Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
EliPage

Why people believe?

352 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I've been away walking the dogs.  I've  provided the psychological/ cognitive reasons why children can develop concepts internally before they can speak. In a sense there is NO "pre linguistic"  phase in children,  if we a re speaking of the language  of the mind. . 

Do yourself a favor, still google it. I think you still have the time. ;) 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Answered.  We know that indeed they ARE wondering why it moves and answering their own question  in simple terms 

 

e. Nonetheless, a growing body of converging evidence is leading many to reduce the age at which they are willing to grant infants the ability to attribute simple mental states such as perception, attention or goals. This evidence comes from at least three general (overlapping) sources, each of which will be reviewed below along with related counter-arguments: (1) infants’ interpretation of people as indexed by their active interactions with others – yielding gross dependent measures based on productive behaviors; (2) infants’ interpretation of people as indexed by their passive observations of others – yielding subtle attentional measures; and (3) infants’ interpretations of non-human agents. Less direct research exists in this third area, so both sorts of dependent measures will be discussed together. Infants’ interpretation of people: measures of active interaction The onset of communicative gestures and joint attention behaviors between the ages of nine and 12 months is typically seen as the first plausible sign of mentalistic attributions. At this age infants begin reliably to produce and comprehend gestures such as pointing, showing and requesting12–17.

, Johnson et al. suggested that around the same age that infants seem able to attribute mental states such as perception and attention to people (12 months), infants are also able to attribute these mental states to novel entities other than people (see Box 2). In other work that tested infants’ interpretations of the behavior of non-human agents, Gergely and his colleagues showed that 12-month-olds develop visual expectations about the movements of computer-animated dots based on apparent interpretations of the dots’ goal-directedness4

 

read the whole article for the entire debate/discussion  but certainly by  9-12 months infants have all the skills necessary to identify agents and to attribute agents as the cause of changes in their environment.  

http://www.ucd.ie/artspgs/semantics/ToMInInfancyTiCs.pdf

To identify, not teach themselves something that wasn't placed into the awareness from the beginning. How does the link and your point's of infants awareness explain how they teach themselves something that wasn't placed into their awareness in the first place? Like God, that is not being taught by non-believing parents. You still argue the point that because of the infant's awareness of it's surroundings, it's teaching themselves about religion. Yet, there is not logical way of showing the connection. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Now you are getting to it.  Infants think and learn from before birth and increasingly as the ir sight develops    God constructs evolve BEFORE spoken language has become sophisticated. It is a childs processing of data form the world around it driven by a biological imperative to make sense of that data This is a evolutionary imperative intended to make us feel safer more secure and thus more functional.  Children begin thinking in internal  cognitve processing well before they can physically form their mouth tongue palate etc correclty to make intelligible words  The ablty to physically speak and  to form words takes a lot of observation imitation and practice to develop . Ie we think internally well in advance of our ability to speak .

At first, then, a child may gather meaning through your tone of voice, inflection, gestures and facial expressions.  Studies have shown that soothing words and tones register differently to an infant than distressed and angry sounds or words.  But it is also stunning to realize how quickly very young children understand the meaning of words themselves.  From the earliest days of their lives, children are developing their vocabulary. At this young age, the child's ability to understand words far outstrips her ability to speak words.  This is one reason it makes good sense to talk a lot with very young children... they are learning words and meanings long before they can speak!

It is a thrill when parents realize how much a child is processing and learning before she utters her first word.  Finally, they can talk to their children and be clearly understood.  "Please bring your shoes to me so we can put them on"... and lo and behold the child delivers her sneakers.  "Will you please pick up your trains off the floor so no one steps on them and breaks them?"  And he picks up his trains.  The child may not be able to speak yet, but he is accumulating an understanding of many, many words - far more than he will be able to put voice to for months and months. 

So, a child is never too young to understand what's going on (even if on a purely emotional level) and a child is never too young to talk to. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201201

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I m not arguing you are wrong with this, only arguing that it is NOT why infants develop belief in gods, or at least not the most important/ significant reason .

