Facebook   Twitter    YouTube    RSS Feed    Android App    iPhone and iPad App     BlackBerry App    
Subscribe to Newsletter



Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses

  1. #1

    Default Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses

    Or as they say in Latin (A Scholastic maxim derived from Aristotle) "Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius in sensu".

    This is also an empiricist maxim that in its most basic form states that "knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience" and that the mind is a blank slate.

    This is often contrasted with rationalism which argues that certain concepts and knowledge are innate and "gained a priori, independently of experience".

    Rationalist or Empiricist? Why?
    You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.


  2. #2
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    6,554

    Default

    What about Instinct?
    That which comes into existence will eventually break apart and pass away

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geriatrix View Post
    What about Instinct?
    I don't know really. I think the instinct of any living thing would not exist if it does not have senses. I think it is possible for an instinct to be totally lacking even if the living thing has senses. Then again, a proper definition of instinct and its application to the maxim/premise needs to be elaborated on?
    You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.


  4. #4
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Gauteng
    Posts
    4,544

    Default

    I was borderline on this wrt Artificial Intelligence

    Without senses you cannot learn. They are what allow you to interact with the outside world.

    Over and above that however is ability (for instance hands to work with tools, language capability and brain capacity).

    And without instinct I believe you would get nowhere. In order to learn what is good and bad you need to have the instinct to cry to your mother, this behaviour called crying would mean nothing to a baby only that it is a reaction to something the baby perceives as bad. Why otherwise would your facial muscles contract and tears start flowing if you have never learned to do that before in response to something bad?

    So in all senses, ability and instinct all contribute to intellect and knowledge. And as I have pointed out countless times it all points to survival being the one and only driving force behind everything living and evolving. At least IMO

  5. #5
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    6,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Techne View Post
    Then again, a proper definition of instinct and its application to the maxim/premise needs to be elaborated on?
    Probably. Instinct could possible be "hardcoded" memory from past actions to sense experiences.Also, we'd need to define "knowledge", "sensing" and "the intellect" as well.

    For instance, can there be mind without the senses? Does that which knows know when there's nothing to know? Eish.
    That which comes into existence will eventually break apart and pass away

  6. #6
    Super Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    6,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Two Shoes View Post
    And as I have pointed out countless times it all points to survival being the one and only driving force behind everything living and evolving. At least IMO
    What is it that survives?
    That which comes into existence will eventually break apart and pass away

  7. #7
    Super Grandmaster Archer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    16,289

    Default

    Logic for one does not pass through your senses... its intangible and hence cannot be sensed.

  8. #8

    Default

    Logic and reason are powers, or dispositions if you will, of your intellect. Without sensory data, the intellect has nothing to work on. Well from an empiricist point of view I would argue anyway.
    Last edited by Techne; 15-10-2010 at 03:58 PM.
    You can't trust a meta-ethical moral relativist since such a person can abuse reason to justify any act.


  9. #9
    Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Gauteng
    Posts
    4,544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Geriatrix View Post
    What is it that survives?
    Life and all things living. Which I view as one entity in some ways so while you and I will pass life will go on as it is meant to. As it is almost supposed to do somehow.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •