Priori aptitudes (Archetypes) vs Tabula rasa

[Mish]

I've come to some interesting realizations after reading up about the two. In a question similar to and as old and epic as Plato vs Aristotele (Function follows form vs Form follows function) it still seems difficult to decide which has a higher probability to be the real factor affecting our determination and motivation.

Some definitions:

Archetypes are, according to Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge. Being universal and innate, their influence can be detected in the form of myths, symbols, rituals and instincts of human beings. According to Jung, archetypes heavily influence the human life cycle, propelling a neurologically hard-wired sequence which he called the stages of life. Each stage is mediated through a new set of archetypal imperatives which seek fulfillment in action. These may include being parented, initiation, courtship, marriage and preparation for death.

Tabula rasa (Latin: blank slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world. Generally proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favor the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behavior, and intelligence.

In short one school of thought favours the idea that we are born with no pre programming (clean slate) and develope from scratch, while the other school of thought favours the idea that we are born genetically pre programmed for certain tasks which need to be achieved for complete actualization. Which school of thought do you favour?

--------------

I am personally leaning more towards Carl Jung's priori aptitudes. Based on facts such as Scientists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions, and natural responses. I found this to be a fascinating insight into what makes us who we are.

[Aegis]

I haven't thought deeply about it, but the fact that the brain controls many involuntary bodily functions/systems, I definitely have to side with priori aptitudes. Even in womb, the brain develops in ways purposely designed to drive the body...I think...

[Lipp]

Pre-programmed. Did a research essay about the possibility of artificial consciousness and took it into account when comparing it to biological consciousness.

On second thought, I'm not sure if I agree about the archetypes theory itself.

[Citycat]

Def Jung's theory. You could have made a poll out of this.

[IndiReloaded]

Well, its both. Our genes set us up for our experiences & there will be some limits, as a result.

No matter how much I try, I will never be able to flap my arms fast enough to fly. Not on earth, anyway.

[lastwish]

what study are you referring to? Or are you just generally saying that the cerebral cortex is responsible for processing multisensory information, auditory information, speech production, articulation, etc?

[Mish]

what study are you referring to? Or are you just generally saying that the cerebral cortex is responsible for processing multisensory information, auditory information, speech production, articulation, etc?

Many studies were done in this area, this is one

[url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3291116?dopt=AbstractPlus[/url]

[lastwish]

John Locke's tabula rasa theory says that the human mind started as a blank slate (therefore no innate content) however, we do have the facilities to process and organize sensory information to form complex ideas.

Carl Jung's archetype theory says that we have innate subconscious concepts such as the concept of the mother figure, family, hero, the innocent maiden, wise old man (that guides the hero), etc...characters of fairy tales and myths. Carl Jung sees the parallel in myths, fantasies, dreams, literature, etc as evidence for his theory of collective unconscious.

Now...John Locke might argue, if he is alive that it takes experience to recognize concepts like hero, maiden, wise old man, and other common characters of myths and stories. For example, characteristics to distinguish between hero and villian will be taught by others.

I don't see how the study proves the archetype theory. Does neurons have anything to do with concepts like hero and villian? I don't know...but right how I'm not so convinced.

[Mish]

Now...John Locke might argue, if he is alive that it takes experience to recognize concepts like hero, maiden, wise old man, and other common characters of myths and stories. For example, characteristics to distinguish between hero and villian will be taught by others.

I don't see how the study proves the archetype theory. Does neurons have anything to do with concepts like hero and villian? I don't know...but right how I'm not so convinced.

I think Jung's primary notion was not about heroes and villains, but more about pre-programmed instinctual motivators for life stages. For example, on instinct most people will go out looking for a partner, what motivates them to do that? Jung argued that most people have built in archetypes from birth which develope through adulthood that motivate them into certain roles as they go through different life stages. Looking for partner happens to be one of these archetypes. But Jung explained there are many other archetypes in existance like archetype of a parent figures, child figure, perception of self. A child for example would not need to be taught to recognize concepts such as a mother, they are automatically drawn to the mother and identify themselves / behave as a child on instinct.

I used cerebral cortex just as an example of a physical body part with certain pre-programmed functions as supporting material.

