A Thought Experiment

[phsyxx]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Start off as yourself.
Begin, slowly, to regress within yourself, so that you see the world through a child's eyes.
Fresh, new, awakening to it all.

Now, try to erase your beliefs - the way you see the world, your views and opinions and what you have been taught about it.

What you end up with is an empty vessel - waiting to be filled.


So what do you make of this world?

[I know it's general - but if I were to be specific, I would provoke an answer - which is not what I intend.]

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Start off as yourself.
Begin, slowly, to regress within yourself, so that you see the world through a child's eyes.
Fresh, new, awakening to it all.

Now, try to erase your beliefs - the way you see the world, your views and opinions and what you have been taught about it.

What you end up with is an empty vessel - waiting to be filled.


So what do you make of this world?

[I know it's general - but if I were to be specific, I would provoke an answer - which is not what I intend.]

Ignorance

 

[Defcon]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Start off as yourself.
Begin, slowly, to regress within yourself, so that you see the world through a child's eyes.
Fresh, new, awakening to it all.

Now, try to erase your beliefs - the way you see the world, your views and opinions and what you have been taught about it.

What you end up with is an empty vessel - waiting to be filled.


So what do you make of this world?

[I know it's general - but if I were to be specific, I would provoke an answer - which is not what I intend.]

How would you know it was a world?

 

[The Nihilist]

Defcon's criticism is the correct one. Without a handful of necessary preconceptions, all of sensory input is mere white noise.

 

[ManOfTheAmish]

We are born in a receptive state starting from zero in sensory perception.

Is that what this thread is about?

 

[quatona]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Start off as yourself.
Begin, slowly, to regress within yourself, so that you see the world through a child's eyes.
Fresh, new, awakening to it all.

Now, try to erase your beliefs - the way you see the world, your views and opinions and what you have been taught about it.

What you end up with is an empty vessel - waiting to be filled.


So what do you make of this world?

What do you mean - "world"?
In the state described I would be unable to make sense of your entire post, anyways.

 

[TheReasoner]

It is not hard to see that infants have a personality of their own from day one. The belief that we are the sum of our experiences is only partly true.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what do you make of this world?

I want my MOMMY!

Seriously, I don't know how to perform this thought experiment.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[phsyxx]

What do you mean - "world"?
In the state described I would be unable to make sense of your entire post, anyways.

Trust you to come up with an answer like that quatona.



Yes. So we wouldn't know if this place was a world, would we - we wouldn't know if it was real.

If you were a clean slate though, working on the assumptions that you had an uncanny ability to understand every word spoken, and that this is a world, and it indeed 'exists' - what would your view on the current moral climate be?

As in - you haven't brought your own morality into play - you observe others....

you see a man running upto a woman and taking something from her, she shouts, points, exclaims....

What do you make of it?

 

[Eudaimonist]

you see a man running upto a woman and taking something from her, she shouts, points, exclaims....

What do you make of it?

It must be a fun game. Let's play!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Trust you to come up with an answer like that quatona.

I wasn´t joking.

Yes. So we wouldn't know if this place was a world, would we - we wouldn't know if it was real.

If I have understood your scenario correctly we wouldn´t even have concepts like "world" or "real".

If you were a clean slate though, working on the assumptions that you had an uncanny ability to understand every word spoken,

Wait, this is an impossibility, a direct contradiction. How can I be a clean slate when I can operate with abstract concepts and even language?

and that this is a world, and it indeed 'exists' - what would your view on the current moral climate be?
As in - you haven't brought your own morality into play - you observe others....

I´m really having problems getting the scenario, phsyxx.
I am a clean slate, but I have a morality?

you see a man running upto a woman and taking something from her, she shouts, points, exclaims....
What do you make of it?

If I don´t bring my own morality into play but am a sufficiently coloured slate to have language, I guess I would describe it in amoral terms, about like you did above: There is a man running up to a woman. He takes something from her. She shouts, points, exclaims... (given my selective perception would make me focus on similar aspects as yours does.)

