Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Introduce a sociopathic killer to the Tabula Rasa.

That'll shake him up.

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:

Albatross wrote:

biccat wrote:I'd imagine your hypothetical person would have difficulty with much of the English language (or any language), and probably wouldn't know how to construct the plural of an unknown noun or conjugate various verb forms.

So much of our language is based on what sounds right rather than according to proper structure. Our grammatical rules are based on the language, not vice versa.

Noam Chomsky would disagree.

I disagree that Noam Chomsky would disagree. The basis for his position on language seems to be that we are social creatures, and therefore we learn by imitating others and making up rules for it as we gradually learn the language.

Someone who is unable to experience others' communication wouldn't know how to start communicating in our world.

Also, he's a dirty commie.

Agreed, well, anarcho-syndicalist actually (iirc) - but his work on linguistics suggests that humans are born pre-programmed with the tools for language hard-wired into us, in a form of 'universal grammar'. Children learn new languages incredibly easily. If this theoretical person is born a genetically normal human, in theory he should not have any difficulty learning any language.

TIL I should read Chomsky.

Daedricbob wrote:

If the definition of 'art' is taken as a conscious creation of something designed to provoke an emotional response in it's audience, then I think eventually a tabula rasa may be able to construct a framwork set of rules on what constitutes 'art' and hold a far more objective, logical view than most humans.

Perhaps, but without any experience of it, 'Rasa-man' would be completely baffled by culture. Its 'purpose' is to occupy our minds, whilst also being lived practice which is not purely functional. Why do we do things that are not purely functional? Why is French food different to German food? Rasa-man would not be able to comprehend this, I don't think.

I think the capacity to wonder is what truly makes us unique as a species.

That is literally true. Our capacity for abstract thought is what makes us different not only to other primates, but also all other living creatures, as far as we know.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:TIL I should read Chomsky.

Well, read his work on language. Like this. Don't read any of his political drek.

Albatross wrote:Agreed, well, anarcho-syndicalist actually (iirc) - but his work on linguistics suggests that humans are born pre-programmed with the tools for language hard-wired into us, in a form of 'universal grammar'. Children learn new languages incredibly easily. If this theoretical person is born a genetically normal human, in theory he should not have any difficulty learning any language.

Agreed, if he were to hear the language. But without feedback it would be an interesting result. Sort of like Helen Keller (who, as a victim, deserves no small amount of blame).

I assumed that the person was basically an AI and unable to hear language, but able to see the language. Since written language is based on spoken language, that person would have a heck of a time figuring out what all those characters meant, let alone speaking the language.

Actually, Sheldon Cooper could fit the bill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA0VwRVUDU4

Things a tabula rasa wouldn't be able to understand through reasoned thought alone?

How women think. Boggles my mind...

@biccat

id agree that english is (generally) hard to figure out visually. However pictograph based languages like Chinese and Korean would be a lot easier. An AI would have an easier time reading heiroglyphs and by extension a lot of ancient languages if they have access to a rosetta stone.

as for the topic itself:

playing GW games
drinking beer in a bar
picking up women vs prostitution
infatuation
OCD
anything that ends with "philia"... dendrophilia for one
Michael Phelps
Michael Jackson

I'ma destroy this right quick with the ultimate weapon of the philosopher: subjectivity!

In one sense the person would understand everything, but on the other hand they would understand nothing.

just how awesome popeyes chicken is

Baseball.

Even the greatest baseball scholars really didnt know that much about the game.. there are details that can be understood, but the entire game?? i dont think so.

Albatross wrote:
Agreed, well, anarcho-syndicalist actually (iirc) - but his work on linguistics suggests that humans are born pre-programmed with the tools for language hard-wired into us, in a form of 'universal grammar'. Children learn new languages incredibly easily. If this theoretical person is born a genetically normal human, in theory he should not have any difficulty learning any language.

He has also praised libertarian socialism, though that is what he calls himself (anarcho-syndicalist). But his political philosophy is utopian garbage, so it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, you're right about his linguistic theories. Chomsky basically posits that there are certain fundamental characteristics that can be observed in all human languages (syntax, primarily), but that the specific ways in which these characteristics are made manifest are based on socialization. Its basically a more advanced version of ordinary language philosophy, and by far the most significant contribution he has made to academia; followed closely by his work in cognitive psychology.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
Well, read his work on language. Like this. Don't read any of his political drek.

Well, read it, but brace yourself. It is terrible. Like, Chalmers Johnson terrible.

So, in summation, word...with reservations.

biccat wrote:
Since written language is based on spoken language, that person would have a heck of a time figuring out what all those characters meant, let alone speaking the language.

