From Tabula Rasa to Data Cloud: Locke, Artificial Intelligence, and the Origin of Our Digital "Ideas"
- Leandro Waldvogel
- Apr 6
- 4 min read
Introduction: The Blank Slate Meets the Modern Mind
When I first entered the historic building of the University of São Paulo Law School, affectionately known as "São Francisco," I never imagined that a philosophical discussion from the 17th century could become so relevant today. I clearly remember a seminar where we discussed John Locke, the English philosopher who argued that our minds were a tabula rasa – a blank slate that only gained color through experience. That fascinating idea stayed with me. As a student, I was intrigued by the thought that all our knowledge could come exclusively from interaction with the world.
Today, faced with artificial intelligences that seem to learn with superhuman speed and efficiency, that old discussion returns with redoubled force. Are modern AIs, absorbing billions of data points every day, the newest form of tabula rasa? Does John Locke, with his radically empirical vision of human knowledge, offer us a useful lens to understand these impressive machines?
In this article, far from being a rigorous academic thesis, I propose a personal reflection on human learning and machine learning from the perspective of Locke's ideas.
Artificial "Sensation": Does the Data Deluge Replace the World?
For Locke, sensation is the starting point of knowledge. To experience the world is to see the vibrant blue of the sky, feel the comforting warmth of the sun, hear the precise tone of a melody. These are direct, qualitative experiences, viscerally lived through the senses.
Artificial intelligences also have their own form of "sensation." They feed on enormous quantities of data – texts, images, sounds – absorbed without rest, in a true digital deluge. However, here lies a crucial difference: AI doesn't directly feel the world; it receives filtered, digital representations. Its perception is mediated by processed data, not experienced. For it, there is no true warmth of the sun nor joy in the deep blue of the sky; there are only quantitative representations, pixels, and vectors.
Moreover, there is something essentially human that AI does not possess: a physical body. Locke believed that direct bodily experience shapes our understanding and perception. We humans experience hunger, cold, pain, pleasure. These bodily sensations give emotional color to our ideas, creating what philosophers call qualia, the subjective qualities of our experiences. AI, however sophisticated it may be, does not possess qualia. Its world is exclusively quantitative.
Thus, AI's "sensation" is powerful in scale and capacity, but radically different from the rich, embodied human experience described by Locke. But if AI's 'sensation' differs from ours, what about its 'internal' processes?
Algorithmic "Reflection": Does the Machine Think About Itself?
For Locke, beyond sensation, we have reflection – the mind's ability to observe its own internal operations: thinking, doubting, wanting. This conscious introspection allows us to create complex ideas about who we are and how we think.
Artificial intelligences also seem to perform something similar to reflection. They optimize their own performance, "correct themselves" by evaluating results, and "learn" continuously. At first glance, this sounds like self-observation. But here lies another profound difference: AI does not consciously reflect. It does not "doubt" or "think" about its internal functioning as a human would. Instead, it executes pre-defined algorithms that adjust its behavior based on statistical calculations.
Locke saw ideas as mental contents that we consciously possess. AI, however, does not truly possess its ideas. It manipulates them, simulates them, but does not understand them in a subjective or conscious manner. In other words, AI masters complex patterns, but possesses no intrinsic meaning. Algorithmic reflection, therefore, does not equate to the conscious introspection that Locke described.
Structure and Construction: Tabula Rasa or Intelligent Design?
Locke believed that complex ideas are actively constructed by the human mind through the combination, comparison, and abstraction of simple ideas obtained through sensations. This suggests an active mind, but one initially empty.
AI also constructs complex representations. When recognizing a face from pixels, for example, it combines simple patterns into more elaborate structures. However, unlike what Locke proposed, no AI begins from absolute emptiness. Even before receiving its first data, it already possesses a defined architectural structure – algorithms, neural networks – conceived by humans.
This "architectural skeleton" raises an important question: is AI, then, a direct challenge to the tabula rasa thesis? Or could this initial structure be considered merely as the natural cognitive faculties that Locke would accept? The difference, perhaps, is that AI structures are defined deliberately and intentionally by human engineers. They are designed not just to enable learning, but to explicitly direct it.
Therefore, the construction of ideas in AI occurs under specific algorithmic and statistical rules, far from the conscious and creative combination that Locke spoke of.
Conclusion: Final Reflections Between Silicon and Philosophy
Throughout this reflection, we revisited Locke's central ideas – sensation, reflection, and the tabula rasa – comparing them to artificial intelligence learning. We discovered more differences than similarities. The machines' "sensation" is quantitative and mediated, and their "reflection" is devoid of subjective consciousness. Their slate was never truly blank; it was carefully designed.
Nevertheless, using Locke to think about AI remains deeply valuable. It prevents us from easily falling into the anthropomorphization of these powerful technologies, forcing us to question what it really means to learn, understand, and, fundamentally, what it means to possess a mind.
Going back to the beginning, in that room at São Francisco, the questions that arose about the origin of ideas remain intriguing, perhaps now more complex and rich through the perspective of artificial intelligences. After all, in examining these systems, we are also re-examining ourselves, questioning our own nature and the limits of our knowledge.
Thus, while machines rapidly advance toward the future, Locke continues to be an indispensable inspiration for maintaining a critical reflection on the deeper meaning of intelligence, be it natural or artificial.
Commentaires