I think this whole conversation can be summed up by using the greatest queston known to man: what came first the chicken or the egg?
I mean really, did we invent God, or did God invent us?
I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.
Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.
I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.
Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.
Nope, ,there is no way you are getting away with that here. Social trust, or trust is not an innate measure. It's different across cultures, it's different from person to person. Trust is learned and corroborated by oxytocin.
A pregnant woman, a man with high testosterone, both have altered trust than they normally would. We trust people because of our experiences with them or people in general. There is nothing innate about it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.
Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.
I think my question if very deep, in a silly kind of way. One being that there is a God who made this world, and thus the people in it, or there is no God, and we need to feel there is more than this God forsaken world. It it really is more complicated than that, but can be debated that simply.
I think my question if very deep, in a silly kind of way. One being that there is a God who made this world, and thus the people in it, or there is no God, and we need to feel there is more than this God forsaken world. It it really is more complicated than that, but can be debated that simply.
I mean, yeah you can argue it that way. But as you said, it is more complicated than that. In order to make things less complicated, in order to simplify things, we begin to assume things that have not been proven to br true. If at the basis or of our simplified arguement are assumptions that have not yet proven to be true, then our entire argument cannot be proven to be true due to its oversimplification.
Nope, ,there is no way you are getting away with that here. Social trust, or trust is not an innate measure. It's different across cultures, it's different from person to person. Trust is learned and corroborated by oxytocin.
A pregnant woman, a man with high testosterone, both have altered trust than they normally would. We trust people because of our experiences with them or people in general. There is nothing innate about it.
I did not use the word trust once in my post, did I? Please explain.
I did not use the word trust once in my post, did I? Please explain.
Whatever, right and wrong, they way you described social interaction, implied trust.
Either way, there is nothing innate about any of that. It's all learned. Pick up a fucking dev. psych. book and do some reading before spouting off complete fucking nonsense.
Excuse, my shortness today.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Whatever, right and wrong, they way you described social interaction, implied trust.
Either way, there is nothing innate about any of that. It's all learned. Pick up a fucking dev. psych. book and do some reading before spouting off complete fucking nonsense.
Excuse, my shortness today.
First of all, don't bother replying unles you want to change your tone. I am here to discuss, not argue. Do not come across as if you are more well-read then people or that people are idiots if they don't see eye to eye with you. If you can't do that then stop reading now and don't reply.
I never said that what I said was innate is always apparent. Of course it has to be cultivated and we have to be open to experiencing it, and psychology plays a role in this. Now, before you go recommending books to me, please ensure you have read enough philosophy and linguistics to realize that innate does not therefore mean always tapped into or always apparent. Thanks. And again, seriously, discuss this please. If not, I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say.
First of all, don't bother replying unles you want to change your tone. I am here to discuss, not argue. Do not come across as if you are more well-read then people or that people are idiots if they don't see eye to eye with you. If you can't do that then stop reading now and don't reply.
I never said that what I said was innate is always apparent. Of course it has to be cultivated and we have to be open to experiencing it, and psychology plays a role in this. Now, before you go recommending books to me, please ensure you have read enough philosophy and linguistics to realize that innate does not therefore mean always tapped into or always apparent. Thanks. And again, seriously, discuss this please. If not, I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say.
Discuss what? The definition of innate? Use it properly and we won't have to.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Discuss what? The definition of innate? Use it properly and we won't have to.
I said innate does not mean always apparent or that it is outrightly displayed by every human being just because they have the potential to be something. If I am using this wrong then so is Sartre, so is Kierkergaard, so is Midgley etc etc.
I said innate does not mean always apparent or that it is outrightly displayed by every human being just because they have the potential to be something. If I am using this wrong then so is Sartre, so is Kierkergaard, so is Midgley etc etc.
Oh you people love to distort words. You just love to distort the defintion.
Innate: Having from birth
Innate qualities are our 5 senses, our anatomy, our potential.
Emotion, Intelligence, Moral Judgement, etc.. are all learned!!
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh you people love to distort words. You just love to distort the defintion.
Innate: Having from birth
Innate qualities are our 5 senses, our anatomy, our potential.
