Kant's idea might be better understood with an analogy with computers. Computers... compute. Everything that goes on is 1's and 0's. These strings of 1's and 0's are entirely meaningless on their own,

Kant's idea might be better understood with an analogy with computers. Computers... compute. Everything that goes on is 1's and 0's. These strings of 1's and 0's are entirely meaningless on their own, but computers don't show up empty. All your electronics have an operating system. At this point in history, we actually have multiple layers of operating systems on top of each other. All American software begins with ASCII, and then we eventually get to MacOS, iOS, Android, Windows, Linux, etc by building upon the pre-configured hardware.So, Kant understands the human being to come pre-equipped with "software", so to speak. Specifically, we have two fundamental notions: space and time. Our experience of the world would just be raw data, but it is instead interpreted through our own software, i.e. our rational nature.This, of course, implies one really annoying thing for human beings: Innate Ideas. Yes, Kant is absolutely going back to innate ideas, even though Locke has already argued they don't exist in any form.Who's right, Locke or Kant? Do innate ideas exist? Why?Please write 250 words and do not plagiarize.