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.

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?

Something subjective, such as politics or morality, springs to mind.

Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

Summary: most things metaphysical. It would have to develop a framework of how people understand things to be able to even process those things.

Drruum wrote:Something subjective, such as politics or morality, springs to mind.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Summary: most things metaphysical. It would have to develop a framework of how people understand things to be able to even process those things.

I would argue that the only way to come to an understanding of something like politics or morality or how people understand things is through reasoned thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

The being who can only think things through cannot understand what is, ultimately, a thought experiment?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Drruum wrote:Something subjective, such as politics or morality, springs to mind.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Summary: most things metaphysical. It would have to develop a framework of how people understand things to be able to even process those things.

I would argue that the only way to come to an understanding of something like politics or morality or how people understand things is through reasoned thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

The being who can only think things through cannot understand what is, ultimately, a thought experiment?

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

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I would argue that the only way to come to an understanding of something like politics or morality or how people understand things is through reasoned thought.

But what is morality without emotion? And reasoned thought can lead to different, sometimes conflicting, conclusions. Does this require a single reasoned outcome, or are multiple possibilities acceptable to a tabula rasa person?

It's not whether or not they can understand how you got to the argument, but whether they learn what happens when they meet through thought processes.

Nobody knows what happens if an unstoppable force meets and unmovable object, and so he can't either.

Morality would have no basis with only reason, it would just be a series of "if this guy does this it affects other people this way" over and over again, so a series of percentages more or less I'd imagine. With all the other factors reasoned out you could still come to conclusions on the best moral stance but only based on what you get out of it or some other tangible factor.

What is this earth thing you hu-mans call love?

Also the concept of evil would not be possible for them to understand, as evil requires morality. They would, however, be able to understand what somebody or something was doing/has done is wrong due to logical, cause-and-effect conclusions.

Hmmm my hopes went up when i saw 'spherical cow'. Unfortunately it is just a philosophical debate.

Alas you poor americans wont get the (possibly unintentional) reference....

Avatar 720 wrote:It's not whether or not they can understand how you got to the argument, but whether they learn what happens when they meet through thought processes.

Nobody knows what happens if an unstoppable force meets and unmovable object, and so he can't either.

Oh, you sneaky devil you.

Pointing out things that it's impossible to know is cheating!

Drruum wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
I would argue that the only way to come to an understanding of something like politics or morality or how people understand things is through reasoned thought.

But what is morality without emotion?

Does morality necessarily require emotion? I can say that it's bad for two people to try to kill each other without having any emotional attachment for either one. Or am I misunderstanding?

Drruum wrote:And reasoned thought can lead to different, sometimes conflicting, conclusions. Does this require a single reasoned outcome, or are multiple possibilities acceptable to a tabula rasa person?

Gah! You too!

Updating the OP to try and clear this up a little.

Okay the reference was indeed unintentional, alow me to enlighten your asses:

The title is the punchline of a joke about a farmer asking a physicist to help him improve his milk yield.

My sound card is bollocksed, otherwise I'd confirm or deny the truth of Perkustin's post.

Just look up brasseye on Wiki. He's just taking the mick of minor celebrities circ 1997. In this particular sketch he has convinced this celebrity that Spherical cows have been bred and it's cruel.

Drruum wrote:Also the concept of evil would not be possible for them to understand, as evil requires morality. They would, however, be able to understand what somebody or something was doing/has done is wrong due to logical, cause-and-effect conclusions.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Morality would have no basis with only reason, it would just be a series of "if this guy does this it affects other people this way" over and over again, so a series of percentages more or less I'd imagine. With all the other factors reasoned out you could still come to conclusions on the best moral stance but only based on what you get out of it or some other tangible factor.

I think the next step here is to ask you two what your thoughts on the validity of utilitarianism for determining the moral worth of an action, as it seems that such a being would gravitate to it for a moral compass.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Does morality necessarily require emotion? I can say that it's bad for two people to try to kill each other without having any emotional attachment for either one. Or am I misunderstanding?

I would say that morality only exists because of emotion, not specific or targeted emotion (such as anger or love directed at a person), but rather the idea that, following your example, killing is wrong because a person has a right to life/it isn't nice (for want of a better word) to kill, which comes from emotion. There are other ways of coming to the conclusion that killing is wrong (using economic reasoning for example) that follows only pure reason and logic, but are not based on morality. That's my take on it anyway, although philosophy can be wonderfully subjective at times.