Emotion, Intelligence, Moral Judgement, etc.. are all learned!!
I don't think we necessariyl disagree here, just coming from different angles, so bare with me. I believe within every human being is the ability to develop emotion, to develop intelligence, and to develop moral judgement. This ability to develop them is what I am saying is innate. Are you saying that we don't all have the ability within us to develop these things? If not, then we are not disagreeing over this particular issue.
On a complete side note, someone could chime in here...if emotions are learned then why do babies cry? but thats a side note...
I don't think we necessariyl disagree here, just coming from different angles, so bare with me. I believe within every human being is the ability to develop emotion, to develop intelligence, and to develop moral judgement. This ability to develop them is what I am saying is innate. Are you saying that we don't all have the ability within us to develop these things? If not, then we are not disagreeing over this particular issue.
On a complete side note, someone could chime in here...if emotions are learned then why do babies cry? but thats a side note...
Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.
Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.
Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.
Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.
Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.
SO, if you're born with an intact amygdala, you are born with "normal, effecient" emotions? You're kinda contradicting yourself here.
Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.
Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.
Babies cry because they can? But a person who has learned emotions cries because possibly they are sad? You can't change the reasoning just because it better suits your argument to.
Also, nice try on the damaged amygdala part. You can always take an extreme circumstance to try and disprove an argument, however it does not really disprove it. I thought it was obvious we were already talking within the context of a normal healthy human being. Taking into a different context does nothing for what we have been talking about.
Anyways, I am signing off for the night in a minute so probably won't see anything else you post, but have a good night.
SO, if you're born with an intact amygdala, you are born with "normal, effecient" emotions? You're kinda contradicting yourself here.
Sorry, that was incorrect, because another part of the brain could adapt to perform that function. However, if an adult amygdala was damaged it would be a different story.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Babies cry because they can? But a person who has learned emotions cries because possibly they are sad? You can't change the reasoning just because it better suits your argument to.
Also, nice try on the damaged amygdala part. You can always take an extreme circumstance to try and disprove an argument, however it does not really disprove it. I thought it was obvious we were already talking within the context of a normal healthy human being. Taking into a different context does nothing for what we have been talking about.
Anyways, I am signing off for the night in a minute so probably won't see anything else you post, but have a good night.
Babies cry because they can? But a person who has learned emotions cries because possibly they are sad? You can't change the reasoning just because it better suits your argument to.
Also, nice try on the damaged amygdala part. You can always take an extreme circumstance to try and disprove an argument, however it does not really disprove it. I thought it was obvious we were already talking within the context of a normal healthy human being. Taking into a different context does nothing for what we have been talking about.
Anyways, I am signing off for the night in a minute so probably won't see anything else you post, but have a good night.
Yes, because when a baby cries it evokes a response from the care-giver and is quickly attached to that state of being. It's a complex developmental process.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, because when a baby cries it evokes a response from the care-giver and is quickly attached to that state of being. It's a complex developmental process.
Ok, I'm not sure it is that simple, but I have to run for the night.
Yes, ahnimus is mostly right about babies. Crying is their way of communicating, so that is what they do when they need to communicate.
When you smile, you are sending cooler blood to your brain. This makes you feel happy. When you smile at a baby, it mimics your facial expressions and smiles back. This causes the baby to feel good because cool blood is going to its brain. It then associates smiling with feeling good. So, the next time it feels good, it smiles to show that it is.
I think babies are born with feelings, but the manner in which those feelings are expressed are learned behaviors. I'm not absolutely sure on that, though. I don't think anyone is sure about that at this point.
Yes, ahnimus is mostly right about babies. Crying is their way of communicating, so that is what they do when they need to communicate.
When you smile, you are sending cooler blood to your brain. This makes you feel happy. When you smile at a baby, it mimics your facial expressions and smiles back. This causes the baby to feel good because cool blood is going to its brain. It then associates smiling with feeling good. So, the next time it feels good, it smiles to show that it is.
I think babies are born with feelings, but the manner in which those feelings are expressed are learned behaviors. I'm not absolutely sure on that, though. I don't think anyone is sure about that at this point.
