Do babies think?

Babies don''t think in words. They think in feelings and images.

I suppose you could call it "instinct" but I don''t think that''s a good term.

Ben


IcarusIndie.com [ The Rabbit Hole | The Labyrinth | Programming | Gang Wars | The Wall]

quote:

---

Original post by KalvinB
Babies don''t think in words. They think in feelings and images.

---

What about sounds? And for that matter - ''feelings'' in the tacit sense not the emotional sense?

Babies certainly think in terms of needs - hunger, sleep, comfort (ie wet diapers, temperature, sickness).

It''s an interesting question though.

Dude, I seriously doubt that you honestly think in sentences. Yes, when you are thinking to yourself, you may speak in words, but a thought in its purest form is not words, but pictures, feelings, sounds, tastes, and smells. Nothing else.

rm -rf /bin/laden

...maybe babies think directly in C++ source code...

...

(Hey! That was a joke! Everybody knows babies'' brain isn''t fully developed, so they have to think in assembler until they learn a high-level languaje!)

theNestruo

Syntax error in 2410
Ok

I don''t know what babies think. But you have to realize that they view the world much differently than us (duh). For example, they don''t understand that when something is hidden, it still exists (spatial permanancy). They don''t understand that they and their mother are two separate people. All they care about is their needs.

Babies do think. Dreaming is a form of thinking. Maybe not cognitive thought, but thought nonetheless. Babies, and in fact most animals, dream when sleeping. Testing has shown this.

A better question would be to ask, "Do lower animals think?" Answer that question and you have the answer to the baby question.

Also, I have two children. One is still an infant - 6 months. Observe an infant interact with its enviroment for a few hours. You will see purposeful cognitive exploration. They observe things and attempt to interact with those things. Even at just a few weeks old they will show some level of this activity. My favorite is when the child is staring at something and you can tell they have not recognized it for what it is. Then suddenly, *POP*, it snaps in their minds and they see it. My baby does that all the time. It''s kind of funny.

My thoughts,

Landsknecht

Babies don''t yet have the ability to form lasting, detailed memories, which is why you cannot remember what it was like when you were one.

I think in Assembly. I''m that kind of guy.

Whatever they ''think'' of i can''t imagine it to be very complicated..

hungry ... cry
bored ... cry
lonely ... cry
happy ... smile(maybe)
tired ... sleep

On a different note: when my dog has a dream(twitching paws and the like).. i''d love to know what its thinking about.. i would assume its ''seeing'' images, etcetc..

Carrying on from what SpaceRook said, I saw a program ages ago with this kid about 3/4/5ish, and the test was that they had a dog on a bench, asked the kid what it was.. "DOG.", so far so good.. then they put a cat mask on the dog.. asked what it was.. "UMM..CAT", along the same lines as spatial permanancy.

quote:

---

Original post by Zanthos
Carrying on from what SpaceRook said, I saw a program ages ago with this kid about 3/4/5ish, and the test was that they had a dog on a bench, asked the kid what it was.. "DOG.", so far so good.. then they put a cat mask on the dog.. asked what it was.. "UMM..CAT", along the same lines as spatial permanancy.

---

That''s kind of misleading, the question may not have been clear. After all, if someone showed you a drawing of a cat, and asked you what it was, you''d probably say something like "It''s a cat." You''d know full well that it is actually a piece of paper with a drawing on it that resembles the appearance of a cat, but within the context of the question, the reply would be appropriate. Same thing with the example of putting a cat mask onto a dog - the kid might not have actually believed that the dog was now a cat, he might have been answering in the context of the question.