 That comes from very young infants (under 12 months for some)  attributing purpose to agents of change which they construct in their own minds to explain the things they  see around them. This is KNOWN to be true, not only from some of the work done with infants of this age, but by questioning slightly older children, as they enter the linguistic phase.  

/children-talk-they-understand-lot

Hence this is how and why children can form internal god concepts or identify agents from non agents WELL before they can ever speak a word  The language of mind precedes the spoken language often by several years. 

 

MW, give me an example using one of the hundreds of infants you raised from birth to illustrate how a pre linguistic infant demonstrated  they were wondering how a tree moves and self teaching themselves about god.  It seems to me you are over reaching using some version of  Freud's model of "internalized generalized fantasies." Neuroscience has the reasearch, theory, and clinical applications it is called "Attachment Theory." You have to use this as your model this is what we now know backed up by Neurobiology, in other words, we have a different understanding of the child's brain. An infant is reacting to its internal impulses to attach/bond to it's mother/ father/ caregiver. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

If anything, here's something that could be conducive to the point of assuming there is a infancy self-taught of something that is usually considered. Speaking of "Spaceballs" and that song I mentioned in a particular scene, there is something that my daughter reacted to. Granted, I assumed very wrongly. "Spaceballs", considered ( like all movies by the great Mel Brooks ) a parody of scifi movies of the time it was filmed. Mostly "Star Wars", but other scifi movies as well, Star Trek, Alien, ( in which this scene is a parady of the "Alien" scene of it bursting out of the character played by the late great John Hurt. 

I have both the DVD and the Video cassette of this movie. I was watching it one time, and my daughter at the time being three years old was with me in the room, playing with her toys and such. I went to get something somewhere else in the house. I was thinking, the diner scene was coming up, so my daughter would probably laugh, because of the intent of the scene ( and the whole movie. ) But when the scene happened, she screamed. I'm like, :o I should have realized. It's still kind of scary after all. But, I assumed she would have understood the humor that was the main intent of the scene, not realizing how it is actually showing the situations in the scene. ( Plus, that my daughter did not ((understandingly)) see the movie "Alien" in which the scene is parading. 

I assumed my daughter was aware, ( I guess you could say self-taught ;)  ) of the humor of it. But what she saw, was still scary. So if infants self-teach, she should have self-taught the aspects of humor and seeing it in a parody. But understandingly, she didn't and I should have realized she would have been scared of the scene. ( Let's not debate my parenting, I didn't realize and I still feel guilty of it, enough of it as it is ) 

Here's the scene in question: 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
16 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

MW, give me an example using one of the hundreds of infants you raised from birth to illustrate how a pre linguistic infant demonstrated  they were wondering how a tree moves and self teaching themselves about god.  It seems to me you are over reaching using some version of  Freud's model of "internalized generalized fantasies." Neuroscience has the reasearch, theory, and clinical applications it is called "Attachment Theory." You have to use this as your model this is what we now know backed up by Neurobiology, in other words, we have a different understanding of the child's brain. An infant is reacting to its internal impulses to attach/bond to it's mother/ father/ caregiver. 

You see! Now, there's the connection. :D  ;)   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How can it know that, if it doesn't see it. Meaning, it doesn't know a tree exists yet! Can that get any more logical than that? 

 For me this is just ridiculous if one is a parent. It is all about bonding as an infant. IMHO MW holds onto this idea for his own personal reasons, Believing in God really tells us more about the attachment processes of an adult and IMO for MW this particular line of reasoning offers a unique glimpse into his mind and how he anthromorphizes god. Which is fine, it obviously provides him with a sense of feeling safe, secure, and protected, but it has little to do with the science behind the development of an infants brain.  

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

For me this is just ridiculous if one is a parent. It is all about bonding as an infant. IMHO MW holds onto this idea for his own personal reasons, he probably would argue that a person would just pick up an acoustic guitar the first time and play Bach. 

I feel that is exactly it. My son, who happens to be very good in various instruments, have had applauses for his guitar solos and such. Yet, even he, when he wanted to learn the guitar, he wanted guitar lessons, in which we did give the to him. :D 

Now, there is my younger brother, who for some reason, was able to teach himself how to play the themes to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Chariots of Fire" all by himself. Must be known, when he was a teenager. My mother wanted piano lessons for my sister and myself, but my younger brother didn't get them. After he was playing these themes, he also went through teaching himself to read piano music, with my sister's and my help. 

