A Philosophical and Scientific Inquiry into the Nature of Human Development
Author: David Humble
Date: June 2026
Institution: Sovereign Integrity Institute
Journal: Coherence Studies
Classification: Philosophy of Mind / Developmental Science / Epistemology
Status: Submitted for Peer Review
Abstract
The question of how human beings become who they has occupied philosophers and scientists for millennia. This paper traces the evolution of thought on human development from Plato’s doctrine of anamnesis—the theory that learning is the recollection of knowledge possessed by the soul prior to birth—through the empiricist rebuttal of John Locke’s tabula rasa, to the modern synthesis of nature and nurture, epigenetics, and embodied cognition. The paper argues that the ancient dichotomy between “remembered” and “learned” is no longer tenable. Instead, becoming emerges from a dynamic interplay of genetic inheritance, environmental experience, epigenetic regulation, neuroplasticity, and what the paper defines as guidance: the structured influence exerted by organisms, environments, institutions, cultural narratives, and developmental scaffolds upon a developing system. The concept of guided becoming is proposed as a heuristic framework capable of integrating findings from developmental science, embodied cognition, and epigenetics. The paper concludes that the most accurate description of human development is neither recollection (which implies pre-existent knowledge) nor construction ex nihilo (which ignores inherited potentials and constraints), but guided emergence: a spiral process in which multiple interacting factors co-create the self.
Keywords: anamnesis, tabula rasa, epigenetics, neuroplasticity, embodied cognition, guidance, scaffolding, coherence, human development
1. Introduction: The Paradox of Inquiry
In Plato’s Meno, the character Meno poses a famous paradox: one cannot search for what one already knows (for then inquiry is superfluous), nor for what one does not know (for one cannot recognize it even if encountered) (Plato, Meno, 80d-e). This paradox threatened the very possibility of philosophical investigation. Socrates’ response introduced the doctrine of anamnesis (ἀνάμνησις)—the claim that learning is in fact recollection of knowledge possessed by the soul prior to embodiment (Demir, 2025).
For Plato, the soul had contemplated the Forms—perfect, eternal, immutable essences—before being born into a physical body. The confusion and forgetfulness of embodied life could be overcome through dialectical questioning, which “stirred up” latent knowledge. The famous episode in which Socrates elicits geometric knowledge from an uneducated slave boy served as an empirical demonstration: the boy, without prior instruction, could be guided to correct conclusions through questions alone (Plato, Meno, 82a-85b).
This theory was not merely epistemological; it was also soteriological. To recollect was to realign the soul with the intelligible order from which it had fallen—to become more divine, more true, more real. As Hadot (1995) noted, anamnesis can be interpreted as a “spiritual exercise” linking the pursuit of knowledge with the soul’s ethical transformation.
Yet the doctrine of recollection raised as many questions as it answered. If all knowledge is innate, why does learning require effort? If the soul is perfect before birth, why does it need to become anything at all? And what role do experience, environment, and practice play in shaping the developing self?
2. The Empiricist Counter-Revolution: Locke and the Blank Slate
2.1 Locke’s Tabula Rasa
The most influential rebuttal to innate ideas came from John Locke. In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Locke argued that the human mind at birth is a tabula rasa—a blank slate, empty of innate principles (Locke, 1690). All knowledge derives from experience: sensation (direct input from the external world) and reflection (the mind’s observation of its own operations).
Locke’s target was primarily Descartes’ claim of an innate idea of God, but his argument extended to all purported innate knowledge. He did not entirely deny that humans possess innate capacities; rather, he denied innate content. The mind has faculties—reason, perception, memory—but no pre-loaded information.
2.2 Reception and Critique of Locke
Locke’s view was harshly criticized in his own time. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, complained that by denying innate ideas, Locke “threw all order and virtue out of the world,” leading to moral relativism (Professor Fraser’s “Locke,” 1890). In the nineteenth century, the pendulum swung toward instinct and heredity, influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution (Darwin, 1859).
Yet the tabula rasa model dominated much of twentieth-century psychology, particularly in its behaviorist forms. John B. Watson famously claimed that given a dozen healthy infants, he could train any one to become any specialist—doctor, lawyer, artist, beggar, thief—regardless of their genetic inheritance (Watson, 1930). B. F. Skinner similarly emphasized environmental contingencies (Skinner, 1971). The blank slate became an ideological dogma, tied to the belief that any undesirable trait—crime, aggression, inequality—could be engineered away by purely cultural means (Pinker, 2002).
