…some comments on Locke’s cognitive model…and modern day theories of cognition…

In 1690, Locke proposed a cognitive model of how we think in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke postulated that thinking arises from sensation or reflection. 

Sensation describes how "our senses, conversant about particular sensible objects, do convey into the mind several distinct perceptions of things, according to those various ways wherein those objects do affect them." So our minds at birth are and empty slate (tabula rasa), that is “an empty cabinet” or “white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas.” As we go through the world and gain experience, reflection occurs.  But reflection cannot occur until sensation has provided the building blocks of thinking from our experiences.

Then, Locke defines how our minds produce ideas, which occur through sub-categories of reflection:

·         Memory – recalling an absent idea back into consciousness

·         Retention – holding a thought in the consciousness

·         Discerning – recognizing differences

·         Comparing – recognizing the similarities between things

·         Composition – constructing new ideas from the building blocks of other ideas

·         Abstraction – discerning abstract relational principles (e.g. mathematical proofs)

Previously, philosophy tried to define cognition through two overarching scientific paradigms- in Western philosophy: idealism and empiricism. According to the idealistic view (e.g. Plato), our mind is hard-wired at birth. According to the empiricist view (e.g. Locke’s tabula rasa), without sensation our mind is an empty slate, a tabula rasa. Later, cognitive psychologist Jean Piaget (1896-1980) developed a theoretical model of cognition that married the idealist and empiricist philosophies.

This is all well and good.  But what about Lanarckian inheritance? Nature vs. Nurture? Cultural Memory (á la Carl Jung)? Cellular memory that is recorded in genetic material through mitosis or meiosis? Evolution? It is evident from various scientific research that our memory is not just germane to ourselves, but is also part of our collective consciousness as living beings.

Here’s two examples of Lamarckism—the theory that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring—that I personally observed. 

1.      I share my home with assorted pets, one of which is a large green iguana (“Lizzie”). We rescued Lizzie when she was a baby.  She was bred in captivity and spent all of her early life in a too-small converted fish tank.  When she came to live with us, we built her a room (adult iguanas can grow to 6 feet or more and live 20 to 30 years).  One day, I brought her her food (Romaine lettuce, raspberries) wearing a dressing gown with a distinct jaguar print.  Lizzie became very frightened, and tried to hide in the corner.  It was only after I removed the offending garment that I was able to approach her and feed her.

2.      Friends of ours have a pair of Love Birds (small colourful birds of the parrot variety).  I had taken their kids and mine to the zoo, and we had purchased a stuffed fuzzy toy boa constrictor (not that life-like).  When I entered the room with the birds carrying the toy boa in my hand, they made a dreadful squawk and hid in their nest, refusing to come out.  The birds were also bred in captivity.

So, how did these animals know the jaguar pattern and the boa represented danger if not through inherited genetic memory?  Logically, the animals didn’t come into the world with a“tabula rasa”…and I do believe humans are no different and our human babies come with similar basic instincts.

This is why I have a problem with philosophical explanations of cognition that do not take science into account.  I welcome your thoughts and comments.  Please share.