I guess, I could see my younger brother being some kind of music prodigy of some sort. I do feel we are all aware of various prodigies through out history and on this planet. I do think that our brains, in individual situations, form differently with what ever genetics, environmental, and other elements that occur through out one's life to play in the formation of how the brain develops. IE: I believe we call them 'gifts'. But, I guess we should also remember, these gifts more than likely don't themselves right after birth or during infancy. And if we could debate this with the idea of infants teaching themselves about God and such, it took them to be aware of such things, ( God or the themes to very awesome movies ) and took to it in individual ways their brains allowed them to. I guess some can pick up a guitar and play great. But, I guess one must consider, there has to be a basis in one's awareness of how it should be played by them, to know to do that. Not pick up a guitar from a person stranded all by themselves on a desert island and play it in how a guitar is suppose to play. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
16 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

If anything, here's something that could be conducive to the point of assuming there is a infancy self-taught of something that is usually considered. Speaking of "Spaceballs" and that song I mentioned in a particular scene, there is something that my daughter reacted to. Granted, I assumed very wrongly. "Spaceballs", considered ( like all movies by the great Mel Brooks ) a parody of scifi movies of the time it was filmed. Mostly "Star Wars", but other scifi movies as well, Star Trek, Alien, ( in which this scene is a parady of the "Alien" scene of it bursting out of the character played by the late great John Hurt. 

I have both the DVD and the Video cassette of this movie. I was watching it one time, and my daughter at the time being three years old was with me in the room, playing with her toys and such. I went to get something somewhere else in the house. I was thinking, the diner scene was coming up, so my daughter would probably laugh, because of the intent of the scene ( and the whole movie. ) But when the scene happened, she screamed. I'm like, :o I should have realized. It's still kind of scary after all. But, I assumed she would have understood the humor that was the main intent of the scene, not realizing how it is actually showing the situations in the scene. ( Plus, that my daughter did not ((understandingly)) see the movie "Alien" in which the scene is parading. 

I assumed my daughter was aware, ( I guess you could say self-taught ;)  ) of the humor of it. But what she saw, was still scary. So if infants self-teach, she should have self-taught the aspects of humor and seeing it in a parody. But understandingly, she didn't and I should have realized she would have been scared of the scene. ( Let's not debate my parenting, I didn't realize and I still feel guilty of it, enough of it as it is ) 

Here's the scene in question: 

 

Great example, it makes me think of seeing Disney or Pixar movies with a young child they do not see the humor the way an adult does. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Great example, it makes me think of seeing Disney or Pixar movies with a young child they do not see the humor the way an adult does. 

Exactly the point!!!! :tu:  :tu:   

A very good example to use here. :yes: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
58 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I feel that is exactly it. My son, who happens to be very good in various instruments, have had applauses for his guitar solos and such. Yet, even he, when he wanted to learn the guitar, he wanted guitar lessons, in which we did give the to him. :D 

Now, there is my younger brother, who for some reason, was able to teach himself how to play the themes to "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Chariots of Fire" all by himself. Must be known, when he was a teenager. My mother wanted piano lessons for my sister and myself, but my younger brother didn't get them. After he was playing these themes, he also went through teaching himself to read piano music, with my sister's and my help. 

I guess, I could see my younger brother being some kind of music prodigy of some sort. I do feel we are all aware of various prodigies through out history and on this planet. I do think that our brains, in individual situations, form differently with what ever genetics, environmental, and other elements that occur through out one's life to play in the formation of how the brain develops. IE: I believe we call them 'gifts'. But, I guess we should also remember, these gifts more than likely don't themselves right after birth or during infancy. And if we could debate this with the idea of infants teaching themselves about God and such, it took them to be aware of such things, ( God or the themes to very awesome movies ) and took to it in individual ways their brains allowed them to. I guess some can pick up a guitar and play great. But, I guess one must consider, there has to be a basis in one's awareness of how it should be played by them, to know to do that. Not pick up a guitar from a person stranded all by themselves on a desert island and play it in how a guitar is suppose to play. 