I read that babies are immersed in and comprehending of the emotional climate they exist in. They read our emotions and our emotional states as it is the way they understand before developing other methods. I've read that babies who are not shown love become sick and even die. Also, babies are fused to their environments in the sense that they do not realize they are separate beings from their mother until around 18 months of age. They see their mother and environment as extensions of themselves.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I read that babies are immersed in and comprehending of the emotional climate they exist in.
Yup
They read our emotions and our emotional states as it is the way they understand before developing other methods.
Not sure what that means. But babies are very aware, even before birth, they are taking in everything. Though their vision is drastically impaired at birth, they do observe others and begin to formulate a concept of reality
I've read that babies who are not shown love become sick and even die.
Hmm, nope, don't think so. They won't be very happy babies, though. Without any stimulation, they may die. For example if you don't feed them.
Also, babies are fused to their environments in the sense that they do not realize they are separate beings from their mother until around 18 months of age. They see their mother and environment as extensions of themselves.
Not exactly. They don't have the perceptual of reality as an adult, they are even more self-centered than adults. However, I doubt they view reality as an extension of themselves. They are well aware that they have limited control within their environment.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I read that babies are immersed in and comprehending of the emotional climate they exist in. They read our emotions and our emotional states as it is the way they understand before developing other methods. I've read that babies who are not shown love become sick and even die. Also, babies are fused to their environments in the sense that they do not realize they are separate beings from their mother until around 18 months of age. They see their mother and environment as extensions of themselves.
Babies are born knowing that they need to be taken care of, and that's about it. It needs, so it cries to show that it needs.
I think what you're getting at is that babies can sense the emotions of others. This is correct. It can sense when people are happy, sad...etc. But, it doesn't really know what those emotions mean, only how they feel.
For example, if a baby is walking around and then falls on its ass, it first looks toward its mother/father to see what their reaction is before having a reaction of its own. This is assuming that it is not a painful fall.
If the parents have a look of panic on their faces, then the baby will panic. It is mimicking their emotions. But, this is because it is trying to relate to its parents, not because it really feels that way.
This is evident in the fact that genetics are considered to be the code for personality traits as well as the more commonly known traits such as physical characteristics.
As you probably already know, babies are born with more brain matter than it needs. How much of that brain matter is kept all depends on how often that brain is being stimulated. If the baby is not being intellectually stimulated, it will lose brain matter.
That is why you hear of babies who die when they are not being loved. Parental interaction is considered the most stimulating activity for a baby's brain. Studies have shown that human interaction is a more reliable factor in determining intelligence than any "baby genius" video or "educational" board game.
So, if the baby is not being "loved", it is not being stimulated. The brain loses matter at an increased rate, and it is possible that the immune system will follow suit.
An example of this is a case of some eastern bloc child I saw a documentary on a while back. Her mother had kept her in a room by herself ever since she was born. As a result, her brain did not bother to keep most of its cognitive functions. It became underdeveloped and she now has a brain that is significantly smaller in size than a normal brain for someone her age.
I've yet to see evidence that a baby will die if it's not "loved". There are plenty of cases where babies were not loved and didn't die. SIDS is not a result of lack of love.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I've yet to see evidence that a baby will die if it's not "loved". There are plenty of cases where babies were not loved and didn't die. SIDS is not a result of lack of love.
Neither have I, but I was giving her the beenfit of the doubt. Truthfully, however, the brain does essentially "die" if the baby is not being loved.
Neither have I, but I was giving her the beenfit of the doubt. Truthfully, however, the brain does essentially "die" if the baby is not being loved.
I agree that the brain will essentially die if the baby is not being stimulated wether positively or negatively. There is a lot of evidence to support that.
But love is only one kind of stimulation.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree that the brain will essentially die if the baby is not being stimulated wether positively or negatively. There is a lot of evidence to support that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, in terms of a baby's brain, love = intellectual stimulation. Love in this sense is plain old fashion interaction. Of course, yelling and insults are also interaction. But, I would think that the baby would then develop nervousness, which could stunt development in some form or another.
Happiness can have a profound effect on a person's well-being.
