>>14236321>You would unironically have to claim that the baby learned how to see without knowing how to use its eyes.I am unironically claiming that. Did you know that babies are born blind with their eyes closed? Only through trying to use their eyes are they able to use them.
>in other words you have innate knowledge of how to think, perceive, and string together intelligible thought patterns. This is blatantly false, are babies able to think, percieve and string together intelligible thought patterns? At best they are equivalent to neural networks that gain input and are able to generate increasingly meaningful output.
>Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the sensesThis statement ironically proves my point. The senses are the way through which we experience the world, which then inform the intellect. Meaning knowledge follows experience, not reverse.
>All apriori knowledge is simply the intellect becoming aware of its own behavior.You do know what 'a priori' means right? It means knowledge that is available before any measurement is done on a system or any experience of a reality is gained. You are able to have a priori knowledge of a certain event, but only because either you or someone else has experienced it before. The very fact that you use the word 'becoming' means that it is somehow gained over one's lifetime, i.e. as someone continuously gains experience.