I agree, in early environment it is theorized that due to stimulus, exposure, genetic predisposition, as you say lots of things can produce bright children. My youngest is sharp mentally, my middle son showed an interest in football etc. He earned a scholarship to play at University. We made sure we offered avenues to develop their potential. I will tell you both of my sons worked hard put in the effort and time to hone their gifts granted it was easier for them, it looked effortless to the rest of us, but what many forget is the amount of effort and time one puts into it. You know the saying Stubbs "look to what is natural in your child and provide a way for them to hone it." And, it is different for every kid. For example: my youngest was incredible in jujitsu, he had the right build, the aerobic capacity to hold the technique, the ability to take ideas and apply them in a kinesthetic manner, and the passion, so he excelled quickly at the studio he was winning gold medals in competitions pretty fast.

Lots of parents asked me how "I got a kid like him" and I told them that it was all he did, he read everything on jujitsu, he studied all the UFC fighters, googled everything about them, he practiced constantly, he used his ability to self teach as he was in an online charter school doing this already and he went to a studio every day, his dad videotaped his fights and he studied them to see his errors and he volunteered to help other kids master certain moves. Of course being in a home school situation he had all this time to invest in it and he was passionate, had an incredible capacity to learn and I do think it can be traced back to the attachment phase, as parents we really did our part, in the jujitsu we didn't have to push him, he pushed himself and he was 11/12 or so. Then he got older and the body changes, the competition is bigger his coach had grandiose ideas on him being some MMA fighter, but my son felt that it was better to invest in his education as the likelihood of being a pro fighter was over reaching, he knew his limitations, his body type, etc. he was realistic this is what I see as his gift. He did the same thing with skateboarding day and night he practiced, I hauled him all over town to skateboard parks all the time, he wanted to master the kick flip and other tricks, but he couldn't and he finally said it wasn't his thing and moved on. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

I agree, in early environment it is theorized that due to stimulus, exposure, genetic predisposition, as you say lots of things can produce bright children. My youngest is sharp mentally, my middle son showed an interest in football etc. He earned a scholarship to play at University. We made sure we offered avenues to develop their potential. I will tell you both of my sons worked hard put in the effort and time to hone their gifts granted it was easier for them, it looked effortless to the rest of us, but what many forget is the amount of effort and time one puts into it. You know the saying Stubbs "look to what is natural in your child and provide a way for them to hone it." And, it is different for every kid. For example: my youngest was incredible in jujitsu, he had the right build, the aerobic capacity to hold the technique, the ability to take ideas and apply them in a kinesthetic manner, and the passion, so he excelled quickly at the studio he was winning gold medals in competitions pretty fast.

Lots of parents asked me how "I got a kid like him" and I told them that it was all he did, he read everything on jujitsu, he studied all the UFC fighters, googled everything about them, he practiced constantly, he used his ability to self teach as he was in an online charter school doing this already and he went to a studio every day, his dad videotaped his fights and he studied them to see his errors and he volunteered to help other kids master certain moves. Of course being in a home school situation he had all this time to invest in it and he was passionate, had an incredible capacity to learn and I do think it can be traced back to the attachment phase, as parents we really did our part, in the jujitsu we didn't have to push him, he pushed himself and he was 11/12 or so. Then he got older and the body changes, the competition is bigger his coach had grandiose ideas on him being some MMA fighter, but my son felt that it was better to invest in his education as the likelihood of being a pro fighter was over reaching, he knew his limitations, his body type, etc. he was realistic this is what I see as his gift. He did the same thing with skateboarding day and night he practiced, I hauled him all over town to skateboard parks all the time, he wanted to master the kick flip and other tricks, but he couldn't and he finally said it wasn't his thing and moved on.

Agreed. My daughter is a Vet Tech assistant and a lover of animals, (she owns dogs and a horse) and pretty much really into horses. I discovered her love of horses in high school when she went for the Vo-Ag classes. I kind of knew of her animal love. Part of me thinks, how did that come to be? Another part remembers, how we may have encouraged it by having pets, all sorts of pets through out her childhood. Her second birthday, we gave her two gerbils. There was a fish, another time little lizards. Of course cats, and then came the dog, and then my daughter the horse here and there. Maybe it was because when she was very little we went to a little farm in the town we lived in at the time, and she was so excited and enraptured with all of the animals there. 

