Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
No, we can't say that because 1) we haven't defined how to quantify wisdom and 2) a newborn knows how to cry, how to get his mom to feed him, etc. That can be argued as being wisdom so the kid starts out with a certain quantity of wisdom
|
Notice I said fetus, not newborn baby. A fetus is the equivalent to a human in the same way that an acorn is equivalent to a tree.
Quote:
|
but we don't know how much.
|
We know that a tree and a human at some point have zero rings and zero wisdom (at the moment of conception if you prefer). And we also know that during their life as humans/trees, at any year they have more rings/wisdom, than they did at a previous year. However, we do not know, FOR EITHER ONE, the possible speed differences at which these increases occur across different members of the same class.
This sidesteps the point about initial variables because suppose a birch gains 10000 rings per yeare, while an oak gains 10 per year....you would not know...and you could carry this same argument for the child. If the particular baby gains 10000+ points in Wisdom (I feel like this is D&D all of a sudden) while another gains 1 per year. The initial variables wouldn't matter because we wouldn't be able to tell anything from it anyways, due to the different rates of increase. Thus, I believe I have proved conclusively that you cannot look at initial variables, nor rates of increase as a method to answer this problem.