What is the validation of "tabula rasa"?

[Eric Mathis]

To the best of my knowledge, I'm using the concept of "Tabula rasa" in exactly the same way Rand did, and that is the meaning Objectivism itself relies on.

The metaphor of a blank slate implies that somebody or something writes on it. The Objectivist view is that the individual does that via the conceptualization of sensory input - it isn't done by genes.

An "aptitude" is an ability, no? Because the mind has identity, it has certain fundamental abilities/aptitudes and not others, and those are fixed by genetics. To say that the existence of those refutes "Tabula rasa", and therefore constitutes a "problem" with Objectivism is a mistake. Those things aren't part of the concept to begin with.

Mark Peters

Frankly, I do not know what Miss Rand's view of inheritable mental capabilities is other than what is stated in her writings. If by a tabula rasa “cognitive mechanism” she meant that there are simply no innate ideas, that is fine. If she meant, following John Locke, that “all the materials of reason and knowledge” are derived from experience, then I would say she is wrong. However, Rand is not explicit about just what “tabula rasa” entails.

[softwareNerd]

What was so impractical about being a "good communist"? Just take your tabula rasa child and imprint on him good communist values instead of evil capitalist values and off he goes to labor for the common good.

Suppose I take my tabula rasa child and imprint on him that when he comes of 18 he must jump off a cliff, and that will lead to great happiness. He sees other people try this and be smashed to pulp. So he doesn't. Does that imply that he was not tabula rasa?

[TomL]

There are two type of animals in this world: those with volition, and those without. Only man has volition, and only man is born tabula rasa. This is no coincidence.

Volition means more than the ability to choose -- it means the ability to choose between life and death in a metaphysical sense. No animal other than man can choose to commit suicide with full knowledge that the act will end the life of the organism. No other animal can choose to take any action which, according to its knowledge and means of living, would purposely contradict its own life (here, the intent may be either explicit or implicit).

The only way nature can provide an organism with such an ability -- the ability to choose life or death -- is to first strip it of all automatic knowledge. There is no such thing as volition -- the freedom to chooose one thing over an other regardless of the consequences -- in the face of automatic knowledge.

If there were any automatic knowledge whatsoever, then it would be just that -- automatic -- which means that the organism does not have a choice as to what it knows and what it can do with that knowledge.

It is entirely possible for a man to not learn even the simplest of human tasks -- isolate him from all other men at birth and see what happens. It is also entirely possible for a man to reject valid, true knowledge and dismiss it as false, thereby explicitly failing to act on it. No other animal can do this.

Whatever biological structures are inherent in the human brain at birth, they consist of reflexes, like jerking one's hand back from pain. This is not conceptual knowledge or instinctive knowledge, but a biological reflex. While some of the higher animals do learn certain non-instinctive behavior from their parents, most of their knowledge is instinctive, such as their play instincts, or the instinct to remain with their mother. To summarize: both concepts and instincts are a form of knowledge, while reflexes are not knowledge at all in any form.

It is entirely possible that science may one day show that there is a direct connection between language, its structure, and some human reflex associated with hearing and/or vision. But it will never show that a reflex is knowledge (either conceptual or instinctive), because it isn't. The scientists who are doing this research should study epistemology and think very hard about the difference between a reflex and an instinct before they write their conclusions and present the world with more false information than it already has.

Philosophy is the arbiter of science, not the other way around. Without a philosophic basis, there can be no math, no physics, no psychology, or any other science. The quality of the science and its conclusions depends entirely upon the philosophy of the scientist, whether implicit or explicit, and how consistently he adheres to that philosophy without fuzzying out, floating any concepts, or compartmentalizing. Unfortunately, the majority of today's scientists are highly compartmentalized and see no value whatsoever in studying philosophy. They care only about their science, not seeing that they need a consistent, true philosophy in order to study it properly.

Edited May 19, 2005 by TomL

[hernan]

Suppose I take my tabula rasa child and imprint on him that when he comes of 18 he must jump off a cliff, and that will lead to great happiness. He sees other people try this and be smashed to pulp. So he doesn't. Does that imply that he was not tabula rasa?

