Nothing is in the understanding, which was not first in the senses

[tahasozgen]

Hi There;
I am reading a book, and there is a passage as such:

The empiricism movement, starting with Francis Bacon’s (1561– 1626) Novum Organum, 2 is characterized by a dictum of John Locke (1632–1704): “Nothing is in the understanding, which was not first in the senses.”

Does this sentence "Nothing is in the understanding, which was not first in the senses. " have the same meaning with "In order to understand a thing, first you have to sense it." ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[J&K Tutoring]

Hmmm... My most immediate response was 'Maybe' which is not much of an answer at all. Sense as a verb has too many meanings to be clear what you mean when you use it. When you find a word in your reading that you're not sure you understand correctly, it's often helpful to research the word elsewhere- starting with your dictionary. My dictionary didn't give a very satisfactory or thorough explanation, so I tried Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

With that better understanding, you might amend your sentence as: In order to understand a thing thoroughly, first you have to experience it.

 

[jutfrank]

Kind of, yes.

To put it simply, Locke thought that the only way to gain any kind of knowledge about the world is through one's physical senses.

 

[Rover_KE]

I am reading a book ...

Tell us the title and author, please.

 

[tahasozgen]

The source of the passage is "Artifical Intelligence A Modern Approach" written by Stuart Russel and Peter Norvig.