this 'genetic memory' seems to be common for all mammals. it is the one of the basic instincts of the mammals, though existance of mammals somewhere on the midway of evolution of species, does not change & common for all mammals, i think. if it is not the deliberate work of brain - development of this instinct and preservation of the same over millions of years, including different periods of branching-out of different species of mammals, is out of the ambit of brain.. am i right..?
Do babies know who god is?
- Thread starter crazylemon
- Start date
crazylemon
Registered Member
But what if I say they are not born with thoughts about god, but born with the instinct to ask, when they grow older, the meaning of life etc.
Faery tales
I can honestly say that none of you know what you're talking about.
Of course babies don't recognize God in the sense that we must teach them later what we think God is and how to best plead for our misery.
But that's just focusing on the symptom.
What does God represent to people? Beyond the surface, what are the reasons people invent gods and religions?
Religions originally address specific issues, such as why we are here, and is there a purpose to life. If the scientists figure it out in the meantime, I'm sure we'll hear.
In the meantime, it seems very ... pointless to say that of course someone (e.g. baby) who has not been trained to perceive a certain set of circumstances (e.g. God). The baby doesn't even have a sense of self by which to relate to God.
But there is a simple comfort that comes with being alive before you're capable of worrying about six-million other things. This is a huge part of what we trade in exchange for the ability to enumerate aspects of God.
To the baby, everything is essentially the amorphous, blank, painted wall. As we teach, we restrict, until we build form from formlessness, and, like all of us, the growing human sees the form of the latticework, ignoring the empty spaces as if they have nothing to offer. In order to cause a baby to think about specific issues, we must train the baby to not dwell in general existence. This is, in effect, cutting out perception through conditioning. The nice word we use for it is "focus", but the fact remains that what is outside the focus is not always seen, thus presenting a lower potential for perception. We're merely filtering signals.
Duh, it's real easy to say that a baby doesn't have a sense of a "higher power". Of course not. A baby doesn't know who Barbie® is until we teach that fact.
:m:,
Tiassa
I can honestly say that none of you know what you're talking about.
Of course babies don't recognize God in the sense that we must teach them later what we think God is and how to best plead for our misery.
But that's just focusing on the symptom.
What does God represent to people? Beyond the surface, what are the reasons people invent gods and religions?
Religions originally address specific issues, such as why we are here, and is there a purpose to life. If the scientists figure it out in the meantime, I'm sure we'll hear.
In the meantime, it seems very ... pointless to say that of course someone (e.g. baby) who has not been trained to perceive a certain set of circumstances (e.g. God). The baby doesn't even have a sense of self by which to relate to God.
But there is a simple comfort that comes with being alive before you're capable of worrying about six-million other things. This is a huge part of what we trade in exchange for the ability to enumerate aspects of God.
To the baby, everything is essentially the amorphous, blank, painted wall. As we teach, we restrict, until we build form from formlessness, and, like all of us, the growing human sees the form of the latticework, ignoring the empty spaces as if they have nothing to offer. In order to cause a baby to think about specific issues, we must train the baby to not dwell in general existence. This is, in effect, cutting out perception through conditioning. The nice word we use for it is "focus", but the fact remains that what is outside the focus is not always seen, thus presenting a lower potential for perception. We're merely filtering signals.
Duh, it's real easy to say that a baby doesn't have a sense of a "higher power". Of course not. A baby doesn't know who Barbie® is until we teach that fact.
:m:,
Tiassa
crazylemon
Registered Member
its easy to say it but no ones gone and proved it ? you don't have to teach a baby who their mother is they just know.
crazylemon
Registered Member
we're only trying! anyway i ask to get different points of view ! ?
So you're saying that if you take a newborn, and give it to a woman that isn't it's mother, it will know? I think you're mistaken. They learn familiarity later in their life, once they become aware of their surroundings. Most animals are aware of their surroundings earlier than humans are, and therefore become familiar with their maternal figure more quickly, whether it be by smell, sound, or sight.
crazylemon
Registered Member
well yes, i was saying that. But on second thought i suppose the baby doesn't exactly know that the nurse who delivers it isn't the mother... hmmmmmm. But i still think that the baby has kina a built in sense to know
Yet a Looby to thee, and a Booby to me, a Balassius Ruby to GOD, may be!