 

[phsyxx]

I wasn´t joking.



If I have understood your scenario correctly we wouldn´t even have concepts like "world" or "real".


Wait, this is an impossibility, a direct contradiction. How can I be a clean slate when I can operate with abstract concepts and even language?


I´m really having problems getting the scenario, phsyxx.
I am a clean slate, but I have a morality?


If I don´t bring my own morality into play but am a sufficiently coloured slate to have language, I guess I would describe it in amoral terms, about like you did above: There is a man running up to a woman. He takes something from her. She shouts, points, exclaims... (given my selective perception would make me focus on similar aspects as yours does.)

Yeah...sorry quatona - I suppose my feeling was that the reaction to the initial post was a bit lacklustre - and that I was trying to push for some sort of answer.


But if you were to be an entirely clean slate - then would it be possible to do anything? If you had no mastery of language - would you be able to formulate any kind of thought?

 

[quatona]

But if you were to be an entirely clean slate - then would it be possible to do anything?

The actual problem, I think, is that I wouldn´t remain a clean slate for even only a second if exposed to stimuli. Whilst without such being exposed to stimuli "action" is a non-concept.
IOW: performing an action requires having been exposed to stimuli, having been exposed to stimuli means you aren´t a "clean slate".

If you had no mastery of language - would you be able to formulate any kind of thought?

Yes, that is my conviction. I do not believe that conceptualization is dependent on having words. I even am inclined to think that having words is rather an obstacle that tends to prevent useful conceptualization.

Still not sure what the topic is, or what you are looking for.

 

[phsyxx]

Yes, that is my conviction. I do not believe that conceptualization is dependent on having words. I even am inclined to think that having words is rather an obstacle that tends to prevent useful conceptualization.

Still not sure what the topic is, or what you are looking for.

Yes, it would only be an instant before you would be exposed to stimuli.

Erm...babies seem to be hard-wired to learn language, imitate and develop by the examples around them.
Whether or not this is an evolutionary by-product to create social cohesion, as humans require numbers for survival, hunting and protection - plus if the baby were not to imitate its peers then it would not learn the necessary survival skills, plus it would run the risk of not fitting in with the tribe - and therefore would put its own survival at risk.


In answer to what this thread is about, I wanted to develop it to the point where we could explore the possibility of this "clean-slate" developing his/her own beliefs.

Imagine if an amnesiac found themself on another planet - completely empty and devoid of human life - and there was no way they would ever get their memory back -

then what kind of beliefs would they start developing?

 

[quatona]

Yes, it would only be an instant before you would be exposed to stimuli.

Yes.

Erm...babies seem to be hard-wired to learn language, imitate and develop by the examples around them.

Yes.

Whether or not this is an evolutionary by-product to create social cohesion, as humans require numbers for survival, hunting and protection - plus if the baby were not to imitate its peers then it would not learn the necessary survival skills, plus it would run the risk of not fitting in with the tribe - and therefore would put its own survival at risk.

phsyxx, I don´t seem to understand the grammatical structure of this sentence, and therfore am at a loss when trying to discern what you actually mean to say.

In answer to what this thread is about, I wanted to develop it to the point where we could explore the possibility of this "clean-slate" developing his/her own beliefs.

I see. Although not feeling able to make any concrete predictions, I think the factors involved are easily to name: The person´s physical state and needs (including his genetic make-up) and the conditions of the environment.

Imagine if an amnesiac found themself on another planet - completely empty and devoid of human life - and there was no way they would ever get their memory back -

then what kind of beliefs would they start developing?

See above.
I suspect that - given that hunger and thirst will be the needs that kick in first - the first concepts he will develop are something like "eatable vs. not eatable" and "drinkeable vs. not drinkeable".
Everything else will follow. For example, it´s predictable that his sex drive will make him have sex with animals and consider that "normal". Actually, one might suspect, that he won´t even develop a concept "normal" for human behaviour, since in regards to a sample of 1 "normal" isn´t a concept.