If he does does that prove that he was? Why should a tabula rasa individual fear a gory death at the bottom of the gorge when it's for the good of society?

[hernan]

If there were any automatic knowledge whatsoever, then it would be just that -- automatic -- which means that the organism does not have a choice as to what it knows and what it can do with that knowledge. 

This is a false choice. The more realistic possibility is that humans, like other animals, have an innate nature that goes beyond tabula rasa but falls short of autometon.

For example, humans have an innate sexual urge but they have a choice about when and even whether to indulge it.

[Eric Mathis]

It is entirely possible that science may one day show that there is a direct connection between language, its structure, and some human reflex associated with hearing and/or vision.  But it will never show that a reflex is knowledge (either conceptual or instinctive), because it isn't.  The scientists who are doing this research should study epistemology and think very hard about the difference between a reflex and an instinct before they write their conclusions and present the world with more false information than it already has.

It is certainly possible to exclude reflexes from the realm of knowledge if one defines "knowledge" in a highly restrictive way. However, many philosophers and researchers include perception as a form of knowledge, and dictionaries support this view. Accordingly, the act of pulling one’s hand quickly away from a hot surface is both reflexive and an indicator that the nervous system has intuitive or pre-set information that extreme heat is harmful.

[TomL]

For example, humans have an innate sexual urge but they have a choice about when and even whether to indulge it.

I would say there is nothing innate about the human sexual drive. It is purely driven by value-judgements. The discussion of that topic is a complete tangent and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[hernan]

I would say there is nothing innate about the human sexual drive.  It is purely driven by value-judgements.

This strikes me as a very suspect claim. I thought it would be a very uncontroversial to observe the innate quality of the human sexual drive.

For the most part we've been sparring around the issue of what tabula rasa means and what is innate and what is structural. But the claim that the human sexual drive is not innate really stands out.

Is this the Official Objectivist position?

[TomL]

It is certainly possible to exclude reflexes from the realm of knowledge if one defines "knowledge" in a highly restrictive way.

You mean: if one defines "knowledge" correctly.

However, many philosophers and researchers include perception as a form of knowledge, and dictionaries support this view.

Argumentum ad populum, as well as argumentum ad verecundiam on the basis that the "experts" cited do not agree, and dictionary authors are not authorities in philosophy.

Accordingly, the act of pulling one’s hand quickly away from a hot surface is both reflexive and an indicator that the nervous system has intuitive or pre-set information that extreme heat is harmful.

It is not knowledge, it is a reflex. And, since you haven't shown how my exclusion of reflex from being an instance of knowledge is false except through a logical fallacy, then it stands.

[TomL]

Is this the Official Objectivist position?

No, it is not. There is a plenty of controversy over the subject between "Objectivists". I am rare in my stance on the subject, actually -- but then again being the odd-man out doesn't automatically make me wrong, either

[hernan]

No, it is not.  There is a plenty of controversy over the subject between "Objectivists".  I am rare in my stance on the subject, actually -- but then again being the odd-man out doesn't automatically make me wrong, either

Whew! (And thanks for your honesty.) I think this is a position that you should seriously reconsider. Honestly.

[softwareNerd]

Why should a tabula rasa individual fear a gory death at the bottom of the gorge when it's for the good of society?

Tabula rasa does not mean humans do not want to avoid pain. Death is different... knowledge of death is not part of "the rasa", so to speak.

Only a tabula rasa human can write over "the rasa" so eloquently that he goes to his death willingly.

This ofcourse begs the question: what is "the rasa"? How non-blank is blank? What is a human in the rasa state?

It's extremely easy to see in a human infant. A human infant younger than about 9 months will not scream when he sees a doctor with a needle, only when the needle pokes him. When a little older, the sight of the needle is enough. A little later, mention of next weeks doctor's appointment can get him going.

[IdeaSave]

Frankly, I do not know what Miss Rand's view of inheritable mental capabilities is other than what is stated in her writings. 

