Congenital belief 6 Aug 20126 Aug 2012 One had only to look at him, from the slant of his bald forehead and the curve of his beautiful fair moustache to the long patent-leather feet at the other end of his lean and elegant person, to feel that the knowledge of “form” must be congenital in any one who knew how to wear such good clothes so carelessly and carry such height with so much lounging grace. [Edith Wharton, The Age of Innocence, Book 1, chapter 1] I’m presently writing a paper with a biologist in which we argue that species are phenomenal objects (still real enough as objects, not as a natural kind; it’s complicated. I first shadowed this in 2007). In the course of this discussion my coauthor said that kids could see differences between species, and I said, yes, but they can also see differences within species, and so to know which is which, they must be scaffolded by others who are better experienced and informed. Over time, cultures learn what counts as a species (or the more general term introduced by Berlin and Kay, specieme) in their locale. I commented that even racism is not hard wired but the disposition to find some differences between our social group and others is. I said “I think we are not wired to think much at all, but by the gods we are predisposed to learn content!”. This got me wondering: what sorts of beliefs, if any, do we have at birth? What are our congenital beliefs? The term congenital doesn’t mean innate or inherited. It just means at birth. We often forget that we have a functioning nervous system for some time before we are born, and it can pick up signals of sound and light and pressure in the womb. But from an evolutionary perspective, whatever we believe at birth must be beliefs that assist us in getting going in the rest of our lives, or at least something that in general doesn’t impede that process much. The rationalist philosophical position that has been one of the two major default opinions in philosophy since Plato is that we are born with a whole lot of knowledge and beliefs, mostly to do with reason and logic itself. Plato in the Meno has a demonstration of this: Men. Yes, Socrates; but what do you mean by saying that we do not learn, and that what we call learning is only a process of recollection? Can you teach me how this is? Soc. I told you, Meno, just now that you were a rogue, and now you ask whether I can teach you, when I am saying that there is no teaching, but only recollection; and thus you imagine that you will involve me in a contradiction. Men. Indeed, Socrates, I protest that I had no such intention. I only asked the question from habit; but if you can prove to me that what you say is true, I wish that you would. Soc. It will be no easy matter, but I will try to please you to the utmost of my power. Suppose that you call one of your numerous attendants, that I may demonstrate on him. Plato then has Socrates ask a series of mostly leading questions to have him prove a theorem of geometry, concluding: Soc. What do you say of him, Meno? Were not all these answers given out of his own head? Men. Yes, they were all his own. Soc. And yet, as we were just now saying, he did not know? Men. True. Soc. But still he had in him those notions of his-had he not? Men. Yes. Soc. Then he who does not know may still have true notions of that which he does not know? Men. He has. Soc. And at present these notions have just been stirred up in him, as in a dream; but if he were frequently asked the same questions, in different forms, he would know as well as any one at last? Men. I dare say. Soc. Without any one teaching him he will recover his knowledge for himself, if he is only asked questions? Men. Yes. Soc. And this spontaneous recovery of knowledge in him is recollection? Men. True. Soc. And this knowledge which he now has must he not either have acquired or always possessed? Men. Yes. Soc. But if he always possessed this knowledge he would always have known; or if he has acquired the knowledge he could not have acquired it in this life, unless he has been taught geometry; for he may be made to do the same with all geometry and every other branch of knowledge. Now, has any one ever taught him all this? You must know about him, if, as you say, he was born and bred in your house. [The answer is “no” of course] The critical point here is that “without anyone teaching him he will recover this knowledge for himself”. If the knowledge is innate (in Plato’s schema, recollected from life prior to being born), why should someone need to ask the questions? It should be manifest in the slave boy’s mind (and indeed all our minds, normally). Rationalists think that all or some (usually some) of what we know or believe is not learned by experience. Few would argue no learning takes place, as Plato seems to have Socrates say here, but everyone seems to think, hard line empiricists aside, that some knowledge, or at any rate mental content, is present at birth. But what is very hard to find is what that mental content consists of (we can leave to one side for now whether this innate content could be knowledge or not). Psychologists do talk of there being dispositions to avoid high places, fear snakes (if you see a snake being reacted to negatively) and so on, but these dispositions are not mental content. They are dispositions to acquire mental content. One author who has argued that we have native or congenital knowledge is Peter Curruthers, who will be the subject of the next post. Cognition Epistemology Evolution Social evolution
Ethics and Moral Philosophy You cannot harm a religion 16 Jan 2010 Chris, at u n d e r v e r s e, has an interesting series of posts on whether or not blasphemy laws are still appropriate in a secular society [Part I, Part II, Part III]. He asks whether or not Muslims had the right to take umbrage against… Read More
Evolution A nice idea 6 Jun 2009 A nice blog, albeit a bit sporadic, is Evolutionary Noveties by Todd Oakley. He has a post up on coat colour in gray wolves, written by a student. This is a great idea (if I had students this year I’d offer them extra credit for writing blog entries too), and… Read More
Accommodationism How to argue with silly thing believers 30 Jan 201420 Feb 2014 [Apologies this took a while; I’ve been rather sick] So, given all this [Why believers believe silly things, why they believe the particular silly things they do, and the developmental hypothesis of belief acquisition], how can you change a believer’s mind? It is tempting to say that you cannot, or… Read More
I’ll go along with the idea that brains can begin to make associations between events while in the womb… but when you look at human babies they are (comparatively) born too young. They can’t walk, they can’t control their limbs, can’t see properly, they even have to learn how to suckle properly (although the suckle reflex is ‘congenital’). If you set ‘year zero’ as the time when the young of a species can walk and feed by themselves, ‘year zero’ corresponds to birth in sheep and deer, and to several weeks for cats and dogs. Humans, on the other hand, are exposed to much associative learning before they reach ‘year zero’. Eventually they come to understand ‘me’ and ‘not me’ or ‘mine’ and ‘not mine’ – fairly basic stuff. They’re not called the Terrible Twos for nothing.