3. Nature and Nurture: The Modern Synthesis
3.1 The False Dichotomy
By the late twentieth century, the extreme forms of “blank-slatism” had been refuted. Twin studies demonstrated that many traits—personality, cognitive ability, susceptibility to mental illness—have significant heritable components, typically accounting for forty to fifty percent of variance (Plomin et al., 2016). Yet this did not vindicate pure genetic determinism either. As Donald Hebb famously responded when asked which contributes more to personality, nature or nurture: “Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?” (Hebb, as cited in Ridley, 2003).
The strong dichotomy of nature versus nurture is now seen as naive. Most scholars recognize that genetic and environmental factors interact in complex, often inextricable ways (Lewontin, 2000).
3.2 Epigenetics: How Nurture Shapes Nature
The most significant scientific development in this field has been the discovery of epigenetics—the study of heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence itself (Weaver, 2024). The term epi- (Greek for “above” or “over”) signifies that epigenetic information sits “above” the genome, regulating which genes are activated or silenced.
The primary epigenetic mechanism is DNA methylation, in which methyl groups attach to cytosine nucleotides, typically at CpG sites. Methylation in gene promoter regions generally silences gene expression, while demethylation activates it (Weaver, 2024). Histone modification—acetylation and deacetylation of the proteins around which DNA is wrapped—provides another layer of regulation.
Crucially, epigenetic patterns are dynamic. They change in response to environmental conditions, particularly during early development. The most comprehensive animal study of epigenetic inheritance examined maternal licking and grooming in rat pups: offspring of mothers that exhibited high levels of licking and grooming showed increased expression of glucocorticoid receptors in the hippocampus, leading to reduced stress responses in adulthood (Weaver et al., 2004). These effects were mediated by epigenetic changes—specifically, reduced DNA methylation in the promoter region of the glucocorticoid receptor gene.
This research provides a biological mechanism for how “nurture” shapes “nature”—not by altering the genetic code, but by regulating its expression. Early childhood experience leaves literal chemical marks on DNA, influencing lifelong patterns of behavior, stress reactivity, and mental health (Meaney, 2010).
3.3 Neuroplasticity: The Changing Brain
Parallel research in neuroscience has revealed that the adult brain remains capable of structural change. Neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to reorganize itself in response to experience—persists throughout life, not just in early childhood (Lövdén et al., 2013). Learning a new skill, recovering from injury, or even engaging in sustained contemplative practice can alter grey matter density, white matter integrity, and functional connectivity (Davidson & Lutz, 2008).
Longitudinal studies of meditation practitioners have demonstrated that thousands of hours of practice produce measurable changes in brain structure, including increased cortical thickness in regions associated with attention and interoception (Lazar et al., 2005). This means that “becoming” is not confined to early development. The adult self continues to be sculpted by practice, environment, and choice.
4. Embodied and Situated Cognition
4.1 Beyond the Cartesian Divide
The embodied cognition movement challenges the Cartesian dualism that separates mind from body. Descartes had given mind and body two different ontological statuses: the material res extensa (extended substance) and the abstract res cogitans (thinking substance) (Descartes, 1641/1984). This dualism allowed the study of the physical world to be freed from religious implications, but it also created a gulf between the subjective experience of consciousness and the objective reality of the brain.
Embodied cognition rejects this separation. Knowledge is not merely abstract representation stored in a disembodied mind; it is grounded in the physical properties of the body and the surrounding world (Varela et al., 1991). Perception, action, and cognition are deeply intertwined. We do not first perceive, then think, then act; we perceive through the potential to act, and we think with our bodies (Noë, 2004).
4.2 Situatedness
Cognition is also situated—embedded in a social and environmental context (Robbins & Aydede, 2009). The same brain, placed in a different environment, will develop differently. The same genetic inheritance, expressed in a different culture, will produce a different person.
This insight has profound implications for the nature-nurture debate. The dichotomy collapses not because both factors contribute, but because they are inseparable. Genes are expressed in environments; environments alter gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms; the organism actively shapes its environment; and the environment, in turn, shapes the organism. The feedback loop is closed (Lewontin, 2000).