Aside from recognizing that integration and differentiation are the two fundamental built-in processes of consciousness, and that conceptual knowledge cannot be inherited, I don't think she expressed anything in writing about what is inherited and what is not. If she did, it wasn't a philosophic view, since that's a matter for the special sciences to determine.

If by a tabula rasa “cognitive mechanism” she meant that there are simply no innate ideas, that is fine. 

To the best of my knowledge, that is exactly what she meant.

If she meant, following John Locke, that “all the materials of reason and knowledge” are derived from experience, then I would say she is wrong. 

I don't see that those words of Locke's in any why conflict with Rand's, unless "materials" includes the fundamental processes I mentioned above.

However, Rand is not explicit about just what “tabula rasa” entails.

I think she is very clear on this: tabula rasa means no innate ideas, period. Other Objectivist philosophers/intellectuals were clear about it too.

Mark Peters

[Eric Mathis]

You mean: if one defines "knowledge" correctly.

Argumentum ad populum, as well as argumentum ad verecundiam on the basis that the "experts" cited do not agree, and dictionary authors are not authorities in philosophy.

I would be very interested in a logical proof for demonstrating the correctness of one definition over another. With such proof in hand, I’ll show that the word “gay” actually means “cheerful” and that those who argue for the “homosexual” definition of “gay” on the basis of general usage are relying on the ad populum fallacy.

It is not knowledge, it is a reflex.  And, since you haven't shown how my exclusion of reflex from being an instance of knowledge is false except through a logical fallacy, then it stands.

Whether one wishes to call it “knowledge,” “information,” “biodata,” or whatever, there is a considerable body of evidence for the pre-programmed brain. In other words, cognition is the product of both biological pre-disposition and experience.

[Eric Mathis]

Aside from recognizing that integration and differentiation are the two fundamental built-in processes of consciousness, and that conceptual knowledge cannot be inherited, I don't think she expressed anything in writing about what is inherited and what is not. If she did, it wasn't a philosophic view, since that's a matter for the special sciences to determine.

Then we do not know just how extensive she imagined her “tabula rasa” description of the “cognitive mechanism” to be.

I don't see that those words of Locke's in any why conflict with Rand's, unless "materials" includes the fundamental processes I mentioned above.

Locke was truly on the extreme nurture side of the nature-nurture debate, and took the position that the mind completely programs itself.

I think she is very clear on this: tabula rasa means no innate ideas, period. Other Objectivist philosophers/intellectuals were clear about it too.

That’s fine and places her in a position that is quite non-controversial. Virtually no modern philosopher or biologist has argued otherwise. However, given Rand’s lack of specificity on the meaning of “tabula rasa” and Nathaniel Branden’s essay in The Objectivist Newsletter (Oct., 1962) ruling out the possibility of any instinctual behavior -- in animals or humans -- I am not convinced that Rand’s position was dissimilar to Locke’s.

[TomL]

I would be very interested in a logical proof for demonstrating the correctness of one definition over another. With such proof in hand, I’ll show that the word “gay” actually means “cheerful” and that those who argue for the “homosexual” definition of “gay” on the basis of general usage are relying on the ad populum fallacy.

The fact of individual symbols (words) having more than one meaning depending on context does not detract from the objectivity of the definitions themselves. All it means is that context is required in order to determine which definition for a given symbol (word) applies.

I also find it hilarious that you would use an ad populum argument to defend an ad populum argument! Oh, the irony...

there is a considerable body of evidence for the pre-programmed brain.

So? The brain is also "pre-programmed" for making your heart beat and breathing. Do you call these things "knowledge"? Is there any evidence for a connection between the "programming" for a beating heart, and anything whatsoever in the conscious mind? Edited May 19, 2005 by TomL

[hernan]

Tabula rasa does not mean humans do not want to avoid pain. Death is different... knowledge of death is not part of "the rasa", so to speak.

Only a tabula rasa human can write over "the rasa" so eloquently that he goes to his death willingly.

What you are offering is tabula rasa lite. This is not the tabula rasa of Communism, for example.