With my son's innate musical love and ability, I kind of like to attribute that to inheriting my music love and ability. And also, when I was pregnant with him, I worked at a place that took some time driving there, so in the drive there and back, I turned up the music, and I guess the womb was impressible. :D  ;)   

But he's hard rock and I'm New Age and light pop and electronic. *shrugs* 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
57 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Agreed. My daughter is a Vet Tech assistant and a lover of animals, (she owns dogs and a horse) and pretty much really into horses. I discovered her love of horses in high school when she went for the Vo-Ag classes. I kind of knew of her animal love. Part of me thinks, how did that come to be? Another part remembers, how we may have encouraged it by having pets, all sorts of pets through out her childhood. Her second birthday, we gave her two gerbils. There was a fish, another time little lizards. Of course cats, and then came the dog, and then my daughter the horse here and there. Maybe it was because when she was very little we went to a little farm in the town we lived in at the time, and she was so excited and enraptured with all of the animals there. 

With my son's innate musical love and ability, I kind of like to attribute that to inheriting my music love and ability. And also, when I was pregnant with him, I worked at a place that took some time driving there, so in the drive there and back, I turned up the music, and I guess the womb was impressible. :D  ;)   

But he's hard rock and I'm New Age and light pop and electronic. *shrugs* 

Indeed, my husband was a state champion in Judo, not a shocker his son would excel in jujitsu. My middle son's dad played football in high school, not a shocker that my middle boy would be at university on a football scholarship. My middle son has my emotional intelligence it was nurtured by him and me through out his youth and teenage years. My youngest has my passion for learning. Not a surprise that he would be curious and open to learning the way he is. I look back and see how his dad and I geared his environment to this once he showed signs of being sharper than the average bear. The oldest was just a normal kid, lived a normal kid life. He was incredible with kids really understood them, he got this from my grandmother, who had passed this on to me. Geez, I am with you Stubbs, I think the womb is just as important as what you do in the first few years of life, and there is always the gems we call grandparents who are silent heroes for some of us. 

I am immersed, obsessed about reading Attachment Theory these days and having the experience of bieng a mother to three different personalities it amazes me how I muddled and groped around on instinct and how much the hands on refined me, how much I didn't know that challenged me to grow. I did my best work with my youngest. And how my oldest was a treasure in the sense of putting my feet to the fire, giving me a reason to express my best and use my flaws for growth, the middle son was my refinement phase, this stays, this goes, type of thing. I honestly think I hit the top of the mountain as far as the greatest, funnest,  most rewarding  experiences of my lifetime, being a mom has been so enriching for me, considering where I came from, well being a grandma might be the best to come...

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Indeed, my husband was a state champion in Judo, not a shocker his son would excel in jujitsu. My middle son his dad played 

football in high school, not a shocker that he would be at university on a football scholarship. My middle son has my emotional intelligence it was nurtured by him and I through out his youth and teenage years. My youngest has my passion for learning. Not a surprise that he would be curious and open to learning the way he is. I look back and see how his environment was geared to this once he showed signs of being sharper than the average bear. The oldest was just a normal kid lived a normal kid life. He was incredible with kids really understood them, he got this from my grandmother, who had passed this on to me. Geez, I am with you Stubbs I think the womb is just as important as what you do in the first few years of life. 

I am immersed in reading Attachment Theory these days and having the experience of bieng a mother to three different personalities it amazes me how I muddled and groped around on instinct and how much the hands on refined me, how much I didn't know that challenged me to grow. I did my best work with my youngest. And how my oldest was a treasure in the sense of putting my feet tot the fire, the middle on was my refinement phase, this stays this goes.  I honestly think I hit the top of the mountain as far as the greatest, funniest, most rewarding  experiences of my lifetime, being a mom has been so enriching for me, considering where I came from, well being a grandma might be the best to come...

