the tabula rasa notion modulated by one's status as an atheist, agnostic, or religious person? Are religious people more or less likely to receptive to the idea that we are "blank slates" at birth in any sense?

I'm religious, but I don't know what religious people in general think.
I could imagine that if you're a Calvinist, you'd be pretty likely to hold against the tabula rasa concept (as you'd believe that your fate is already settled). Similarly in any religion that believes a person's fate is god-given. But that's all just guess-work, and I shouldn't be guessing on other people's ideas in the first place.

I'd be interested to know whether people think that embracing this concept is a cultural (rather than religious) thing.
Shortened to the question of 'nature vs nurture', it has often seemed to me that 'nature' seems the more prevalent view in the US, when it comes to determining the origin of someone's personality.
Would you say that is the case?

[MithLuin]

I have always been taught to take the 'nature vs. nurture' debate with a grain of salt. With Hobby, I'd say it's a little of both. Like nel, I will never be a pro-athlete. Part of that may be because I am 5'3". Part because I have never in my life worked out. And part because...well, just because! It's not important to me...I haven't tried to be that.

There are specific cases where one can point to nature or nurture. For instance, the increase in the average height of a Japanese person after 1945 was directly tied to the introduction of the Western diet. So, malnourishment results in very short people, regardless of what the genes say. Changes to the diet (a nurture thing) will change the overall build of a person. Of course, height is genetic, as well.

However, the ability to learn language is hard-wired - if a child is not introduced to language within a certain 'window' as a baby, they will never be able to learn. There were a few feral children that were studied in some detail - the doctors never taught them to talk, really. The brain is apparently very particular and finicky about this. But interestingly enough, babies are born with the ability to distinguish all the different phonemes (distinct language sounds). As they are exposed to particular languages, they 'learn' those phenomes, and lose their ability to even distinguish the others. If the (adult) person listens to a recording of a language with 'alien' phonemes, they will not hear them. I can't give a good example of this, but it's sorta like how a native French speaker cannot hear that they are saying 'z' when it's supposed to be 'th' in English. (That is not a case of this; but naturally, I don't know the phonemes that an English-speaker can't distinguish!)

All of this is just to say that brain chemistry is extremely complex, and relies heavily on stimuli. So, no, we aren't born with a blank slate, but that doesn't mean that we aren't hugely affected by out environment. And some of it has to do with the choices we ourselves make. We are not just products of our environment and our genes. We are...people.


For the religious side of things...
Humans are created by God in his image. This gives us a soul, and the ability to reason, and have memories, and free choice (will). The innate flaws in the world, the evil that was already there, shows up in original sin, and none of us escape that. None of us are born perfect or without flaw...or in perfect harmony with God and each other. But what we do with our lives is what matters - if we're dealt lousy cards, that's fine...it's what we make of them that counts.

That doesn't sound like Tabula Rasa to me, but it really isn't the same kind of approach, anyway. There might be some ways of making it compatible.

[Túrin Turambar]

What I’ve always found interesting about tabula rasa is that Locke himself was a quite devout and conventional Christian, yet tabula rasa runs against established Christian thought at the time. If we’re all blank slates, then we don’t have original sin.

Also, it’s worth keeping in mind that Locke is not arguing that you can be anything you want – he acknowledges differing talents and desires between us. His idea is more of a rejection of concepts like inheriting class or nobility through blood, which was still widely accepted at the time.

It’s also an important part to his broad liberal socio-political theory. For example, Locke’s rejection of tyranny and slavery is based on the idea that, because you and I are both created equal by God, I cannot possibly have any sort of right to dominate you or deprive you of ownership of your person and actions, nor hold a position of authority over you without your express or implied consent.

(I'm giving a seminar on Locke today, although on the Second Treatise on Government)

[baby tuckoo]

However, the ability to learn language is hard-wired - if a child is not introduced to language within a certain 'window' as a baby, they will never be able to learn. There were a few feral children that were studied in some detail - the doctors never taught them to talk, really. The brain is apparently very particular and finicky about this. But interestingly enough, babies are born with the ability to distinguish all the different phonemes (distinct language sounds). As they are exposed to particular languages, they 'learn' those phenomes, and lose their ability to even distinguish the others. If the (adult) person listens to a recording of a language with 'alien' phonemes, they will not hear them. I can't give a good example of this, but it's sorta like how a native French speaker cannot hear that they are saying 'z' when it's supposed to be 'th' in English. (That is not a case of this; but naturally, I don't know the phonemes that an English-speaker can't distinguish!)

Tabula Rasa has validity only in regard to moral development. No rational person can debate that our physiognomy is other than an ancestral heritage. Size is often a virtue, as is coordination, as is desire to combat, but they are not absolute. They are propensities, and their opposites can thrive easily in the gene pool.


But what you say about language, MithLuin, is absolutely wrong.


Yes, we lose the ability to distinguish phonemes as we fall into the system of a single language. We lose it because we don't use it. That has nothing to do with our physical ability to hear or reproduce it accurately.


Every human born can learn any language as a native speaker would. A Mombotu child can speak aristocratic English if placed in that family early, as you say Mith. That same child, if placed in that same family at 17 years, could also learn to speak aristocratic English if he/she were willing to put in the specific language work needed. That would include one-on-one work with a experienced dialectition and grammarian (calling Enry Iggins!!) but it can and has been done. No adult is incapable of making or recognizing the sounds of another language. No phoneme is inaudible to another human if they are trained to hear it.


English vowels have a very difficult glide to them, and the glide is different in British and in American. But both can be learned. Chinese has a daunting tonal aspect as well as formality inflection that defies easy summary. Yet, voluminous examples exist of people who have gone both directions as adults to arrive at native fluidity.


I agree that we are hard wired with an infantile absorbency for our maternal input. That has been proven. But the ability to re-train always exists.


Sir Richard Burton learned every (yes, every) Arabian dialect to the point where he could (and did) dress in local costume and pass among them as a native. Sure, he was unusual, but he is the exception that proves.