 

[quatona]

I doubt that this guy would develop a language - in view of the lack of any need nor opportunity to communicate.
I also suspect that the concepts he will develop will be less confused than those of a child who grows up in a speaking environment. Whilst children first learn words and then try to understand what concepts those who use those words attach to them (with the consequence that we can observe here on CF all the time: the tendency to not understand the difference between objects, concepts and words), this guy will not have to make himself fit into that which is already determined as reality by that which the respective language can express and that which the use of this language requires him to accept as valid concepts a priori.

Am I even only close to giving the sort of answers you are looking for?

 

[phsyxx]

I doubt that this guy would develop a language - in view of the lack of any need nor opportunity to communicate.
I also suspect that the concepts he will develop will be less confused than those of a child who grows up in a speaking environment. Whilst children first learn words and then try to understand what concepts those who use those words attach to them (with the consequence that we can observe here on CF all the time: the tendency to not understand the difference between objects, concepts and words), this guy will not have to make himself fit into that which is already determined as reality by that which the respective language can express and that which the use of this language requires him to accept as valid concepts a priori.

Am I even only close to giving the sort of answers you are looking for?

I suppose - but I just wanted other people's ideas on this.
Do we develop language as a result of social pressures -or to serve as a means of interpreting the world?

If there were no other people about - what would be the point of language? It would only serve to communicate knowledge and ideas/concepts to other people.

So - if there was no need to express the knowledge that one had learnt - then would you feel the need to express your thoughts?

 

[GenuineMonotheist]

Here's a thought experiment for you.

Start off as yourself.
Begin, slowly, to regress within yourself, so that you see the world through a child's eyes.
Fresh, new, awakening to it all.

Now, try to erase your beliefs - the way you see the world, your views and opinions and what you have been taught about it.

What you end up with is an empty vessel - waiting to be filled.


So what do you make of this world?

[I know it's general - but if I were to be specific, I would provoke an answer - which is not what I intend.]

What you're asking is impossible. Even if one could remove all traces of any kind of socialization and STILL make it to adulthood (highly unlikely - actually impossible), you'd still have human nature itself to contend with - it's limitations, it's modes of sensation, it's in-built inclinations. All of those condition our engagement with the world. This is in part why genuine atheism is impossible for the human being - conceptually that "void" will always be filled by something, for the simple reason that is unavoidably how human beings are "made". We perceive order, we "name names", we like to read between the lines, we look to "the absolute." Even the most rabid atheist can't shake himself of this. It's unavoidable. It is much like Nietzsche's lament that to "get rid of God", you'd probably have to "get rid of language" - though unlike Nietzsche, I'd point out that the most basic structures of language itself are NOT merely social but are hard-wired. Hence...

 

[quatona]

I suppose - but I just wanted other people's ideas on this.
Do we develop language as a result of social pressures -or to serve as a means of interpreting the world?

I don´t think this is an either-or - both could be the case. However, I think both are not accurate.
First part: I wouldn´t call it social pressure, but social influence. Language is all around us (and a particular language at that) and it is the most common means of communication. So we want to participate, and therefore we learn to speak and we learn to speak the language that is common in our environment.
Second part: I don´t think language helps interpreting the world. I think it helps us with communicating our interpretations.

If there were no other people about - what would be the point of language? It would only serve to communicate knowledge and ideas/concepts to other people.

Yes.

So - if there was no need to express the knowledge that one had learnt - then would you feel the need to express your thoughts?

I don´t think so, at least not in language. I guess in this situation we would try to express our feelings, though. We would probably non-verbally communicate with animals. But that´s just a guess.

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is in part why genuine atheism is impossible for the human being

What is "genuine atheism"?


eudaimonia,

Mark