I believe that babies can think. As the brain develops, more advanced thought becomes possible, but just because they haven''t learned a language yet doesn''t mean that they aren''t capable of thought - When I relax, and pay attention to my thoughts, it feels like they first come into existance as a simple concept or feeling. Not a feeling like "hot" or "cold", but a feeling like "this thing is related to that thing in this way". As these thoughts are focused upon, they resolve themselves into actual English statements. The resolution seems to be a multiple step process, where the feeling becomes more and more defined until it is clear enough to begin attaching words onto individual segments, and the segments form into complete sentences, until a level of resolution is reached where I''m not even focusing on the feeling/concept anymore, and instead just polishing the wording of it''s English representation.

Language is not a prerequisite for thought... if it was, how could we ever learn it? Also, statements do not uniquely determine meanings, which they would have to if they were the sole basis of thoughts.

I think I read somewhere that brain waves can begin to be measured at a certain point in the development of a yet-unborn baby. I know diddly-squat about neurology, but that would definitely seem to prove that at least on some level, babies can think.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
I believe that at first their minds are too primitive or too empty to "think"...

---

Indeed. I know many teenagers who have still not progressed past that point.

Peace,
ZE.

Oh, so true... But why stop at teenagers? Very many of my peers in the late 20''s early 30''s still have yet to develop cognitive thought.

An even better question when viewing certain posts on this forum, "Can some Original Posters think?"

P.S. That was NOT a dig at this thread... I like this thread



Landsknecht

Do babies remember what it was like to be inside their mother''s womb? Does anyone here remember being born?

quote:

---

Original post
Babies don't yet have the ability to form lasting, detailed memories, which is why you cannot remember what it was like when you were one.

---

I remember getting my diaper changed. O_o I think babies can pick up the language and think it before they can talk. I had a rash and remember exactly what i was thinking "OWWW WATCH THOSE NAILS!"

Really.

[edited by - Dazyna on May 23, 2002 9:27:53 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Zorodius
but a feeling like "this thing is related to that thing in this way". As these thoughts are focused upon, they resolve themselves into actual English statements. The resolution seems to be a multiple step process, where the feeling becomes more and more defined until it is clear enough to begin attaching words onto individual segments, and the segments form into complete sentences, until a level of resolution is reached where I''m not even focusing on the feeling/concept anymore, and instead just polishing the wording of it''s English representation. Language is not a prerequisite for thought... if it was, how could we ever learn it? Also, statements do not uniquely determine meanings, which they would have to if they were the sole basis of thoughts.

---

Maybe you can think because you are capable of learning a languaje. I really think that you can''t think many things without it. In that point, languaje is a ''tool'' for reasoning, and this fits with the fact that dumb/?? people (people who can''t talk and hear) which hasn''t been teached any special languaje has serious cognitive and reasoning problems. They''re people whose only ''inputs'' are visual and touchs, and most are not as ''inteligent'' as the rest.

I think reasoning and deducting can be done by many animals. Rationalising things can only be done by humans... the languaje is the ultimate tool, writing and reading is the other tool (you can do complex deductions and problems because you can annotate the variables and partial results), many theories are deducted in paper and then reasoned.

Also some experiments half-demostrated that different languajes make people think in different ways. German has demostrated to be a good languaje for philosophy, as many of linguistical problems are not suffered. All of this is not definitive, of course, and actually any adult brain can ''adapt'' to what the problem needs. It is proven too that child ''brains'' can learn faster than adults adapt.

Sorry for the big quote.



Real programers are not afraid from maths! (but I am)
JJpRiVaTe (Private Zone)

Babies are stupid. Just read This highly informative article on the subject. I hear it''s from a reliable vegetable source. If you catch my drift.

"I''ve never seen that. I''ve never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the side of the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I''ve never seen that."

quote:

---

Original post by Zorodius

I believe that babies can think. As the brain develops, more advanced thought becomes possible, but just because they haven''t learned a language yet doesn''t mean that they aren''t capable of thought - When I relax, and pay attention to my thoughts, it feels like they first come into existance as a simple concept or feeling. Not a feeling like "hot" or "cold", but a feeling like "this thing is related to that thing in this way". As these thoughts are focused upon, they resolve themselves into actual English statements. The resolution seems to be a multiple step process, where the feeling becomes more and more defined until it is clear enough to begin attaching words onto individual segments, and the segments form into complete sentences, until a level of resolution is reached where I''m not even focusing on the feeling/concept anymore, and instead just polishing the wording of it''s English representation.