 

Gosh, I love kid stories! 

Yeah, me too. :yes:  I think, when one is ready to become a parent and go into it with a good percentage of love and interest into it, it does come back with huge degrees of reward of lots of levels. I remember feeling a blank slate with the pregnancy of daughter and seeing how this child would become and with us as her parents. Then saying to my husband, during my labor with my son, that I couldn't wait to see what kind of personality he would have and how it compares to his older sister. And on that note, how the feel now, as to our parenting and if we, if I have faltered, do they realize I feel regret and wished I had done better. They never say anything to that matter, but seeing how they pretty much grew into responsible adults, I guess they got there through the guidance mostly of my husband, and me........... I guess. :blush: 

In the end, the point here to match the thread, there's a lot in the outside influences (blended in with varying ways of genetics and instincts)  that is very prolific in the growth of a child. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

One more thing Stubbs: 

Gosh, I don't see religion as coming close as far as impacting the world in a viable way. I think parenthood is where you find the greatest growth, potential, humanitarianism,  altruism, compassion, conflict resolution etc etc. because you go through it all, you have an opportunity to critically think and act in a hands on way, it gives immediate feedback be awesome you are really in the moment, and now the educational system is catching up. IMO it is the way we raise kids that speaks about our civility and humanity and the direction we will go etc. etc. etc. when my kids parent they will come up with better ways and my ways will be outdated and my kids will say mom you are old fashioned, that was how it was not how it is now.

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
35 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Yeah, me too. :yes:  I think, when one is ready to become a parent and go into it with a good percentage of love and interest into it, it does come back with huge degrees of reward of lots of levels. I remember feeling a blank slate with the pregnancy of daughter and seeing how this child would become and with us as her parents. Then saying to my husband, during my labor with my son, that I couldn't wait to see what kind of personality he would have and how it compares to his older sister. And on that note, how the feel now, as to our parenting and if we, if I have faltered, do they realize I feel regret and wished I had done better. They never say anything to that matter, but seeing how they pretty much grew into responsible adults, I guess they got there through the guidance mostly of my husband, and me........... I guess. :blush: 

In the end, the point here to match the thread, there's a lot in the outside influences (blended in with varying ways of genetics and instincts)  that is very prolific in the growth of a child. 

We all have regrets, yet the things that we regret were the challenges that encouraged them to grow! We aren't perfect, we are "good enough." Just like you look at your adult children as works of art in spite of your regrets, I think our kids do the same thing. I say you reached the top of the mountain Stubbs. 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

It's always something we can not change and go back and do better that haunt us. The years pile on myriad such regrets both large and small. What we have to recognize, realize and accept is--at each such a point in time we, usually, did the best we could. That's all you can ask or expect of yourself. Sometimes you fail, and failure is as much a part of the essential element of your humanity as is success. Sometimes the consequence of failure seems too much to bear and sometimes success overwhelms with optimism. All the solace we can hope for is that life bestows both in equal measure, that for every tear there is also a smile.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

chase1-smiley.gif?1292867566

10 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

 All the solace we can hope for is that life bestows both in equal measure, that for every tear there is also a smile.

Alrighty who's your editor?  You don't have one? what book did that come out of ?  Yes just having fun ahaha!

chase2-smiley.gif?1292867566

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
2 minutes ago, MWoo7 said:

Alrighty who's your editor?  You don't have one? what book did that come out of ?  Yes just having fun ahaha!

Only from my heart, darling, no other source.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Infants self teach themselves that "gods" (mysterious and powerful agents of change with their own agendas)  exist.

Only the ones that are Not curious or afraid or both. I remember a great deal of my childhood and at no time did I attribute acts of nature as god or under such influence. The only concept of god was that experienced in church and school and he was in that building over there so don't pee on his lawn or swear when your there.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MWoo7

Thanks, *people at the dorr* you are a true Champion, not in armor, but a Champion of sorts to be sure LATERZZZZZZ

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

:o  :no:  HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW?!?!?!? :no:  :o  How do they do that? Do you have links that shows the investigative scientific experiments on them that show they do that? I ask, because if you remember I raised two children, from infancy ( birth ) and there is no way I have seen them self taught themselves to believe in any god. Remember, I said they became Atheists. They were taught about Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy ( remember how I explained about my daughter coming to conclusions of the none existence of the tooth fairy?!? ) 

In fact, here's a question for you. If infants teach themselves about god, a generic god so to speak, what keeping them  from forming themselves about the Baptist God within a Catholic family, or a Jewish God within a Muslim family? Despite most common religions of just one god, there does seem to be vast differences in the god of each. 

