Are there any powerful arguments against John Locke's posit

>>867987

OPs mind is still tabla rasa

File: Tabula_Rasa[1].jpg (139KB, 367x515px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 367x515px

RIP in peace

>>867999
Sorry, tabula rasa. Just a typo.

Tabula rasa is a completely incomprehensible idea.

Everything about humans is nature and nurture, hence tabula rasa is ridiculous.

>>867987
Modern psychology have proven that tabula rasa is false. The implications of tabula rasa is that your genes plays no part in forming you as a person, and that simply isn't true.

>>868030
I mean its half right. Much of ones self is soley shaped by experience. Genes just influence what experiences we have.

>>868068
Not him, but that doesn't make the concept of tabula rasa more comprehensible.

The existence of genes in the first place completely negates the concept of a blank slate in the head.

>>867987
Scientific advancement has proven that not only do humans have natural instincts, but also that many aspects of our behaviour and intellectual capacity are influenced by our genes.

I find it interesting that Lockean philosophy has remained the dominant force in Anglo politics for hundreds of years, despite the fact that two of his major ideas: natural rights and tabula rasa, are simply false.

>>868103
Natural rights is a vastly more arguable topic though than tabula rasa tbqh senpai.

>>868112
Well, I would say that it depends upon whether you are religious or not.

>>868122
I've been thinking about that, and it's quite interesting. Many irreligious/atheistic people strongly defend the Constitution (primarily the 1st Amendment), but the entire basis of the work (natural rights) requires you to believe in a Creator.

>>867987
Humans are definitely born with some biases, instincts and so on. As far as animals go, humans seem to have less than most; but if we had none, how could we ever learn anything?

>>868103
>>868030
No, gene science has nothing to do with tabula rasa. Your mind is still a blank plate in which inputs work on through your sense perceptions, which are influenced by your genes. But the mind is still blank until acted upon by inputs.

>>868131
Not necessarily, from a practical standpoint you could cynically support the outcome of having natural rights ( fair and free society) while not believing they are granted by a creator.

>>868122
>Well, I would say that it depends upon whether you are religious or not.

I'd say rather it depends upon whether you accept social contract theory or not.

>>868139
How has science shown that these instincts or biases are innate and not simply the most efficient responses by a physical being to outside inputs?

>>868139
This is akin to saying plants have instincts because they grow towards light sources.

>>867987
The division between nurture and nature is a false dichotomy.

Your body is your environment down to the last gene and smallest particle.

Your environment is your nature down to the last speck of dust and law of physics.

Tabula rasa as a principle is at best a framing issue. Expand the frame and the truth changes, and insofar as parsimony demands the most inclusive theory that maintains coherence, a rejection of the principle is ideal.

>>868068
Well, being "half right" isn't really that impressive when the big deal about him is that the blank state truly is blank. Genes "just" influence what experiences we have throws out the blank state.

>>868169
No, it doesn't. That's like saying two computers with different instruction sets aren't "blank slates" with no data in memory just because they interpret information differently.

>>868163
This is the only solid argument against it in the thread. I can't come up with anything that would come close to refuting it.

>>868152
By noting that two different people have two different responses to the same situation. It's literally all it takes to wreck the concept of tabula rasa.

>>868205
Sorry forgot a piece: raised in the same way in the same environment. Like all the family studies of which there have been a shitload on every possible subject.

>>868205
Tabula rasa is false, but your response makes no sense. Two people having different responses can just be chalked up to environment.

>>868211
Ok, ignore what I said here>>868216

>>868199
It's not really a solid argument at all, because he is committing a pretty obvious category mistake.

The division between nature and nurture isn't about the physicality of objects and humans, all of which comes from physical matter, but it's about where people's behavior comes from, and which of the two explains people's behavior best, their genes, or their upbringing.

Is the question whether humans have any inbuilt instincts, tendencies or what have you, or whether all humans have the same ones?

[spoiler]"Yes" and "Mostly", respectively, seem like the sensible answers.[/spoiler]

>>868205
>>868211

This doesn't matter - the two people had different experiences, no matter how minute the differences were.

>>868143
The mind is never not recieving inputs, therefore even the weasel version of tabula rasa is dogshit

>>868397
How?

>>868388
Yes obviously it's just empirical evidence, since it's absolutely impossible to obtain absolute proof, but get real. The sample size we have are world and decades spanning, thousands of studies on innumerable subjects, and you're telling me that the small difference in experience is enough to skew all of them in the same foreseenable direction (aka towards their parents' inclinations)? Especially when does minute differences in experience don't reflect a difference in results statistically when looking at blood-related individuals (talking mostly of the natural vs adopted brothers studies here btw).

>>868410
I don't understand what you're arguing at all.

>>868421
Try reading my post, it might help.

>>868435
I've read it three or four times and I'm unable to discern any kind of argument.