Immediately after her birth, Emma Grace treated every kind arm the same, and gave no preference to either her mother or I. After 48 hours, basic electrical associations had her reacting to Tig and I directly, but even still, at three and a half months, she responds specifically to her mother, her father, her grandmother, her "Aunt" Erin, her great aunt, a couple of cousins on my side, and even her great uncle. She has not yet learned the specific association of her mother and father. Right now it's a matter of conditions. Secure/insecure. Hungry/satisfied. Wet/dry. &c, &c, &c.
And even though Tig stopped breast-feeding out of necessity, a boob is still a boob is still a boob, and even though there's no milk to be had, Emma Grace will go straight after the tit almost regardless of what woman is holding her. She'll even slobber right over my nipple when I'm holding her. It's less "mother" and more instinct.
I point to James R's point: I don't think babies, or children, have any conception of a god until they have the concept explained to them. Whether they have any innate feeling of a higher power of some sort is debateable.
It's a very good point on the one hand, but I would respond that the idea of a "higher power" even has to be taught. A crying baby is not a matter for authority. It is a matter of need. You cannot cajole a baby that is determined to cry into silence. You cannot reason with a baby that is upset. And though I have not and do not plan to undertake the experiment, I'm pretty sure that you can only beat a baby into silence if you beat it to death or into a coma. It's not about authority.
The wall and the lattice are metaphors I intend to continue developing.
In the meantime, apropos the sound analogy, the baby hears sound. It does not recognize B-flat as a note until we teach it to. And it does not distinguish quarter-tones from "notes" until we teach it to.
Babies can hear music. But they can neither read a score nor care what one is.
What the baby is "aware" of is merely its own condition, unfiltered by constructed priority. We teach it the classifications and the ideas of why those classifications are relevant.
For instance, I was literally taught that there are no notes between, for instance, A-sharp and B.
To the other, much of my favorite music these days includes quarter-tones, and some of it even relies on them.
(For those of you who have no idea what I'm referring to, listen first to a string outfit play Vivaldi or some-such. And then go listen to the Passion Sources album compiled by Peter Gabriel, featuring Shankar and the Epidemics, and others. You'll hear a lot of notes that classical music doesn't generally regard.)
It's not the speculations and ideas that I doubt. It's the bases of them.
It's kind of like watching the architect, the contractor, and the customer all standing around talking about building a sturdy house while failing to consider the process of digging and setting a foundation.
Does a baby recognize God as I knew It when I was, say, 13? No, of course not. I wouldn't deign to seek that answer.
But that condition of the baby is part of what people seek in God. It's a hard thing to explain because it's one step removed from vulgar faith.
But gods generally represent something, and these representations usually have to do with asserted resolutions of life purpose and other such issues which transcend objective consideration but which people cannot dismiss as irrelevant. Beyond all that, though, is an issue of what or why. It has something to do with people wishing for the simplicity of the untainted mind while having the advanced (tainted) capability to enjoy it.
Remember, our Sin, according to at least one major mythology, was knowledge. The separation from God that comes by that reading is part of what I'm talking about. It's not a punishment from some being on high, but a natural result of a trade-off. The ability to recognize knowledge necessarily means that a portion of mind is now spent considering issues of knowledge instead of merely experiencing the world.
So when I accuse that people don't know what they're talking about, it might be more accurate to say that they are wrongly focused, and that my reaction also includes the long human history of being wrongly-focused when it comes to ideas of God.
:m:,
Tiassa
Note on the title: See The Looby, Psalm 39, Perdurabo.
This is an associative thing. I'm adopted; I wouldn't know my biological mother from Jesus. Well, except for the gender thing. I wouldn't know my mother from Rabia.
Immediately after her birth, Emma Grace treated every kind arm the same, and gave no preference to either her mother or I. After 48 hours, basic electrical associations had her reacting to Tig and I directly, but even still, at three and a half months, she responds specifically to her mother, her father, her grandmother, her "Aunt" Erin, her great aunt, a couple of cousins on my side, and even her great uncle. She has not yet learned the specific association of her mother and father. Right now it's a matter of conditions. Secure/insecure. Hungry/satisfied. Wet/dry. &c, &c, &c.
And even though Tig stopped breast-feeding out of necessity, a boob is still a boob is still a boob, and even though there's no milk to be had, Emma Grace will go straight after the tit almost regardless of what woman is holding her. She'll even slobber right over my nipple when I'm holding her. It's less "mother" and more instinct.