This discussion arose a few years back One example i used then was the "god" issue of the new scientists where there were many articles by experts  who had conducted studies on the very young and also pre- schoolers across the globe, trying to understand why belief is the default position of human minds.  I don't think it is still available online for free but I  do have a hard copy somewhere.

 However, it is like anything these days, if you are interested and type in the right combination of words to google, you will find some articles which then provide leads to others via references etc  The sources i provided  recently quote and discuss some of this research. 

The answer to your second question is that his involves two different cognitive processes  (this is also discussed in the recent articles i used and sourced) One cognitive process occurs pre  verbal speech where the infant's mind is processing data and raising questions well before it is a year old . Here it ONLY has access to its own thoughts and ideas and thus evolves internal concepts of god -like entities which  the experts call agents. Once a child can speak, it learns the beliefs ideas and concepts of other human beings via speech, and then it further evolves its own internal concepts into something made familiar by parents or other children,

So it was found that, early on, children of atheists  evolve and hold  the same belief in gods(magical agents of change) that children of believers do,  but as they learn to speak, children of atheists will be more likely to adopt their parents beliefs, and in the same way a child will likely  believe in and follow the understanding of god (or gods)  which its parents hold. Eventually, when exposed to many different ideas, and when it 's mind can make comparative value judgements based on logic and individual need, a child (by then probably almost an adult ) will formulate its own personal world view.

Think of it like a young child learning to play with Plasticine/play dough.  It's first efforts come from  within it's own mind, based on observations of its world, And indeed, once it stops trying to eat it, it will just experiment with manipulating the material into basic shapes like a ball or a roll,   but then its parents help it shape figures. Eventually it will become expert enough to plan its own designs and construct them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I don't care if you tell me you found out by dancing the two step with a top hat on, singing the song that the little lizard guy from "SpaceBalls" sings. I know, from a certain logic point of view, if it makes sense, that that it must be. That means, you would show me, how the result occurred by showing how your scientific information from many experts and disciplines. I could tell you about findings (that you would probably disagree with ) that were given to me by a little birdy told me by whispering it in my ear and I would have you believe me, because of that. And of course, you would say you didn't believe me. 

You're reaching!!!! :no:  Your point is stemming from infants teaching themselves. My example against you're point, is my daughter at a later age, in which children are in the process of getting to know their awareness and coming to their own conclusions. Your reaching of my daughter's experience still doesn't explain how she would have taught herself as an infant. And the rest of this paragraph of your's is matching what I have said, so it's not explaining (still ) how infants is teaching themselves. 

First, Sheri is the last person to have a narrow view. 

Second, I think you need to construct a better sentence of the one I have in bold. What does that sentence mean? It looks unfinished. 'Loving parents don't make kids respond with a similar attachment to a god construct.............'  I'm waiting for a 'and?' or a 'by' or which ever. Am I the only one who feels that sentence is unfinished? ( this question was not to you Mr. Walker ) 

Plus, then the last sentence doesn't make sense either. 

The sentence is as simple as i can make it and makes perfect sense. Sheri said that kids form attachments to loving parents, which then becomes attachment to other entities or concepts, in a transferal process. I pointed out that it is NOT loving parents who cause this to occur,   or kids who were not loved would not construct such attachments, and would not then, have such attachments to transfer to other entities.  

 The sentence is similar to this, "Exposure to   having a loving dog, doesn't make kids like cats"  

The proof for this is that many kids without dogs, or even with nasty ones, still love cats.  So there is some other mechanism than simply a transference, in a child's mind, of a parent's power and love to a god construct, at work in the formation of an infant's god constructs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How can it know that, if it doesn't see it. Meaning, it doesn't know a tree exists yet! Can that get any more logical than that? 