5. Guidance: A Proposed Heuristic Framework
5.1 The Problem with “Recollection”
Platonic anamnesis offers an elegant solution to the paradox of inquiry: we can recognize truth because we already know it latently (Demir, 2025). Yet as a literal account of human development, it faces insurmountable problems. There is no empirical evidence for soul-level memory of Platonic Forms. The slave boy’s geometric knowledge was not retrieved from a past life; it was constructed through guided reasoning, using innate cognitive capacities (Vygotsky, 1978).
Moreover, the doctrine of recollection locates the source of becoming entirely within the individual soul. It discounts the role of environment, practice, other people, and the broader developmental context. It is, in a sense, the ultimate “nature” theory: everything is already there, waiting to be uncovered.
5.2 The Problem with “Construction”
The empiricist alternative—that we construct ourselves from nothing, through experience alone—is equally problematic. It ignores genetic heritability, epigenetic programming, and the inherent constraints of human biology. It also fails to account for the guidance that appears to shape development: the right question at the right time, the supportive environment that enables growth, and the co-regulation that calms a dysregulated nervous system (Schore, 2012).
The slave boy in Plato’s dialogue did not recollect his geometric knowledge unaided. He was guided by Socrates’ questions. The rat pups in the epigenetic studies did not develop stress resilience on their own; they were guided by maternal licking and grooming. The developing child is not a solitary rememberer nor a solitary constructor; he is guided.
5.2 Defining Guidance
Guidance is defined operationally as follows:
Guidance refers to the structured influence exerted by organisms, environments, institutions, cultural narratives, and developmental scaffolds upon a developing system.
Guidance may emerge through multiple channels:
| Channel | Examples |
|---|---|
| Parental care | Licking and grooming in rats; attachment behavior in humans |
| Mentorship | Socrates’ questions; teaching; coaching |
| Social modeling | Observational learning; peer influence |
| Environmental affordances | Built environments; access to nature; sensory input |
| Educational structures | Curricula; scaffolding; zone of proximal development |
| Contemplative traditions | Meditation instructions; spiritual direction |
| Cultural narratives | Stories; myths; shared values |
| Biological signals | Hormonal regulation; neural feedback; interoception |
Guidance implies three conditions:
- An external or systemic signal (a question, a touch, a change in the environment, a cultural practice)
- An internal capacity to receive and respond (sensory systems, neural plasticity, epigenetic machinery)
- A directional influence that is neither fully deterministic nor fully random (shaped by the interaction between signal and receiver)
Guidance is not determinism; the organism can ignore the signal, resist the guidance, or choose a different path. But guidance is not pure randomness either; developmental contexts offer coherent signals to those who have learned to receive them.
5.3 Coherence as Process, Not Metaphysics
To avoid metaphysical ambiguity, coherence is operationalized as follows:
Coherence can be understood as the degree to which developmental signals, biological regulation, environmental conditions, and conscious practice reinforce one another toward integrated functioning.
This definition makes coherence measurable and defensible. It does not require belief in a unified “field” in the metaphysical sense. It requires only that researchers observe the alignment or misalignment of multiple developmental factors.
6. From Anamnesis to Scaffolding: A Unified Model
Synthesizing the threads of ancient philosophy and modern science, this paper proposes a unified model of guided becoming as a heuristic framework capable of integrating findings from developmental science, embodied cognition, and epigenetics.
6.1 The Components
| Component | Primary Source | Role in Becoming |
|---|---|---|
| Genetic inheritance | Nature | Provides potentials, constraints, and baseline tendencies |
| Epigenetic regulation | Environment (nurture) | Modulates gene expression; embeds experience in biology |
| Neuroplasticity | Practice, learning | Alters brain structure and function throughout life |
| Embodied cognition | Body-brain loop | Grounds cognition in sensorimotor experience |
| Situatedness | Social and physical environment | Shapes opportunities, feedback, and meaning |
| Guidance | Scaffolds, mentors, culture, biology | Provides signals, structure, and directional influence |
6.2 The Spiral Process
Becoming is not linear. It is a spiral:
- Inheritance — Genetic and epigenetic starting conditions
- Exposure — Environmental input (social, physical, nutritional)
- Regulation — Epigenetic and neuroplastic adaptation
- Practice — Deliberate repetition of skills, behaviors, or contemplative exercises
- Guidance — Signals from scaffolds, mentors, culture, and biology
- Integration — Consolidation of new capacities into the developing self
- Emergence — A new level of integrated functioning
- Return — To practice, now at a higher level of complexity
The spiral turns continuously across the lifespan. Each turn does not return to the same point; it returns to a similar point at a higher level of organization. This is the developmental logic that transcends the dichotomy between recollection (which implies a return to a prior state) and construction (which implies a linear progression from nothing).
