Little Minds

Babies are fun to watch. You can almost see the gears of their brains whirring at a mile a minute as they gape at some novel situation parents put them in. But modern psychology has shown us that they are not doing much actual thinking at this point. In fact, until about age two, most of the brains development goes to physical coordination. This means that the cognitive function is limited in scope until age two. This creates some strange cognitive effects. For example, an infant's realm of existance extends only as far as their senses go. In other words, if they can't see, hear, or smell you, you dont exist.

How many of you have ever worried or been anxious about anything? If you didn't raise your hand, you are a lier and can go sit in the corner. Stressing about things has become a central component of modern existance. But if you don't know about anything beyond your immediate surroundings, do you stress? For example, if I told you there was a nuclear halocaust occuring on a planet on the edges of the galaxy, would you be concerned? No, the threat didn't exist for you. So, if a baby's world is only as large as the room its in, does that means that this is the only time in the baby's whole life that will be free from stress. If you are over the age of 8 months, you will never be truly carefree again. Sorry.

But once physical development is achieved, the brain begins to form a shape we would recognize. But again, the process takes time, and until then, the brain continues to pull tricks. The ability to sympathize is gained around age 3. Until then, children assume that everyone else thinks like they do. Everyone is an automaton, except for them. And the minute they realize that other people can think and feel, that's when children begin to tease each other. That's right. As soon as you realize that others can feel pain, you do your darndest to inflict as much pain as possible. If there was ever evidence of humans being fundamentally evil, there it is.

Ahem.

Interested Converse

The best thing about listening is, of course, listening.  The best things about asking are the answers.  And the best things about talking are the opinions.

I had a very intriguing conversation the other day with someone about god, spirituality, and generally the creation of the universe.  Now the only downside to a conversation like this is that both sides will in all likelihood not completely change their faith (or lack of) based on this alone.  In fact the opinions on this subject we have at this age are likely what we will believe for the rest of our lives.

Onwards.  The outlook I expressed was pretty much that of a hard-core atheist.  Now I say "pretty much" because I tend not to be too forceful with my lack of beliefs on this subject like some atheists can be.  I am not a "humanist", I don't think there is some spiritually-greater being out there (however cozy this might make the universe feel).  I take the empirical scientist's viewpoint.

Well perhaps it is not completely fair to say that.  Science is not the opposite of religion.  Parallel Pursuits, if I may alliterate.  Therefore, evidence that science is true does not mean that religion loses some of its substantiality.  Whew, pretty close call eh?  'Cause its rather obvious that science works.  Just ask the nice people on the telly.  So it can be argued (and this seems to be the new "genre" of religious proof) that there is scientific evidence for religion.  This is not (necessarily) a contradiction.

This was the tack that my fellow conversant took.  He evidently supported the idea of god (specifically the Christian god).  Its nice to discuss something like this civilly without reverting to some of the savage religious debates that we see way too often on the youtube.

We both made some telling points (I'm not going into specifics, go find your own conversation), and both left as we began.

But as I said earlier, its that there are opinions in the first place that matters.  Not their Relative Rightness or Wrathful Wrongness (hehe).

So, thanks for your time.