I know, I know. It's just that people seem to be wondering if a baby inherently holds the sense of God that it has taken the people their whole lives to develop.
I point to James R's point: I don't think babies, or children, have any conception of a god until they have the concept explained to them. Whether they have any innate feeling of a higher power of some sort is debateable.
It's a very good point on the one hand, but I would respond that the idea of a "higher power" even has to be taught. A crying baby is not a matter for authority. It is a matter of need. You cannot cajole a baby that is determined to cry into silence. You cannot reason with a baby that is upset. And though I have not and do not plan to undertake the experiment, I'm pretty sure that you can only beat a baby into silence if you beat it to death or into a coma. It's not about authority.
The wall and the lattice are metaphors I intend to continue developing.
In the meantime, apropos the sound analogy, the baby hears sound. It does not recognize B-flat as a note until we teach it to. And it does not distinguish quarter-tones from "notes" until we teach it to.
Babies can hear music. But they can neither read a score nor care what one is.
What the baby is "aware" of is merely its own condition, unfiltered by constructed priority. We teach it the classifications and the ideas of why those classifications are relevant.
For instance, I was literally taught that there are no notes between, for instance, A-sharp and B.
To the other, much of my favorite music these days includes quarter-tones, and some of it even relies on them.
(For those of you who have no idea what I'm referring to, listen first to a string outfit play Vivaldi or some-such. And then go listen to the Passion Sources album compiled by Peter Gabriel, featuring Shankar and the Epidemics, and others. You'll hear a lot of notes that classical music doesn't generally regard.)
It's not the speculations and ideas that I doubt. It's the bases of them.
It's kind of like watching the architect, the contractor, and the customer all standing around talking about building a sturdy house while failing to consider the process of digging and setting a foundation.
Does a baby recognize God as I knew It when I was, say, 13? No, of course not. I wouldn't deign to seek that answer.
But that condition of the baby is part of what people seek in God. It's a hard thing to explain because it's one step removed from vulgar faith.
But gods generally represent something, and these representations usually have to do with asserted resolutions of life purpose and other such issues which transcend objective consideration but which people cannot dismiss as irrelevant. Beyond all that, though, is an issue of what or why. It has something to do with people wishing for the simplicity of the untainted mind while having the advanced (tainted) capability to enjoy it.
Remember, our Sin, according to at least one major mythology, was knowledge. The separation from God that comes by that reading is part of what I'm talking about. It's not a punishment from some being on high, but a natural result of a trade-off. The ability to recognize knowledge necessarily means that a portion of mind is now spent considering issues of knowledge instead of merely experiencing the world.
So when I accuse that people don't know what they're talking about, it might be more accurate to say that they are wrongly focused, and that my reaction also includes the long human history of being wrongly-focused when it comes to ideas of God.
:m:,
Tiassa
Note on the title: See The Looby, Psalm 39, Perdurabo.
Children first learn concepts, and then learn the symbols to communicate those concepts. This is how the brain of a child works. As the child grows and become more aware of the environment and mainly on his/her part in the world, the focus of learning change from concepts to symbols. This happens in the age of about 5 years old. In some cases it can happen as early as 4 or as late as 7, but the average is pretty much 5.
The concept-based brain is able to store information much faster then the symbol-based brain. I would guestimate that the concept-based brain works at least some 10 times faster. That's how children learn so fast. This also enables the brain to work with different types of symbol (i.e. English and Portuguese) at the same time. So a child is more able to learn two or more languages then an adult. Also, the information is more flexible and it is easier to store and analize. The brain of a child can make much more connection then the brain of an adult. In this sense, you can use symbolical language with children and they won't have much difficulty to understand it. The brain of child works much better then the brain of an adult.
This, of course, means that they are more able to learn about God and even to communicate easierly with God, since God also uses a very conceptual based language, instead of the symbolic that adults use.
I've been researching about child psychology and other stuff about children since February...
The concept-based brain is able to store information much faster then the symbol-based brain. I would guestimate that the concept-based brain works at least some 10 times faster. That's how children learn so fast. This also enables the brain to work with different types of symbol (i.e. English and Portuguese) at the same time. So a child is more able to learn two or more languages then an adult. Also, the information is more flexible and it is easier to store and analize. The brain of a child can make much more connection then the brain of an adult. In this sense, you can use symbolical language with children and they won't have much difficulty to understand it. The brain of child works much better then the brain of an adult.
