In dealing with the matter of wether the mind does provide with somekind of knowledge by itself, that is native with it, we will probably fall within the following dilema:
A human beeing is born with a mind and it is known that the mind does evolve as a physical structure from when the fetus is formed to maturity. This way to prove either theory one can allways use the fact stated in two different ways. The newborn mind evolves as part of the human genetic code, but it is beeing used while growing, gathering knowledge, so if there is some knowledge, like most abstractions, that do not derive directly from experience but might be thought of as native to the brain (might not be there within the newborn but could have been present in the genetic code and resulted from the process of physical growing of the child's mind), we cannot tell it appart, in a logical sense, from knowledge gathered from experience during the time the infant's mind was still physically growing.
Further studies that do not enter the biology realm too much could be achieved through reasoning on how a fully grown human may or may not produce such knowledge. Many thinkers of the human kind have provided us with the best of their knowledge after beeing fully grown, was it already present physically when they finished growing? Has it really been the fruit of other previous knowledge native to their physical structure of the brain mixed with experience? Has it been completly generated by their own reasoning?