---

I''m going to completely disagree with you on this one. The very first thing that comes to my mine when I''m using my senses (hear taste touch, blah) is a single basic, primitive sensation. If I touch a pot on the stove (accidentally mind you) my first feeling, thought, instinct is "Hot!" and I pull my hand away. I usually even say it out loud as I''m thinking it. This happens before I have the time to realize "Oh, I just touched this hot metal and it hurt." At the time, all I know is that I have a very hot feeling on my hand and I better move the bitch before I lose it. I think babies'' thoughts are much more geared this way than to relationships of things. That comes as a much higher level of understanding. For instance, a baby when hungry, cries instinctively for it''s mother to bring it food (milk, Gerber, whathaveyou). I think the thought there is very basic. Hunger in tummy -> cry cuz it hurts -> mommy comes & feeds me -> tummy feels good. It''s not, "Boy, I sure am hungry, I sure wish mom would hurry up with dinner so that I wouldn''t have this feeling anymore"...

I think true intelligence is the idea you talked about of making higher level connections between events. We can hard code a program so that it can run a car manufacturing plant, but to code that program so that it could "know" the relationships between all car manufacturing plants is infinitely harder, and to my knowledge, impossible by today''s methods.

Babies act on pure instinct: Pain (or danger) and love (or safety) seem to be their main categories for thought. If I dirty my diaper, that''s a form of danger (my ass hurts... change me) or if I''m with my mommy, I feel safe so I''ll sleep. That sort of thing. I think forming relationships between events and ideas is much more complicated and has to come later in the development process.

"I''ve never seen that. I''ve never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the side of the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I''ve never seen that."

babes are not stupid, they are just SIMPLE .
if they feel hungry(event), they cry (reaction).
if they see something funny, they laugh.
and so on..




http://uae-arts.host.sk

quote:

---

Original post by jjmontes

Maybe you can think because you are capable of learning a languaje. I really think that you can''t think many things without it. In that point, languaje is a ''tool'' for reasoning, and this fits with the fact that dumb/?? people (people who can''t talk and hear) which hasn''t been teached any special languaje has serious cognitive and reasoning problems. They''re people whose only ''inputs'' are visual and touchs, and most are not as ''inteligent'' as the rest.

---

You are, in fact, very wrong. I am deaf, and my only method of communication is by American Sign Language (beside writing/reading). You assume that people who can''t communicate verbally are stupid automatically. It is not the lack of verbal communication that makes a person stupid, it is the lack of COMMUNICATION by itself that makes a person UNEDUCATED. The reason I said uneducated is because ANY person can learn, but if they can''t communicate, how can they learn? This bothers me because people think deaf people are stupid and isn''t worth the time and effort to teach them.

This, in fact, is what makes a deaf person "stupid" because nobody took the time and effort to learn sign language so that they can communicate with deaf people. But, the main thing that makes me upset is that people try, I emphasis TRY, to teach deaf people how to speak verbally. This changes the deaf person''s communication skill so that he/she is stuck in between deaf and hearing world. Hearing people (those who can communicate verbally and hear) consider the deaf person stupid because he/she can''t communicate well enough (I mean how do you teach blind people to recongize colors?), and the deaf person don''t know sign language because all he/she was taught was verbal, so the deaf people don''t include him/she in their group. This leads to isolation and radical attiudes.

I simply wish that everybody know both verbal and sign language so that there is no communication barrier, and there would be a lot less problems between hearing and deaf people.

Sorry for my long rant, but this is what I have to live with my whole life.

______________________________________________
You know your game is in trouble when your AI says, in a calm, soothing voice, "I''m afraid I can''t let you do that, Dave"