This ofcourse begs the question: what is "the rasa"? How non-blank is blank? What is a human in the rasa state?

We've danced around this up to now.

Let me put forward a simplistic, but hopefully useful, model of the human brain for discussion:

The human brain consists of the animal brain of our evolutionary ancestors with an extra bit on top. This extra bit is big and it is important. But it is in addition to, not a substitute for, the more primitive parts of the brain.

We carry with us all the innate animal impulses of our evolutionary ancestors.

The higher functions that are unique to humans include, most importantly, the capacity for language. This capacity is in large part hardwired as a result of evolution. (One can debate what's innate and what's learned; universal semantics vs. simply the capacity to immitate and remember, but that is a finner point that we don't need to resolve to have a useful discussion.)

Thus a human will experience certain innate impulses just like any other animal but he has a higher rational ability to interpret and even to override those impulses or to choose among them with a more intelligent weighting method.

Think of a computer that has both ROM and RAM.

A very interesting book on this subject is: Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett. Dennett is a philosopher building on scientific discovery. (I like his approach.)

It's extremely easy to see in a human infant. A human infant younger than about 9 months will not scream when he sees a doctor with a needle, only when the needle pokes him. When a little older, the sight of the needle is enough. A little later, mention of next weeks doctor's appointment can get him going.

With all due respect to TomL, I think it is safe to assert that a child raised without the benefit of sex ed will still discover the joy of sex. A baby does not need to be tought how to cry when he's hungry.

Edited May 19, 2005 by hernan

[Eric Mathis]

The fact of individual symbols (words) having more than one meaning depending on context does not detract from the objectivity of the definitions themselves.  All it means is that context is required in order to determine which definition for a given symbol (word) applies.

I also find it hilarious that you would use an ad populum argument to defend an ad populum argument!  Oh, the irony...

If claiming that "gay" means "homosexual" on the basis of how many people use that definition is an ad populum fallacy, how is showing it is so itself an ad populum fallacy? Does that mean that when TomL accuses EricM of argumentum ad populum, TomL himself is engaging in argumentum ad populum?

Now let me ask another question: Can you provide a logical proof for demonstrating the correctness of one definition over another?

So?  The brain is also "pre-programmed" for making your heart beat and breathing.  Do you call these things "knowledge"?  Is there any evidence for a connection between the "programming" for a beating heart, and anything whatsoever in the conscious mind?

But I never said that reflexes were an act of the conscious mind. However, there is a case to be made that the brain does come with certain pre-set preferences, modes, biases, etc.  Whether you wish to call these pre-sets "knowledge" or "pre-knowledge" is less important than recognizing the role they play in human behavior and development.

Edited May 19, 2005 by Eric Mathis

[softwareNerd]

I think it is safe to assert that a child raised without the benefit of sex ed will still discover the joy of sex. A baby does not need to be taught how to cry when he's hungry.

Whew! Finally, something we can agree about

We've danced around this ["what does tabula rasa mean"] up to now.

Not true. You started the thread. Then, in the very next post itself, Gideon replied thus:

I think...she means by that that the human mind has no innate ideas. Man is not born with any innate conceptual knowledge.

In most uses of the term tabula rasa, Ayn Rand clarifies that she is talking about man's knowledge. Man's is not born with knowledge. And again, to quote Dr. Peikoff, ...

Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses.

[TomL]

With all due respect to TomL, I think it is safe to assert that a child raised without the benefit of sex ed will still discover the joy of sex. A baby does not need to be tought how to cry when he's hungry.

If sex to you is a reflex, then our conversation is ended. Sex for man is a celebration, and celebration cannot be reflexive. It requires awareness of something to celebrate. If the sex YOU have is not celebratory -- that's not my fault, but don't tell me I'm an animal just because you are. Everyone wants to justify their evasions in the name of "instinct" or "automatic knowledge" or "biological urges". But for man -- with volition -- none of these things apply to the actions he takes, or to the content of his subconscious mind as far he programs it, explicitly, himself.

Can you provide a logical proof for demonstrating the correctness of one definition over another?