[Lipp]

I think Jung's primary notion was not about heroes and villains, but more about pre-programmed instinctual motivators for life stages. For example, on instinct most people will go out looking for a partner, what motivates them to do that? Jung argued that most people have built in archetypes from birth which develope through adulthood that motivate them into certain roles as they go through different life stages. Looking for partner happens to be one of these archetypes. But Jung explained there are many other archetypes in existance like archetype of a parent figures, child figure, perception of self. A child for example would not need to be taught to recognize concepts such as a mother, they are automatically drawn to the mother and identify themselves / behave as a child on instinct.

I used cerebral cortex just as an example of a physical body part with certain pre-programmed functions as supporting material.

It does sound interesting. Wouldn't this also include attraction to a person of the opposite gender who has a special set of attributes?
Just as I don't fall for every good-looking girl there are some who have a special something that just appeals to me, and provides the problem. You don't get to choose, it just happens, even if there's no way for it to actually work out.

[IndiReloaded]

You kids need to keep in mind that Jung's theories were published before there was a good understanding of the genetic code. Jung died a year before Watson & Crick got the nobel prize (1962).

Anyway, you should look up memes, which is a very interesting idea. Kind of like genes, but for cultural traits (i.e. learned thoughts & behaviours).

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme[/url]

[Mish]

You kids need to keep in mind that Jung's theories were published before there was a good understanding of the genetic code. Jung died a year before Watson & Crick got the nobel prize (1962).

Anyway, you should look up memes, which is a very interesting idea. Kind of like genes, but for cultural traits (i.e. learned thoughts & behaviours).

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme[/url]

I read Richard Dawkin's ideas on memes. Personally, to me his theories do not sufficiently explain the mechanics of cultural evolution. They sound more like a biologists attempt to explain culture. With memes Dawkins tries to equal cultural ideas to a biological entity such as a virus, his critics argue that such a simplification of complex interconnected structures into a simple molecular form is simply not possible, bearing in mind that definition of "meme" does not include any clear measurable unit making meme into a type of an "illusionary concept". I liked description in the wiki you posted:

One cannot view memes through a microscope in the way one can detect genes. The levelling-off of all such interesting "memes" down to some neutralized molecular "substance" such as "meme-substance" would introduce a bias toward scientism and abandon the very thing that makes ideas interesting, richly available, and worth studying.

Though they are interesting ideas.

Does Dawkins provide any explanation / study how memes are related to our instinctual (non-learnt) behaviors?

[IndiReloaded]

Does Dawkins provide any explanation / study how memes are related to our instinctual (non-learnt) behaviors?

Instincts seem to be genetic, resulting in expression of particular hormones or hard-wired neural pathways (like involuntary reflexes). You can, of course, consciously affect those responses (or retrain them to some extent) with a layering of behaviour but true instincts are genetically hard-wired.

[lastwish]

I am personally leaning more towards Carl Jung's priori aptitudes. Based on facts such as Scientists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions, and natural responses. I found this to be a fascinating insight into what makes us who we are.

I just want to point out, science aren't really facts. They are educated guesses built on a hypothesis and accumulated studies. Perhaps, 50 years from now...students would be laughing at the contents of out textbooks. Lol. The earth isn't flat is it?

I think Jung's primary notion was not about heroes and villains, but more about pre-programmed instinctual motivators for life stages. For example, on instinct most people will go out looking for a partner, what motivates them to do that? Jung argued that most people have built in archetypes from birth which develope through adulthood that motivate them into certain roles as they go through different life stages. Looking for partner happens to be one of these archetypes. But Jung explained there are many other archetypes in existance like archetype of a parent figures, child figure, perception of self. A child for example would not need to be taught to recognize concepts such as a mother, they are automatically drawn to the mother and identify themselves / behave as a child on instinct.

I used cerebral cortex just as an example of a physical body part with certain pre-programmed functions as supporting material.

Archetypes are the contents of the collective unconscious. According to Carl Jung, Archetypes include the persona (a person's public image), the hero, the maiden, the child, the father figure, the one you mentioned...the mother archetype, and many more.

But sure, lets discuss the mother example. How do we know that a child has a built in instinct to be drawn to the mother? Is is possible that the child eventually learned to identify with their mother after breastfeeding and taken care of by their mother?

Would you care to explain more in depth of the link you see between the cerebral cortex and carl jung's collective unconsciousness theory?

[DoesntMatter]

The earth isn't flat is it?

Excuse me?