Well, theoretically, one could deduce the meaning of any given phrase simply from a symbol and some sort of stimuli. If experience is equivalent to stimuli, then the person in question could learn nothing as he would have no stimuli to act upon. I mean, if person X cannot learn by experience, then he cannot remember what he heard (even if he heard it) or touched (even if he touched it).

We're basically positing the guy from that Twilight Zone episode who was trapped in his own mind, only without the personality formed by prior experience; so something that cannot, even theoretically, exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
TIL I should read Chomsky.

Also Wittgenstein and Rorty, if you haven't already.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:While the video-arcade manager (me) says: Imagine someone who is tabula rasa. A blank slate. They have no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no knowledge, nothing. Imagine that they are able to learn things only through reasoned thought, and not through experience. They could, say, figure out that fire is hot through a thorough understanding of chemical reactions, but not through sticking their hand into flames.

Can you think of anything that such a being would be unable to come to grips with Edit: that a being who is able to learn experientially would not also be unable to learn?

The pain of putting their hand in the fire. What that would feel like. How can one 'reason' that out? Pain is different for all of us.

Anything to do with your body, or physical. You wouldn't be able to reason your way out of a swamp of crocodiles if you didn't first learn how to climb, jump, and swing. You can't reason those things out. I keep telling my toddler: when we fall down we just get back up.

Imho you are unable 'to learn things only through reasoned thought' because all 'reasoned thought' is based on experiential learning by actual beings - it's just that with our powers of communication we can convey our knowledge to others, and so avoid having to learn through experience, raising us to metaphysical heights. If 'they have no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no knowledge, nothing" then their learning starts now, as soon as the 'slate' is cast, and they will learn what they experience - a being with no experience would not have a framework with which to reason.

Edited for spelling and clarity

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:While the video-arcade manager (me) says: Imagine someone who is tabula rasa. A blank slate. They have no thoughts, no feelings, no memories, no knowledge, nothing. Imagine that they are able to learn things only through reasoned thought, and not through experience. They could, say, figure out that fire is hot through a thorough understanding of chemical reactions, but not through sticking their hand into flames.

Can you think of anything that such a being would be unable to come to grips with Edit: that a being who is able to learn experientially would not also be unable to learn?

You are giving me a model of a psychological zombie.
These theoretical (No psychological zombies have been reported as living things) 'zombies' can not feel emotions and cannot think with logic toward emotions, nor do they comply another being's nature and sometimes, existence as nothing other than a physical object.
As for the first stament you made, I have not found the link between a spherical cow to a zombie, although I believe the purpose for a spherical cow is to refer to the oddity that is a theoretical zombie.
As for your description of your 'zombie', I have notice that your 'zombie' has a major flaw. If one cannot retain a memory, then one could not understand communication, and therefore the 'zombie' could not understand any known chemical reactions unless they preformed tests to identify chemicals...
Which is impossible for it because it would not know fire was hot through trial and error.

corpsesarefun wrote:Politics and morality require life experience, that's why teenagers think they are great at it but really haven't a clue.

I'm sorry for the late post but you're 17... if what you say is true, how would you know that?

Kragura wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Politics and morality require life experience, that's why teenagers think they are great at it but really haven't a clue.

I'm sorry for the late post but you're 17... if what you say is true, how would you know that?

Because I know I have much to learn and I accept the majority of the population knows more about almost everything than me.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kragura wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Politics and morality require life experience, that's why teenagers think they are great at it but really haven't a clue.

I'm sorry for the late post but you're 17... if what you say is true, how would you know that?

Because I know I have much to learn and I accept the majority of the population knows more about almost everything than me.

This is still a opinion on politics and morality which by your reasoning is false.

Kragura wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Kragura wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:Politics and morality require life experience, that's why teenagers think they are great at it but really haven't a clue.

I'm sorry for the late post but you're 17... if what you say is true, how would you know that?

Because I know I have much to learn and I accept the majority of the population knows more about almost everything than me.

This is still a opinion on politics and morality which by your reasoning is false.

Son you need to look up what the words politics and morality mean.

I don't know, I think I had a better grasp of politics and morality in my teens than many people far older than me. But then I'm an amoral cynic, so who really knows?

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

The force passes through the object, the object does not move. I cannot see why this proves difficult.

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

Couldn't occur.

Even if an object was stationary relative to everything in the universe, the universe itself is still expanding so it is moving in respect to something. Anyway if an object was truely unmovable then there would have to be a force keeping it in place that was greater than any other force in existance however for a force to truely be unstoppable it has to be greater than any other force which leads to a contradiction in definitions.