If by congenital you mean “acquired during fetal development” (thats what some online dictionary told me), then I do not see why believes acquired during that period should have any bearing (adaptive significance) for the time after birth. The fetus might come to belive the world is a dark, warm, and cosy place to live in.
“dispositions are not mental content”. Why not? Do complex instincts in nonhumans (say nest building) represent mental content and/or knowledge? If yes, then I would think that dispositions represent an innate knowledge of what is salient. In the mouse, there are specific predator innate fear systems (separate olfactory and non-olfactory), that are also involved in learnt predator fear. It is further suggested the same systems are active in humans.
I suppose that it all starts with a baby’s desire for comfort and the baby soon learns that comfort comes from drink and hugs. But I guess that there is more to it than that.
I hate to say this, but I do not think that most babies would enjoy dark chocolate on their first day. Love of dark chocolate is an aquired taste.
“They are dispositions to acquire mental content.” I have not chased this aspect of Lord M. as I don’t have the philosophical expertise to deal with the mid-seventeenth century debate or inclination to chew through philosophy back to the classics for its historical dimension unaided. Hopefully these posts may be the kick in the ass I need. Burnett claimed his ideas on the potential to acquire reason came from a pamphlet published anonymously in Dublin some years before we wrote and were not his. I really should get my act together. But then I suspect when touching on this topic lord M. claimed that we learn but slowly and with great difficulty he was correct. Although many intellectuals would disagree or at least with regard to themselves and their tribe.
Might be worth distinguishing between belief and knowledge in your discussions. It’s been argued that people are predisposed to believe in god, in line with group-selection theory; what god they believe in depends on their culture. The example given about geometry is interesting, but assumes that the only way a person can be taught about geometry is formally; I would say that living in a world of geometric forms, some of which approximate the ideal, is education in itself. Finally, I’d put racism, along with other forms of xenophobia, on a continuum where the ability to recognise non-self species is necessary for avoiding failed reproductive attempts and represents the mode of the population: xenophobias in all their forms are pathological extensions of this mode.
I think an important point of Plato’s view of innate kowledge is that it depended upon his view of preexistence. I suppose my view is more along the line of innate rational skills that tackle experience of the environment and nuture. Would we call innate rational skills a type of knowledge?
Okay, I am new at the formal arguments of this. Evidently, one of the debates of Rationalism vs. Empiricism is if rational skills count as knowledge. I guess since rational skills can develop then I am “currently” taking a firm stand on yes and no.
Development of preconceived knowledge could also stem from, what is learnt rings true to an internal instinct, that has begun to form even before birth, where as it can also not ring true so you reject that idea until you find the answer that follows on from what has been learnt with previous experience or from just instinct. I don’t know if a baby would stand and walk if it hadn’t seen it’s parents walk or encouraged it to walk. I would say not which god they believe in but how their culture believe in God. Some people could not get further than the angles of a protractor, but can work wonders with just that knowledge. The angles of a protractor do ring true.