Read the sources i provided to see how young children can form quite  complex thoughts and concepts.It is well before they can physically speak. Thought MUST evolve inside the mind before a child can attempt to practice verbal speaking, and verbal speaking holds up expression of thought for a long time because it requires a lot of physiological development of tongue, palate, mouth, vocal cords etc to form words.  Well before a year old a child exposed to language can know the difference between a tree and a bird and probably even know the names for them even though it cant speak them yet For example give a kid a picture of a tree and a bird and call out the name of one of them. Even young children can identify by pointing that they know which is which,  but it might be another year before they can verbalise the words.  It is why a parent should speak and read to  child in proper words and sentences from birth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
9 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

By popular understanding, I would think, infants have no way of constructing anything. You say this, but don't show how or why or sources. There is no way I can see how this is true, when there is no way of logically seeing this would happen. 

That is a natural failing of perception based on a lack of specialised knowledge  I am not criticising you. Most non professional adults would think as you do.  i learned a lot in uni about early cognition and language development, but much more  has been learned since then and i had to keep up with it as a teacher . However i DID bold the significant bits in my posts from the sources quoted, and i did provide the sources  for others to read and evaluate.Are you letting what you want to believe control your opinion?  READ the articles and others, and see if it makes more sense  

The articles provided a coulpe of the  many ways in which non verbal young children can be assessed for perception conceptual development etc.  

As one article points out, there is a danger in parents believing as you do.  They will underestimate their childs' abilities and not provide the stimuli or resources which enable a child to learn language skills quickly an early. Children who are spoken to and read to, learn language skills earlier, and a child should be spoken to and read to AS IF it understands, because it quite likely does understand an ever increasing amount, long before it can speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Do you fully understand the point in the link? There is nothing in that link to say how an infant is teaching itself about God. Yes, the link is correct, the infant is fully aware of what it is experiencing within it's world view. And of course, that is mostly what they understand from their parents. But, if the parents are not instructing about God, then it's not aware of God, just what they are aware of from their parent's communication. 

Your point of infants teaching themselves about God and the link's reasoning of how the infant is aware of what it is being taught doesn't connect to each other. 

Actually it does ANd that is the whole point  Children don't just learn from being taught, they learn via internal cognitive processing, ie their own thoughts form the basis of first understandings,

To explain A child that is a year old KNOWS that it can reach out and get its milk bottle and satisfy its thirst. Thus it knows its own connection between need and action. Form intent, act on intent, affect change.

It KNOWS that if it cries someone will feed it or change it.  Thus it has  also established an awareness of the  cause and effect connection between its own needs and the behaviours of others.

It  knows that animals move with purpose  it has already divided the world into free willed agents, capable of responding to and initiating change (like itself) and non agents which are non respsonsive /inert, like its milk bottle  This can be tested using simple video programmes and assessing a child's reactions.

 

BUT while it has learned this by observation and experimentation, it still lacks a wide knowledge base and many things are inexplicable to it. So it applies what it knows IE ALL changes are in response to the work of agencies and thus there must exist unseen unknown agencies, which make changes in its world.

This becomes a very early accepted mental construct (again before 12 months of age ) Once that belief/understanding, and logic ,is initiated in a child's mind it exists for life, although it can be modified by greater knowledge and experience.  Ie we learn that many of the things we thought were caused by "magic" actually have natural causes.  The remnants of this thinking always remain, however, so that, even in educated western adults, where we are faced with an unknown, we tend to attribute an intelligent self willed agency as a cause 

Piaget says that this form of magical thnking begins as earlry as 3 to 7 months of age

an age when infants first begin to associate a connection between mental intentions and physical effects in the world (Piaget, 1954; Subbotsky, 1993). During this stage, children develop two forms of pre-causal thinking, efficacy and phenomenalism, both of which serve as the foundation of the formation of magical beliefs (Piaget, 1954). Efficacy is the belief that internal feelings and wishes are the cause of events. Phenomenalism is the belief that close proximity in time or space between events suggests that one has caused the other.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ebs/4/1/18.pdf&productCode=pa

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.