I suppose if you were define a force as anything carrying energy then most of the force carrying particles could be considered unstoppable forces, for example high frequency photons that would pass through most matter and continue on an infinite path given enough time or gravitons which we know little about but because gravity has infinite range wait surely that make them faster than c?

corpsesarefun wrote:Son you need to look up what the words politics and morality mean.

No I don't, the definition of the words here has no meaning. Because whatever you replace "politics and morality" with, your statement is still contradictory. By saying people don't know about something you must have knowledge of the thing in question, it could be biology, sociology, psychology or NASCAR, it doesn't matter what the thing is, by proposing you know what is false about it you also propose you know what is true about it. Therefore your statement is inherently contradictory.

Does a spherical cow have spherical cow meat?

What about a regression argument?

Melissia wrote:Does a spherical cow have spherical cow meat?

IF you view atoms as spheres then probably!

Melissia wrote:Does a spherical cow have spherical cow meat?

Does a spherical cow thread have spherical cow posts?

If the tabula rasa has incredible levels of processing power and access to immense amount of information, then I think they could be capable of understanding any human experience.

Take sport for instance, it could be argued that while a person might understand the rules and strategies to a game, it's only when he plays the game that he would really come to understand what the players are experiencing, and therefore understand how the game really works.

But all those experiences can be defined and explained. The feelings of the athlete while playing sport can be explained through brain chemistry (adrenalines and endorphines) and the impact on his body can be explained through biology. Then you'd move on to rivalry and camaraderie, which can be explained with psychology.

So yeah, I'd think given a sufficiently in depth description that was completely understood by the tabula rasa could explain anything.

But that's not a process that any human institution is capable of, nor one that any human could fully comprehend. Instead, we have to learn by experiencing, because we simply don't have the ability to fully and completely describe a thing.

sebster wrote:If the tabula rasa has incredible levels of processing power and access to immense amount of information, then I think they could be capable of understanding any human experience.

What about quales?

sebster wrote:
Take sport for instance, it could be argued that while a person might understand the rules and strategies to a game, it's only when he plays the game that he would really come to understand what the players are experiencing, and therefore understand how the game really works.

Formally, those are called qualia.

sebster wrote:
But all those experiences can be defined and explained. The feelings of the athlete while playing sport can be explained through brain chemistry (adrenalines and endorphines) and the impact on his body can be explained through biology. Then you'd move on to rivalry and camaraderie, which can be explained with psychology.

Sure, but you're missing the point. You might understand 2, but you don't feel it anymore than I feel what its like to be with child.

dogma wrote:Formally, those are called qualia.

Oh, I remember that term. Never having had any formal philosophy training, I always forget terms like that. Cheers for reminding me.

Sure, but you're missing the point. You might understand 2, but you don't feel it anymore than I feel what its like to be with child.

No, what I'm saying is that I don't belive anything is indescribable. I think that things are beyond our ability to describe them to a sufficient point where the hypthetical tabula rasa could really know the experience, but that isn't the same thing.

So, for the example of child birth, imagine the tabula rasa as a being of immense intelligence, so much so that it could hold in its head all at one time a complete understanding of every nerve bundle that attached from the uterus to the brain, and could track the effect of every hormone group on the brain, and could understand the excitement, social pressures, and every other element of the experience of carrying a child. Now imagine there was an information network of such incredible sophistication that it could transmit to the tabula rasa all this information.

Of course, what you're then looking at is a fuzzy line between describing and experiencing...

sebster wrote:
No, what I'm saying is that I don't belive anything is indescribable.

Sure, but how does a man describe what it is to be with child? He has the ability to describe his observation of the thing, but not the thing in itself.

I guess it really comes down to how you view the nature of description (I'm pretty strict about it).

sebster wrote:
I think that things are beyond our ability to describe them to a sufficient point where the hypthetical tabula rasa could really know the experience, but that isn't the same thing.

Yeah, that's true.

sebster wrote:
So, for the example of child birth, imagine the tabula rasa as a being of immense intelligence, so much so that it could hold in its head all at one time a complete understanding of every nerve bundle that attached from the uterus to the brain, and could track the effect of every hormone group on the brain, and could understand the excitement, social pressures, and every other element of the experience of carrying a child. Now imagine there was an information network of such incredible sophistication that it could transmit to the tabula rasa all this information.

Of course, what you're then looking at is a fuzzy line between describing and experiencing...

Its more fundamental than that. I know that when women give birth, they suffer pain in an organ 'twixt their nethers (cookie for the reference), and that is understanding, but I don't quite know what that means in terms of my body. Though, really, this conversation will boil down to what understanding really is.

dogma wrote:'twixt their nethers (cookie for the reference)

Where's mah cookie?