Comments
I think that one part of this question, did God invent us, assumes a lot about the nature of God, so I don't think you can break down the argument to this. It assumes that God, if God exists, is an intentional creator in control of everything. This is the dominant view of God within our culture, however not all views on God assumes that God is in control of everything and that anything that happens happens as a result of God exerting His/Her power over events and actions. It is dangerous to view God creating us in such a simplisitic way because already the assumptions you are making about God's nature could then destroy this notion of God. However, if you are unaware of the assumptions that lead to this notion of God's downfall, then in our minds the entire notion of God will be destroyed. We must not operate within any assumptions or any metaphysic without first realizing that we are doing so. Otherwise we are blind to things were are assuming and thus are not thinking from an intellectually honest perspective but rather one filled with bias.
Now, did we invent God? I'm not sure how this would be possible. If we have within us some sense of right and wrong, fairness and justice, that we all have innately instilled within us, can it be said that we invented it? I posted this earlier, but I think we all have within us an innate sense of the four things I mentioned already. It can be seen in interactions as simple of "you bought me a beer last time, it is only fair that I buy you one this time". I think that this rule/principle could be known by us and even agreed upon without ever discussing it, regardless of what culture we are from. Therefore, I think this shows that something, some sense of fairness and, rightness, and justice, are within us waiting to be tapped into. It could be said that these notions we have inherent inklings of are in fact God or proof of God within us.
Nope, ,there is no way you are getting away with that here. Social trust, or trust is not an innate measure. It's different across cultures, it's different from person to person. Trust is learned and corroborated by oxytocin.
A pregnant woman, a man with high testosterone, both have altered trust than they normally would. We trust people because of our experiences with them or people in general. There is nothing innate about it.
I think my question if very deep, in a silly kind of way. One being that there is a God who made this world, and thus the people in it, or there is no God, and we need to feel there is more than this God forsaken world. It it really is more complicated than that, but can be debated that simply.
I mean, yeah you can argue it that way. But as you said, it is more complicated than that. In order to make things less complicated, in order to simplify things, we begin to assume things that have not been proven to br true. If at the basis or of our simplified arguement are assumptions that have not yet proven to be true, then our entire argument cannot be proven to be true due to its oversimplification.
I did not use the word trust once in my post, did I? Please explain.
Whatever, right and wrong, they way you described social interaction, implied trust.
Either way, there is nothing innate about any of that. It's all learned. Pick up a fucking dev. psych. book and do some reading before spouting off complete fucking nonsense.
Excuse, my shortness today.
First of all, don't bother replying unles you want to change your tone. I am here to discuss, not argue. Do not come across as if you are more well-read then people or that people are idiots if they don't see eye to eye with you. If you can't do that then stop reading now and don't reply.
I never said that what I said was innate is always apparent. Of course it has to be cultivated and we have to be open to experiencing it, and psychology plays a role in this. Now, before you go recommending books to me, please ensure you have read enough philosophy and linguistics to realize that innate does not therefore mean always tapped into or always apparent. Thanks. And again, seriously, discuss this please. If not, I have no interest in hearing anything else you have to say.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Discuss what? The definition of innate? Use it properly and we won't have to.
I said innate does not mean always apparent or that it is outrightly displayed by every human being just because they have the potential to be something. If I am using this wrong then so is Sartre, so is Kierkergaard, so is Midgley etc etc.
Oh you people love to distort words. You just love to distort the defintion.
Innate: Having from birth
Innate qualities are our 5 senses, our anatomy, our potential.
Emotion, Intelligence, Moral Judgement, etc.. are all learned!!
I don't think we necessariyl disagree here, just coming from different angles, so bare with me. I believe within every human being is the ability to develop emotion, to develop intelligence, and to develop moral judgement. This ability to develop them is what I am saying is innate. Are you saying that we don't all have the ability within us to develop these things? If not, then we are not disagreeing over this particular issue.
On a complete side note, someone could chime in here...if emotions are learned then why do babies cry? but thats a side note...
Emotions are learned and some people do not have the ability to develop them, or certain emotions. Suppose a person was born with a damaged amygdala, that would result in an emotional deficiency.