” We often forget that we have a functioning nervous system for some time before we are born, and it can pick up signals of sound and light and pressure in the womb.” Never thought of this, but if you can creatively run with such signals then something is forming. Demonstration of potential to acquire. With regards to kids and objects I found mine surprising when they first used words and learned to use their own names for the fist time. Was very clear that when they first used their name it did not just to refer to themselves but also the immediate space around them and the shiny objects they liked to hit, poke, laugh at, throw, make strange sounds at and attempt at times to eat. All were often referred to as being encompassed by the same name. Self immediate surrounding space and the objects in it seemed to be viewed as intimately related. Suspect the origin may in part stem from the limits of vocabulary but its not where ideas or beliefs stem from its how folk creatively play and build with such things in relation to themselves,others and environment that’s the interesting part for me.
I also wonder if ‘feral children’ allow us a look at what would otherwise be an unethical experiment. From that great source of knowledge (ahem) Wikipedia: Feral children lack the basic social skills that are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language. The impaired ability to learn language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis.
Some fetuses learn an appreciation for Mozart and other music in the womb, depending on the lifestyle of the mother. That would be a congenital disposition that would not be an innate disposition.
Feral children are interesting in regard to the last post. If you are going to be Doctor Uptight and roll up the drawbridge the chances of sounding like an escapee from a late 17th century philosophical treatise are high, its not exactly uncommon to see ahistorical uncritical discussions here. Given the high amount of myth, legend and down right blatant exploitation of vulnerable children that has gone on in the past, its high risk and is on the odd occasion not just ignorant but somewhat shameful particularly when you are presenting yourself as an expert.
These subjects require joined up thought from across the board rather than just one somewhat overbearing subject shouting everyone else down. Opening up subjects like this does not just improve knowledge it also avoids rote learning and makes for a more sane educational system and it also gives these subjects a much broader appeal in terms of readership to a wider public as you are attracting a much wider range of interests in these subjects. In terms of engaging and educating people scientists blame the media, religion, ignorance without ever pausing or reflecting on the potential problems caused by an inward looking professional body with a strong fixation with regard to its own status and funding. The methods it uses to secure these goals are standard cultural moves, extremely ill conceived and hugely damaging, as it is deeply critical of other institutions (one in particular) which deploys the self-same methods. It simply becomes far too close to what it professes to despise.
I’m also a farmer. – Chicks, straight from the egg, peck shiny surfaces – tradition says, to find water. – Further on chicks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8603635 I find it difficult, in terms of this post, to separate congenital from genetic. From my observation chicks hatch with a genetic desire to peck shiny things, and more so than just a desire to peck at anything. Water is a first essential – food secondary. Then they learn from experience that the shiny thing we call water works best to satiate thirst. I cannot conceive that they have learnt any of this behaviour in their womb/egg. Nor, as a music lover and musician, can I believe that an appreciation of classical music can be fed to a foetus – I prefer a concept of genetic enhanced musical faculties – and somewhat beyond simply tone deaf or not. – I play five string blue grass banjo, I love it, but I’m pretty sure my mother never exposed me to it in the womb. Of course there are people who deny that the banjo is a musical instrument. Surely we are born with an inherited set of basic tools – both mental and physical – which then go to determining our ability to learn from experience – and just as genetics produce physical differences, so there are mental differences between us all. – I find writing difficult – but I can draw you a picture of a chicken and its chicks for fun. Certainly it’s not easy say if a mental faculty is learned or genetic. Farmers spend lots of time hammering fence posts. – I am adept at assessing whether a post is vertical or not – I think. – But is this a genetically inherited or a learned faculty – or have I no mental faculty for this at all – do I just relate post, landscape and my balance mechanism, to an all round picture which has become familiar to my mind. – Where conflicting slopes twist our appreciation of the picture, we can think we are driving a car on the level when in fact its travelling uphill. A farmer educates animals. Some people call them domesticated animals, as if they have been genetically altered by selective breeding to be less than wild in their mentality. – Don’t believe a word of it. – A farm animal left to its own devices can be a as wild as an animal ever was. We teach a young animal to be compliant – as much by simple familiarity as by bribery and corruption – we scratch its ears – we talk to it as if it knows what we are saying – and we each learn the others body language. – Miss out on its learning and you have an animal as wild as its inherited behaviour patterns make it. – When an unhandled bull eyes you across a field, you can see exactly what its genetically inherited thinking is telling it – believe me. It is entirely reasonable to consider we experience feeling in the womb but any sense of meaning must surely be limited. I doubt that visualisation can come into it – though do auditory senses function? – Is it like being in the bath with your head in the water? It must be warm and cozy in the womb as Joachim says. – Maybe we spend our lives trying to get back to that feeling. – Back to the dark womb eating dark chocolate with comfort from drink and drugs (or was that hugs). –The sure route to endarkenment. – Its got to be better than hammering fence posts and avoiding wild animals.