Hey Ham, All your points are well taken, as usual. The reason I posted the link is I saw it related to what Pirsig had written in Lila and because it suggested something important, at least to me. It reminded me how narrow my attention normally is, focusing on whatever occupies my interest at the time and generally unaware of what's going on around me. But it's good to stop from time to time to pause and "smell the flowers" as the old saying goes. Now I'm more aware of birds in the back yard singing their little hearts out, one of nature's many gifts I too often ignore..
Thanks for you comments. Best, Platt On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Ham Priday <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Platt -- > > > > Those who have read and understand the MOQ realize that science >> is often a lagging indicator. Take for example an article in the Boston >> Globe entitled "Inside the baby mind." Among the points it makes: >> >> Babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults. >> >> Baby brains can take in a much wider spectrum of sensation. >> They are more aware than we are. >> >> Babies are able to assimilate vast amounts of information with ease. >> >> Children are much better than adults to pick up on all the >> extraneous stuff going on. >> >> Baby brain comes with another advantage: utter absorption >> in the moment. >> >> In some situations it might be better for adults to regress to >> a newborn state of mind. >> >> When we need to create something completely new, >> thinking like a baby is our best option. ... >> > > Thanks for the link, Platt. I read this article because I'm interested in > child development. It would appear to be a review of a book by psychologist > Alison Gopnik, as most of the scientific information is credited to her. > While the points you cite are interesting from a philosophical perspective, > some of the conclusions need to be confirmed by neurophysiologists before > they're accepted as factual. For example, isn't it a bit naive to suggest > that "babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults" when > babies don't yet know what the world is? > > Hyperawareness may allow infants to "assimilate more information [from] a > wider spectrum of sensation," but thinking is the process of integrating > information which requires "intellectual reasoning" and a narrow attention > focus, neither of which is an infant capability. I suspect that Gopnik > herself would have problems with the reviewer's assertion that "the infants' > inability to focus their attention" is a "crucial asset in the learning > process." And while "a walk with a 2-year-old" may demonstrate that the > child is "seeing things you don't even notice", this is no evidence that the > child is learning or comprehending from the experience. Also, "utter > absorption in the moment" may be an advantage in Zen meditation (the book > title is "The Philosophical Baby"), but would certainly not be an asset > when, say, crossing a busy street. > > Not to be critical, but book endorsements by philosophy journalists are not > the best source for valid scientific information. Admittedly, getting > inside a baby's mind is asking a lot of empirical science, and > investigative research has undoubtedly lagged behind in this area. But > jumping to the conclusion that "thinking like a baby is our best option > ...whether sorting irrelevant information or creating something new," is > hardly what I would expect from a scientist. > > All told, it's probably a good thing that you ended your post with a Pirsig > quote on this subject: > > "From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not what, >> compels attention. This generalized 'something',' Whitehead's >> 'dim apprehension,' is Dynamic Quality." >> > > Best regards, > Ham > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