Babies cry because it is one of their innate abilities. They can hear, so they do, they can see, so they do, they can cry, so they do. They can't talk, so they don't, they have to learn that. It's the same reason a dog licks his balls, because he can.
just checking out what you had to say over here
SO, if you're born with an intact amygdala, you are born with "normal, effecient" emotions? You're kinda contradicting yourself here.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Babies cry because they can? But a person who has learned emotions cries because possibly they are sad? You can't change the reasoning just because it better suits your argument to.
Also, nice try on the damaged amygdala part. You can always take an extreme circumstance to try and disprove an argument, however it does not really disprove it. I thought it was obvious we were already talking within the context of a normal healthy human being. Taking into a different context does nothing for what we have been talking about.
Anyways, I am signing off for the night in a minute so probably won't see anything else you post, but have a good night.
Sorry, that was incorrect, because another part of the brain could adapt to perform that function. However, if an adult amygdala was damaged it would be a different story.
Hang on a minute. The amygdala thing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes, because when a baby cries it evokes a response from the care-giver and is quickly attached to that state of being. It's a complex developmental process.
Ok, I'm not sure it is that simple, but I have to run for the night.
When you smile, you are sending cooler blood to your brain. This makes you feel happy. When you smile at a baby, it mimics your facial expressions and smiles back. This causes the baby to feel good because cool blood is going to its brain. It then associates smiling with feeling good. So, the next time it feels good, it smiles to show that it is.
I think babies are born with feelings, but the manner in which those feelings are expressed are learned behaviors. I'm not absolutely sure on that, though. I don't think anyone is sure about that at this point.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yup
Not sure what that means. But babies are very aware, even before birth, they are taking in everything. Though their vision is drastically impaired at birth, they do observe others and begin to formulate a concept of reality
Hmm, nope, don't think so. They won't be very happy babies, though. Without any stimulation, they may die. For example if you don't feed them.
Not exactly. They don't have the perceptual of reality as an adult, they are even more self-centered than adults. However, I doubt they view reality as an extension of themselves. They are well aware that they have limited control within their environment.
Babies are born knowing that they need to be taken care of, and that's about it. It needs, so it cries to show that it needs.
I think what you're getting at is that babies can sense the emotions of others. This is correct. It can sense when people are happy, sad...etc. But, it doesn't really know what those emotions mean, only how they feel.
For example, if a baby is walking around and then falls on its ass, it first looks toward its mother/father to see what their reaction is before having a reaction of its own. This is assuming that it is not a painful fall.
If the parents have a look of panic on their faces, then the baby will panic. It is mimicking their emotions. But, this is because it is trying to relate to its parents, not because it really feels that way.
This is evident in the fact that genetics are considered to be the code for personality traits as well as the more commonly known traits such as physical characteristics.
As you probably already know, babies are born with more brain matter than it needs. How much of that brain matter is kept all depends on how often that brain is being stimulated. If the baby is not being intellectually stimulated, it will lose brain matter.
That is why you hear of babies who die when they are not being loved. Parental interaction is considered the most stimulating activity for a baby's brain. Studies have shown that human interaction is a more reliable factor in determining intelligence than any "baby genius" video or "educational" board game.
So, if the baby is not being "loved", it is not being stimulated. The brain loses matter at an increased rate, and it is possible that the immune system will follow suit.
An example of this is a case of some eastern bloc child I saw a documentary on a while back. Her mother had kept her in a room by herself ever since she was born. As a result, her brain did not bother to keep most of its cognitive functions. It became underdeveloped and she now has a brain that is significantly smaller in size than a normal brain for someone her age.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Neither have I, but I was giving her the beenfit of the doubt. Truthfully, however, the brain does essentially "die" if the baby is not being loved.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I agree that the brain will essentially die if the baby is not being stimulated wether positively or negatively. There is a lot of evidence to support that.
But love is only one kind of stimulation.
Love as intellectual. Interesting, Ahnimus.
Well,
not really.
You big doof you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Huh?
Happiness can have a profound effect on a person's well-being.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825