Hume- missing blue Dotto

even before this class, i was fascinated by the idea that there is an infinite number of in-between mixtures. meaning there's a a color in between lightblue and dark blue, and there's another color between that medium blue and dark blue, and other medium, and another medium and so on. i would say that he is spot on with this theory but the only time it becomes a problem is when it becomes impossible to see with the human eye, or if its impossible to create with current technology. ( ever try to match a color with a new can of paint? even the same formula produces a slightly different shade, nevermind trying to mix an infinitely divided color.

perception and ideas locke dotto

Locke thought that the world threw itself at its inhabitants, forcing people to acknowledge and reflect on those portrayals contrary to Descartes' idea that people focus, accept and reflect on the world. this got me thinking..

3D/optical illusions- locke said the world forces itself on us and descartes said we need to focus. Certain optical illusions force us to see one thing but when we focus we can see the reality or alternate image. these images or videos seem to be a synergy of descartes' and locke's theories but that still doesnt answer who is right?

perception locke dotto

if a tree falls in the woods it does make a sound despite Locke's reasoning. Just because a person is not there to confirm the event and its sensory stimuli. According to Locke's theory if we were not there if our spouse cheated on us then it never happened because you were not there to see the event. Also if you were to consider the fact that trees are living things and there was most likely a few animales in the area to hear the crash, it still happened because they heard it. What if we were to put a video camera in the forest? That isnt a person, merely a recording device. I would bet the tree would make a sound and would disprove Locke's theory. too bad he didn't have access to the technology we have today...

The Blank Slate dotto

Getting back to innateness, I do not agree with Locke on his idea of the blank slate, at least not 100%. There is too much proof that we are still in the process of evolution so I believe that we have instincts that are innate thus we are not 100% a blank slate. therefore I do not agree with locke entirely and it seems as though he was too distracted by disproving descartes that he overlooked simple reason.

Locke innateness Dotto

Okay well we talked a lot about innateness in class so let's keep it simple and break it down. Locke opposed Descartes and said innateness is not true. If we truly had an innate mind, we would not need education because we would already have everything we would need. I was thinking about animals and how they have instincts, which many consider to be innate. I dont think that Descartes or Locke were entirely correct because I think that we do have some innateness in us in the form of our instincts. At some point throughout evolution we were animals; animals that heavily relied on our instincts. Thousands of years later we have evolved but tens of thousands of years of these instincts being hard-wired into our brains has not completely vanished. I just saw an article the other day that stated the coccyx bone is evidence of us having tails pre-evolution and our goosebumps or arrector pili is a reactionary response we enployed to look bigger when we were threatened. We were much hairier then and stimulating the hairs to stand up enlarges you, much like cats and dogs use today for intimidation.

Bottom line: Studies have shown that education is both crucial and essential to a person's development and future, proving that we are not sufficiently innate enough to live on that alone.
however, evidence shows that we still have useless body parts which leads me to believe that there is probably innate instincts still in us.