A is A. It's as simple as that. Fuzzily defining a concept in one's mind doesn't make the fuzziness OK. To objectively define a term, one needs to grasp explicitly the proper genus and differentia for the term, and the concept must be hierarchically built upon other such concepts, all the way down through the perceptual level to the axioms. All higher level concepts presuppose some other concepts -- the definitions of the words depend on the proper definitions of other words, and thus their meaning is only as clear as the definitions of the words upon which they depend. Fuzzily define "chair" and you'll have a fuzzy "furniture" as well.

"Sex" is a very, very high level concept with many, many antecedent concepts, and not one that is easily reduced (as observed in the many varied "definitions" for sex that people use and act on).

However, there is a case to be made that the brain does come with certain pre-set preferences, modes, biases, etc.

No! Absolutely not. You are equivocating "reflex" with "preference", "mode", and "bias". Your beating heart is not a "preference". Your breathing is not a "mode". Your reflex to pain is not a "bias". It is a reflex -- nothing more, nothing less. It is part of your nature, and needs no other explanation. It has no connection to cognition, i.e. thinking, anymore than the facts that you have toes and/or hair have a connection to cognition.

Whether you wish to call these pre-sets "knowledge" or "pre-knowledge" is less important than recognizing the role they play in human behavior and development.

I don't wish to call them either, because they are neither. To do so would be to steal the concept of "knowledge" and reduce it to nothingness. The role that reflexes play in human behavior and development, if any, are neglible to the point of being inconsequential the more knowledge a person gains.

[hernan]

If sex to you is a reflex, then our conversation is ended.  Sex for man is a celebration, and celebration cannot be reflexive.  It requires awareness of something to celebrate.  If the sex YOU have is not celebratory -- that's not my fault, but don't tell me I'm an animal just because you are.  Everyone wants to justify their evasions in the name of "instinct" or "automatic knowledge" or "biological urges".  But for man -- with volition -- none of these things apply to the actions he takes, or to the content of his subconscious mind as far he programs it, explicitly, himself.

You're kidding, right? (Maybe not.)

The fact that there might be cognitive elements that humans appreciate above the innate impulses is entirely beside the point. To say that sex is an innate impulse is not to say that, for example, marriage also is. Indeed, marriage is often described as a civilizing of the natural, innate sexual impulses.

Spare the sermons.

[hernan]

You started the thread. Then, in the very next post itself, Gideon replied thus:

Right. But while in my response to Gideon I thanked him for his helpful contribution but voiced reservations about this all-too-convenient categorization and pointed out that even if it were so conveniently categorized it would not be an impereable barrier to influence.

In most uses of the term tabula rasa, Ayn Rand clarifies that she is talking about man's knowledge. Man's is not born with knowledge. And again, to quote Dr. Peikoff, ...

Well, that's nice. What is "knowledge". Is "sex is good, she's so fine" knowledge? Is "ouch, that hurts, I don't like that" knowledge?

It doesn't really answer the question.

[softwareNerd]

Is "ouch, that hurts, I don't like that" knowledge?

No it is not knowledge in the tabula rasa sense. As you can see from the Dr. Peikoff's quote:

Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses.

(emphasis is mine).

So, when an Objectivist speaks of tabula rasa, they not saying that man is born without senses.

[hernan]

No it is not knowledge in the tabula rasa sense. As you can see from the Dr. Peikoff's quote: (emphasis is mine).

So, when an Objectivist speaks of tabula rasa, they not saying that man is born without senses.

There is no a priori reason that a kick in the shin should be interpreted as pain and avoided.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting a definition of knowledge as that which is derived or if you are asserting that nothing is known except that which is derived. Either way I see problems, you're shoving everything that's not derived into the senses as if they were a property not of the brain but of the skin.

Dennet has a wonderful phrase for this: "If you make yourself small enough, everything is external."

Edited May 20, 2005 by hernan

[softwareNerd]

...knowledge...

As Gideon said: the context is human knowledge, a.k.a. conceptual knowledge.