7. Conclusion: Guided Becoming as Heuristic Framework
Plato was both right and wrong. He was right that learning involves a form of recognition—that we do not construct knowledge from nothing, but rather activate latent capacities through questioning, experience, and guidance. He was wrong that this recognition requires belief in the pre-existence of the soul.
Locke was both right and wrong. He was right that the mind is not pre-loaded with fully formed ideas. He was wrong that it is a tabula rasa in any strong sense; genetic inheritance, epigenetic programming, and embodied cognition impose constraints and offer potentials that are not infinitely malleable.
The modern synthesis transcends the dichotomy. Becoming is not remembering an ancient truth, nor is it constructing a self from scratch. The concept of guided becoming is proposed as a heuristic framework capable of integrating findings from developmental science, embodied cognition, and epigenetics.
In this framework, development emerges through a dynamic interplay of genetic inheritance, epigenetic regulation, neuroplasticity, embodied cognition, situatedness, and guidance—the structured influence exerted by organisms, environments, institutions, cultural narratives, and developmental scaffolds upon a developing system.
We do not stand alone. We are guided—by the epigenetic marks left by early care, by the neuroplastic changes wrought by practice, by the questions that stir latent understanding, by the environment that shapes our possibilities, by the scaffolds that support our growth.
We do not simply remember. We do not simply construct. We become. And we become through guidance—a process that is humble, attentive, persistent, and, this paper suggests, the most accurate description of how any human being comes to be who they are.
References
Correa Rosell, J. P. (2025). Reminiscing the eternal: An interpretative proposal of Platonic anamnesis. Interpretatio, 10(1), 95-120.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. John Murray.
Davidson, R. J., & Lutz, A. (2008). Buddha’s brain: Neuroplasticity and meditation. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25(1), 176-174.
Demir, A. (2025). Anamnesis between myth and epistemology: Recollection in Plato and cross-cultural memory symbolism. Synesis, 17(3).
Descartes, R. (1984). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1641)
Hadot, P. (1995). Philosophy as a way of life: Spiritual exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Blackwell.
Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Wasserman, R. H., Gray, J. R., Greve, D. N., Treadway, M. T., McGarvey, M., Quinn, B. T., Dusek, J. A., Benson, H., Rauch, S. L., Moore, C. I., & Fischl, B. (2005). Meditation experience is associated with increased cortical thickness. NeuroReport, 16(17), 1893-1897.
Lewontin, R. C. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Harvard University Press.
Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding. Thomas Bassett.
Lövdén, M., Wenger, E., Mårtensson, J., Lindenberger, U., & Bäckman, L. (2013). Structural brain plasticity in adult learning and development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37(9), 2296-2310.
Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene × environment interactions. Child Development, 81(1), 41-79.
Noë, A. (2004). Action in perception. MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. Viking.
Plato. (1997). Meno. In J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: Complete works (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work c. 380 BCE)
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3-23.
Professor Fraser’s “Locke.” (1890, October 18). The Spectator Archive.
Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. HarperCollins.
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Schore, A. N. (2012). The science of the art of psychotherapy. W. W. Norton.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Knopf.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (Rev. ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Weaver, I. (2024). Epigenetics in psychology. NOBA Project / Queen’s University Psychology Department.
Weaver, I. C. G., Cervoni, N., Champagne, F. A., D’Alessio, A. C., Sharma, S., Seckl, J. R., Dymov, S., Szyf, M., & Meaney, M. J. (2004). Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 7(8), 847-854.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the research community at the Sovereign Integrity Institute for ongoing dialogue on guidance, scaffolding, and the nature of human development.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares no competing interests.
Data Availability Statement
This paper presents no primary empirical data. All sources cited are publicly available.
Corresponding Author: David Humble, Sovereign Integrity Institute
Submitted: June 2026
Journal: Coherence Studies (Peer-reviewed, open access)
