This is the heart of the debate surrounding the Wolf Boy, Dina Sanichar, among other feral children. These children who are discovered without any human interaction or education are excellent case studies for intellectual development. How do they develop mentally in the absence of any sort of human education or interaction?
Rationalism and empiricism are the two opposing schools of thought in terms of how the brain develops and what human learning looks like in the void of education and interaction. Rationalism holds that the mind contains innate knowledge—a deep sense of understanding and intellect that is intrinsic to humanity and therefore would develop regardless of a human's interaction with other people or whether they were raised in the wild. Empiricism is the other side of the coin—that humans are born with a blank slate for a mind, which empiricists call "tabula rasa". In their belief, the human mind immediately begins forming and developing concepts of thought, language, emotion, and understanding the moment it interacts with the environment and other humans, and so this blank slate is able to be molded to its own environment perfectly, without any preconceptions or innate tendencies or understanding.
The significance of a feral child, then, is incredible to these schools of thought. It offers them a perfect chance to observe and study the origins of human thought and intellectual development, because it is a human that has no interaction with other people to tarnish that potential blank slate or innate knowledge. Indeed, children such as the Wolf boy of Aveyron and Dina Sanichar have been the subjects of intense scrutiny and debate to try and understand these concepts. Unfortunately, psychologists and sociologists have yet to come to a full understanding of the inner workings of the mind and how human intellect develops. However, these children give a great opportunity to study that development and observe an unguided human mind in development.