Obviously it's only an evolutionary sort of thing, reasoning unnecessary
I believe that innate knowledge is still knowledge. And further, I don't think that reasoning need come into play; knowledge is usually a substitute for reasoning. For example, which is bigger, a mouse or an elephant? We could use reasoning abilities and set out on a mission to find and measure both an elephant and a mouse and compare their measurements, or we could rely on knowledge; we KNOW the elephant is bigger.
I would say they possess the same kind of nonverbal understanding of bodies in motion that our best athletes do. It's incredible how little difference there is between a completed pass and an interception in the NFL.
Fri 19 Dec, 2014 02:22 pm
...a pretty good understanding of physics, don't you think?…..I believe that innate knowledge is still knowledge
No Ban I can't agree at all, unless we redefine a number of common terms. Dogs don't understand physics and reflex isn't a form of knowledge
Dogs don't understand physics and reflex isn't a form of knowledge
It's not a matter of redfining common terms, but you'll have to do some reading on the subject in order to meaningfully participate in discussions on the topic. You can start with Plato's Meno and the topic of Innatism. Read from there through Steve Pinker's writing on evolutionary psychology. Come back when you're done.
In his Meno, Plato raises an important epistemological quandary: How is it that we have certain ideas which are not conclusively derivable from our environments? Noam Chomsky has taken this problem as a philosophical framework for the scientific enquiry into innatism. His linguistic theory, which derives from 18th century classical-liberal thinkers such as Wilhelm von Humboldt, attempts to explain in cognitive terms how we can develop knowledge of systems which are said, by supporters of innatism, to be too rich and complex to be derived from our environment. One such example is our linguistic faculty. Our linguistic systems contain a systemic complexity which supposedly could not be empirically derived: the environment seems too poor, variable and indeterminate, according to Chomsky, to explain the extraordinary ability to learn complex concepts possessed by very young children. It follows that humans must be born with a universal innate grammar, which is determinate and has a highly organized directive component, and enables the language learner to ascertain and categorize language heard into a system. Noam Chomsky cites as evidence for this theory the apparent invariability, according to his views, of human languages at a fundamental level. In this way, linguistics may provide a window into the human mind, and establish scientific theories of innateness which otherwise would remain merely speculative.
One implication of Noam Chomsky's innatism, if correct, is that at least a part of human knowledge consists in cognitive predispositions, which are triggered and developed by the environment, but not determined by it. Parallels can then be drawn, on a purely speculative level, between our moral faculties and language, as has been done by sociobiologists such as E. O. Wilson and evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker. The relative consistency of fundamental notions of morality across cultures seems to produce convincing evidence for these theories. In psychology, notions of archetypes such as those developed by Carl Jung, suggest determinate identity perceptions.