This, of course, means that they are more able to learn about God and even to communicate easierly with God, since God also uses a very conceptual based language, instead of the symbolic that adults use.
I've been researching about child psychology and other stuff about children since February...
crazylemon
Registered Member
it sounds very interesting, but please can you explain more what you actually mean my symbol and concept, then i think i might understand it more ! thank you !
Symbol: Word. A system of symbols is called language. Each one of those symbols carry meanings. Those meanings by themselves are what we call concepts. A symbol may not carry more then one concept.
Concept: A meaningful particular idea. A concept may be carried by more then one symbol.
For example, a chair. The symbol of the chair is the word "chair" in the English language. The symbol of the chair in the Portuguese language is the word "cadeira". The explicit concept of chair is a place to sit down. The implicit concept cannot be communicated since it has no symbol, but the concept is not changed.
Concept: A meaningful particular idea. A concept may be carried by more then one symbol.
For example, a chair. The symbol of the chair is the word "chair" in the English language. The symbol of the chair in the Portuguese language is the word "cadeira". The explicit concept of chair is a place to sit down. The implicit concept cannot be communicated since it has no symbol, but the concept is not changed.
He doesn't communicate always by words, but instead He uses a lot of concepts. It is easier to talk with Him if you try to find Him with a more concept-based kind of communication. It is not easy, since this is beyond language. This is shown in the parables Jesus uses. A conept-based mind can understand parables in a much easier and deeper way then a symbol-based one.
PS: before starting a discussion on the subject, PLEASE, learn about it...
PS: before starting a discussion on the subject, PLEASE, learn about it...
Tiassa, I forgot you had a baby! Congratulations! Maybe you should've taught her the hard way by letting her try to breastfeed from your tits? Seriously, that way she would've recognised the difference very quickly. But then again, trying to breastfeed from Tig would produce similar results now, according to you. So I guess it's not that way. Oh well.
By the way, tell the baby I said hi and that if it grows up to be a right-wing person, I'll kick its ass in debate.
By the way, tell the baby I said hi and that if it grows up to be a right-wing person, I'll kick its ass in debate.
Oh, by the way, it's harmful (to the baby) to give a baby weed. A definite no-no.
Don't worry, GIL
Her hands aren't big enough and her muscles not strong enough to stabilize the bong, much less load it. And if she can strike a lighter, well, I'll celebrate her cognition and skills before I decide to worry about a budding pyromaniac
:m:,
Tiassa
Her hands aren't big enough and her muscles not strong enough to stabilize the bong, much less load it. And if she can strike a lighter, well, I'll celebrate her cognition and skills before I decide to worry about a budding pyromaniac
:m:,
Tiassa
Re: Don't worry, GIL
I was thinking maybe you'd get a little experimental and help her with the bong.
Anyhow... yeah... uhh... ok.
Originally posted by tiassa
Her hands aren't big enough and her muscles not strong enough to stabilize the bong, much less load it. And if she can strike a lighter, well, I'll celebrate her cognition and skills before I decide to worry about a budding pyromaniac
:m:,
Tiassa
I was thinking maybe you'd get a little experimental and help her with the bong.
Anyhow... yeah... uhh... ok.
Thelema
Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.
I don't doubt she'll learn to raid my stash. It would be a violation of sovereignty to get her stoned for the hell of it. Besides, early exposure can lead to an allergy in adolescence and adulthood. If I did something to make her unable to smoke pot, I would never forgive myself.
It's all a matter of priorities.
:m:,
Tiassa
Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.
I don't doubt she'll learn to raid my stash. It would be a violation of sovereignty to get her stoned for the hell of it. Besides, early exposure can lead to an allergy in adolescence and adulthood. If I did something to make her unable to smoke pot, I would never forgive myself.
It's all a matter of priorities.
:m:,
Tiassa
Originally posted by crazylemon
Babies are born with an instinct to know who their mother is and they respond to her even in early stages.
They want food, they would except it from a large rat, and think that is their mother.
Do you think that babies are born with the same instinct about god and as they grow older they learn to ask questions about what the meaning of life is and if god really exists?
Babies are born dependant first on their mother, father and family (ideally), and they understand that these people play and integeral role in their moment to moment development.
Love
Jan Ardena.