File: 24353222.png (143KB, 298x367px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 298x367px

>>868081
That is debatable I think, as while genes may certainly cause predispositions, they do not necessitate a certain mental state, i.e. people who have a dysfunctioning C4 gene (which predisposes a person to schizophrenia by severing synapses between neurons), doesn't mean that they will certainly they will develop the disorder unless they have experiences that would aggravate their circumstances.

While, it is clear to anyone that it is a mix of nature/nurture, genes doesn't necessarily negate Locke's idea.

Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be that genes dictate the 'material' of the metaphoric 'slate', which will react differently when written upon.

So I would say that, while genes do provide problems to Tabula Rasa, it doesn't make the idea incorrect.

t. autist idiot

File: 1389035075929_crop.jpg (36KB, 711x711px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 711x711px

>>867987
>2016
>posting dubs man image
>not using a script to get dubs
The fuck is wrong with you, OP?

>>868440
this
>>868443
OK kid

>>868440
>>868450
I don't get what's so difficult to understand. TABULA RASA MEANS BLANK SLATE

The fact of instincts, predispositions, etc. completely negates Locke's idea.

>>868439
Well, I'll rephrase it then because I'm feeling wasteful today:
You can't prove nor disprove tabula rasa, because you can't make two individuals have the same identical experiences. So absolute evidence is out of the window. You with me?
Let's look at empirical evidence: in the last two centuries (even before, just think of that moron Rousseau), we've had the entirety of western psychology and sociology doing tons of studies about how nature and nurture contribute to shape an individual. These studies were made so that children related and unrelated by blood were raised in as similar a way as possible, and their response to many situations and their achievements during growth and adult life were recorded and compared. The results tend to show that related individuals have similar behaviours compared to unrelated ones.

>>868465
Once again, this is arguable, though I am just playing Devil's Advocate

The thing as I see it, and I'm sure others, is that instinct/predisposition isn't the same as thought. The idea behind Tabula Rasa is that we are not born with certain knowledge, not that we are vegetables on birth.

With that idea, the object in question is whether we have actual mental content, aside from base instincts.

It goes more along the lines if we:

Know at birth that, 1+1=2 v. We wouldn't innately know this.

>>868501
>The idea behind Tabula Rasa is that we are not born with certain knowledge, not that we are vegetables on birth.
So what are we counting as "knowledge" here? Could you give me some examples of things that would count and things that wouldn't?

>>868181
>That's like saying two computers with different instruction sets aren't "blank slates" with no data in memory just because they interpret information differently.
The mind doesn't work like a computer so I don't see how your analogy is accurate.

>>867987
Anyone with kids knows that you don't have to teach them how to lie. They do it naturally.

>>868511
I'll try, though again, what counts as thought is highly debateable.

Knowledge consists of something like:
Thought, memories, concepts, intentions, and emotions.

That being said as a benchmark, the argument goes that we would need outside experience for any of these faculties to develop.

The reason this differs from instinct and predisposition, as I understand it, would be that these are not mechanistic (unless you believe that everything we do is predetermined/brain chemicals or whatever).

Not sure if I'm arguing it that well, but that's how I think it goes.

Humans instinctively fear some kinds of poisonous animals despite never having been bitten.

>>868529
Kid might well lie of their own volition, but you absolutely have to teach them HOW to do it. My kids used to have plenty of tells, and only my son grew out of them, my daughter still blushes and looks away when she lies.

>>868564
So you're teaching them how to lie convincingly, not how to lie. Lying itself is still inherent.

>>868583
It was just a joke actually, I wasn't arguing against you. Also I didn't teach them anything, my son just learned by extensive experience, and my daughter.. well she just doesn't lie enough for her own good. Perhaps I SHOULD teach her.

>>868472
There you go. Thank you, that's very insightful.

>>868529
This is literally the most stupid thing I have ever read. I mean that sincerely.

>>868554
Humans fear everything they don't understand, and that includes all animals of all kinds.

>>868535
>The reason this differs from instinct and predisposition, as I understand it, would be that these are not mechanistic (unless you believe that everything we do is predetermined/brain chemicals or whatever).

If you mean "magic" then, nah, magic isn't real.

>>868219
>Implying a 'where' without physicality.
>Affirming the consequent by restating the argument as properly framed.

>>867987
Generally, Chomsky's theory of universal grammar is taken to be conclusive disproof of the blank slate.

In short universal grammar posits the brain comes with a genetically pre-specified set of cognitive structures which shape any and every natural language.

Twin studies of two twins separated at birth who develop very similar behaviors also goes against blank slate theory.

However, just because the operation of the brain is anchored in genetics, it does not mean there isn't room for flexibility. Each human brain contains trillions of synapses which can be wired up differently depending on one's experience. So while the slate isn't entirely blank, it is partly so.

>>867987
How about basic biology?