Perkustin wrote:Just look up brasseye on Wiki. He's just taking the mick of minor celebrities circ 1997. In this particular sketch he has convinced this celebrity that Spherical cows have been bred and it's cruel.

oh god it's chia kitties all over again D:

Drruum wrote:I would say that morality only exists because of emotion, not specific or targeted emotion (such as anger or love directed at a person), but rather the idea that, following your example, killing is wrong because a person has a right to life/it isn't nice (for want of a better word) to kill, which comes from emotion. There are other ways of coming to the conclusion that killing is wrong (using economic reasoning for example) that follows only pure reason and logic, but are not based on morality. That's my take on it anyway, although philosophy can be wonderfully subjective at times.

I'm trying to think of how to respond to the bolded, and failing. I just really can't conceptualise how you come to the conclusion that one has a right to... well, anything, through emotion.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I really don't understand. Could you clarify this?

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.

Also, I find it much easier to imagine a spherical cow than a tabula rasa. Not sure what that means.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Drruum wrote:I would say that morality only exists because of emotion, not specific or targeted emotion (such as anger or love directed at a person), but rather the idea that, following your example, killing is wrong because a person has a right to life/it isn't nice (for want of a better word) to kill, which comes from emotion. There are other ways of coming to the conclusion that killing is wrong (using economic reasoning for example) that follows only pure reason and logic, but are not based on morality. That's my take on it anyway, although philosophy can be wonderfully subjective at times.

I'm trying to think of how to respond to the bolded, and failing. I just really can't conceptualise how you come to the conclusion that one has a right to... well, anything, through emotion.

I'm not trying to be snarky, I really don't understand. Could you clarify this?

You're right, I'm not sure why I posted that in particular, I was probably just thinking of moral arguments against killing at the time of writing. Having said that, it could be linked to emotions such as sympathy (towards humanity) and also affection (towards humanity), with these emotion causing people the belief that humans have rights, which is what I may have been thinking of as well.

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 think a tabula rasa person would struggle to appreciate the purpose of art, and some other forms of culture.

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.

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

Surely by definition the force cannot be unstoppable if the object is unmovable and vice-versa?

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.

It is said that our capacity to love is what separates up from the rest of the animal kingdom, but I disagree with this. Lifelong monogamous pairing or pining for the death of a partner is not an unusual occurrence in nature.
I think the capacity to wonder is what truly makes us unique as a species, no other organism on earth would choose to sit and watch a blazing red sunset, or listen to steady rain drumming on the window, or look up at a towering skyscraper and be moved by it. I think that is something a tabula rasa could never grasp.

biccat wrote:Also, I find it much easier to imagine a spherical cow than a tabula rasa. Not sure what that means.

It's a fancy way of saying blank slate, basically.

And interesting thought on language, I hadn't thought of that.


And art... you can't reason your way into appreciating art. Okay, that's what I was looking for.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:Also, I find it much easier to imagine a spherical cow than a tabula rasa. Not sure what that means.

It's a fancy way of saying blank slate, basically.

See? Even reasoning people with the gift of experience can create ambiguities in language!

I'm not sure what it says about me that spherical cows are easier to imagine than a tabula rasa.

Daedricbob wrote:

Avatar 720 wrote:Unstoppable Force vs Unmovable Object

Surely by definition the force cannot be unstoppable if the object is unmovable and vice-versa?

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.

Agreed. And here:

Daedricbob wrote:It is said that our capacity to love is what separates up from the rest of the animal kingdom, but I disagree with this. Lifelong monogamous pairing or pining for the death of a partner is not an unusual occurrence in nature.
I think the capacity to wonder is what truly makes us unique as a species, no other organism on earth would choose to sit and watch a blazing red sunset, or listen to steady rain drumming on the window, or look up at a towering skyscraper and be moved by it. I think that is something a tabula rasa could never grasp.

Yep.

There's a difference, I think, between understanding art, and appreciating it, They're two separate things, and you've outlined both pretty well.

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.

George Spiggott wrote:What is this earth thing you hu-mans call love?

This.

When the laws of attraction and hormones are entered into the mix, sometimes humans are irrational.

biccat wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:Also, I find it much easier to imagine a spherical cow than a tabula rasa. Not sure what that means.

It's a fancy way of saying blank slate, basically.

See? Even reasoning people with the gift of experience can create ambiguities in language!

I'm not sure what it says about me that spherical cows are easier to imagine than a tabula rasa.

A spherical cow is pretty easy to imagine, I'd say. It's a ball with legs that goes moo.

However, a tabula rasa is basically alien. Speaking as someone reasonably well versed in science fiction: people are exceedingly bad at imagining ways of thinking and being that aren't theirs. Almost every alien race in fiction is really humanity in a rubber mask.

We can imagine a spherical cow with ease because it's the melding of a two shapes, and our brain is very good at that. At other things... not so much.