>>868685
Yes, it's a powerful argument that you cannot overcome by force of reason. Maybe one day you will come to grips with your own depravity, and the depravity of the human race in general.

>>868501
You were born knowing how to suck a teat for food, and to avoid falling.

There is no blank slate.

>>868564
Not tells, how to actually lie. How to take what is real, and tell you the opposite is true.

You never taught them how to do that, and there is no gene for lying. They came out of the chute like that.

>>869379
>humans have inherent selfish tendencies
>therefore they are depraved

>humans also have inherent altruistic tendencies
>therefore they are angelic

Do you see why this is retarded?

Our minds are born with certain predispositions.

(possibly) with certain information too.

Tabula Rasa has been disproved many times now. It was an interesting thought that gave us insight into different ways of thinking that may lead us to the correct answer (without tabula rasa being correct itself / on its own)

Whilst our mind is not a blank slate and due to our brains genetical wiring it may be harder for us to learn or do certain things that does not mean it is impossible for us to do so, only much harder.

>>868511
>So what are we counting as "knowledge" here?
True justified beliefs.

>>869411
There are no inherent altruistic tendencies. Only sucking and a fear of falling.

>>869570
Nigga what, learns some biology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

>>867987
Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

>>869662
Good book

I think both sides are right as with most philosophical questions in that there is no predispotion to any way of thinking but there is a fundamental ability in humans to make sense, using logic, of the world around them which while comprehending a person uses to form his/her own world view and basis for interpreting other things in life and responding to other things in life.

>>869593
There's nothing on wiki worth knowing, much less investigating.

Babies in the womb, and for several years thereafter, are the most selfish beings known to mankind.

>>869870
>There's nothing on wiki worth knowing, much less investigating.

Yes anon, but there are actual books written on the subject, and I can't exactly explain a whole book on 4chan, so wiki will have to suffice, try looking into kin selection.

Learn about kin selection at least.

>>869881
You're talking about things humans learn as they grow older.

Try to keep on topic.

>>869884
But it is on topic, if general behaviour has a genetic influence then tabula rasa isn't correct. The shortest summary I can do is that completely backed up by evidence is that individuals will act altruisticly towards their kin (This is the idea of selfish genes) at the level of the individual it's altruistic but when you prioritise you're relatives over yourself it makes sense evolutionarily in many situations due to the high percentage of genes you share with your relatives.

>Kin selection is the evolutionary strategy that favours the reproductive success of an organism's relatives, even at a cost to the organism's own survival and reproduction. Kin altruism is altruistic behaviour whose evolution is driven by kin selection.

So a mother caring for her child (or a grandparent caring for their grandchildren) would be an example.

>>869881
>kin selection
Kinda hard to call that altruism. It's literally egoism applied to a larger concept of self. The whole concept of preference implies egoism really.

>>869926
Selfish gene theory isn't exclusively related to kin selection though.*

>>869938
Altruism in biology is a bit different to the philosophical definition. But it would definitely relate to the idea of tabula rasa.

>>869926
They will not, if the kin do not. It's literally learned and taught behavior that goes against the selfishness of the infant.

>>869945
>Altruism in biology is a bit different to the philosophical definition.
Kinda my point. Altruism proper is not a concept that makes it past the mind into reality.
Also if anything it relates against the concept of tabula rasa.

>>869948
It's not learned and taught, it's inherent, if there wasn't kin selection species would go extinct much quicker. If an individual doesn't prioritise reproduction over their own well being then we'd be extinct. We obviously aren't, and this inherent kin altruism is one of the reasons why (obviously it's not 100% of every population strictly abides by these rules, but the behaviour of a whole population on average certainly shows that this form of altruism is at least partially genetic (It's found in pretty much every species). If this wasn't the case then why would parents care for their children above themselves (not just talking in terms of humans here)?

>>869955
>against the concept of tabula rasa

I am arguing against the concept of tabula rasa. not all opposition to it has negative connotations.

>>869966
They have to be taught who their kin is. The kin have to be around.

Put the kid in an orphanage, or a closet, and it doesn't develop.

>>869994
>Put the kid in an orphanage, or a closet, and it doesn't develop.

So you think they would be completely neutral towards any children of their own?

>>868689
Yea, I showed my niece a basket of puppies for the first time and she was scared to her bones.

>>869999
check'd

Probably. Teen mothers make shitty mothers.

>>870076
But someone could leave the orphanage, work for 10 years, settle down and have a kid.

>>869994
>kin selection doesn't develop in an orphanage
You might wanna source that, because you're only not going to get any sort of "kin" selection if you have the kid develop no sort of relationship or group identity whatsoever, which is most certainly not something that would happen in an orphanage.
>kin selection doesn't develop in a closet
No shit, a kid growing up understimulated like that would become literally insane and retarded before even reaching puberty, rational behaviour would probably be a wee beyond its capacity.

>>867987
>Rousseau