May 30, 2025
The Wisdom of Babies
Timothy Birdnow
The philosopher Plato argued that all learning was remembering. He believed we came from a place where all knowledge was available and by being incarnated we forgot most of it.
Not sure if THAT is correct, but this article certainly buttresses the case for Plato's theory.
Babies as young as 15 months can understand the meaning of words, even when they are unfamiliar with the things being discussed and have not seen them, according to new research.
This is actually fairly obvious; language would be impossible if babies couldn't do this; they would never build up a sufficient base of knowledge to communicate effectively.
From the article:
This suggests to me that the babies aren't learning from the ground up. Of course no scientist would dare say that because it flies in the face of the materialism of modern science and suggests there might be more to reality than what can be seen, touched, and measured.
One of the problems in many sciences these days, and particularly evolutionary biology, is that it is all inductive; they start with a group of facts and work their way up. In bygone days deduction was equally important; start with a fundamental rule and work your way down. Deductive reasoning tells us that, say, a fetus is a human being because we know what a human being is and we know where it comes from - a fetus in the beginning. But modern man is crazy, having eschewed such deductive reasoning so you have scientists claiming it's NOT a human being because we haven't seen it develop yet.
That's one example. There are plenty of others. The whole transgender business is another such example.
We used to believe in Natural Law, which said there were some principles that were built into the universe, self-evident, and you could deduce a great deal from those laws. But our modern world is entirely pragmatic - challenges every self-evident thing because Copernicus challenged geocentrism and was correct. Modern science is completely bound up in this iconoclasm, the idea that everything can and should be challenged all the time. Frederich Nietzche argued that Science would fail precisely because of this iconoclasty; it would eventually stop believing in the core assumptions that lead to seeking Truth. He was right; the modernists have systematically undermined the basic principles of science. That's why they find themselves unable to actually define male and female, for instance. They have come to disbelieve in ANY concrete reality.
Relativism is all now.
So they won't admit this may, just may, be proof of life beyond this universe. It's just not possible if you can't expand your mind beyond the mud.
I think this suggests immortality and the existence of God, if you ask me.
BTW there are many other clues to suggest babies and small children have access to knowledge outside of our frame of reference. All small children believe in beings that are not physically present, for example. "Imaginary friends" are ubiquitous. Why? Seems to me an unformed brain would be the exact opposite, lacking the creativity to imagine people who do not exist. But children do, and they lose that as they grow up.
There is also the outrage and unfairness that all children possess. Where does that come from? The universe is grossly unfair, and there is no evolutionary benefit to being outraged at unfairness. But there you have it. As children get older they lose that too.
I could go on but the point is made. I think this is just another proof that God exists, that there is an unseen world beyond birth and the grave.
Of course Darwinists will sneer and mock me because "there is no proof" when in fact this IS the proof, or one piece of evidence, anyway.
The philosopher Plato argued that all learning was remembering. He believed we came from a place where all knowledge was available and by being incarnated we forgot most of it.
Not sure if THAT is correct, but this article certainly buttresses the case for Plato's theory.
Babies as young as 15 months can understand the meaning of words, even when they are unfamiliar with the things being discussed and have not seen them, according to new research.
This is actually fairly obvious; language would be impossible if babies couldn't do this; they would never build up a sufficient base of knowledge to communicate effectively.
From the article:
Human language enables us to learn the meanings of words for things we’ve never directly experienced. We do this effortlessly in everyday conversation, often using context to infer the meaning of unfamiliar words.
But how early in life does this ability emerge? And how do we form mental representations of objects or events we cannot see?
A new study by developmental scientists at Northwestern University and Harvard University provides the first evidence that infants as young as 15 months can recognize an object they’ve learned about through language, even if the object remains hidden.
Imagine an infant playing with blocks on the floor while listening to parents talk about kumquats in a conversation about more familiar fruits like apples and bananas. Might the infant form an initial representation, or gist, about what kumquat means — something edible, likely a fruit? Can they then use this initial gist later when the infant first sees a novel fruit? These are the questions the researchers sought to answer.
Word Learning Without Visual Reference
"Many people believe that success in word learning requires that the infant ‘map’ a new word to an object that is physically present (e.g., "Look at the kumquat!”). But in the natural course of a day, it is very common for us — and for infants — to hear words when the objects to which they refer to are not available to our immediate perception,” said senior author Sandra Waxman. "We’re asking whether infants, too, can use the conversational contexts in which a word occurs to begin to learn their meaning.”
Waxman is the Louis W. Menk Professor of Psychology, director of the Infant and Child Development Center and an Institute for Policy Research Fellow at Northwestern. The study’s co-author is Elena Luchkina, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern, and now a research scientist at Harvard.
The researchers engaged 134 infants, 67 each at 12 months and 15 months in a three-part task. First, the researchers presented infants with words they understand, paired with an image of the object to which it referred (e.g., apple, banana, grapes). Next, infants heard a new word while the image of a novel object (e.g., a kumquat) was hidden from their view. Finally, two novel objects appeared (e.g., a kumquat and a whisk), and infants were asked, e.g., "where is the kumquat?”
Fifteen-month-olds, but not 12-month-olds, looked longer at the novel fruit (e.g. kumquat) than the novel artifact (e.g., whisk). Although they had never seen any object paired with that novel word, 15-month-olds nevertheless used the context clues to identify which object was most likely the one to which the novel word referred.
"The study shows that even babies who are just beginning to say their first words learn from the language they hear, even if the objects or events being discussed are not present,” Waxman said. "Babies take in what they hear, and even if no object is present, they form a mental representation, or ‘gist’ of the new word’s meaning, one that is strong enough for them to use later when its referent object does appear.”
But how early in life does this ability emerge? And how do we form mental representations of objects or events we cannot see?
A new study by developmental scientists at Northwestern University and Harvard University provides the first evidence that infants as young as 15 months can recognize an object they’ve learned about through language, even if the object remains hidden.
Imagine an infant playing with blocks on the floor while listening to parents talk about kumquats in a conversation about more familiar fruits like apples and bananas. Might the infant form an initial representation, or gist, about what kumquat means — something edible, likely a fruit? Can they then use this initial gist later when the infant first sees a novel fruit? These are the questions the researchers sought to answer.
Word Learning Without Visual Reference
"Many people believe that success in word learning requires that the infant ‘map’ a new word to an object that is physically present (e.g., "Look at the kumquat!”). But in the natural course of a day, it is very common for us — and for infants — to hear words when the objects to which they refer to are not available to our immediate perception,” said senior author Sandra Waxman. "We’re asking whether infants, too, can use the conversational contexts in which a word occurs to begin to learn their meaning.”
Waxman is the Louis W. Menk Professor of Psychology, director of the Infant and Child Development Center and an Institute for Policy Research Fellow at Northwestern. The study’s co-author is Elena Luchkina, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern, and now a research scientist at Harvard.
The researchers engaged 134 infants, 67 each at 12 months and 15 months in a three-part task. First, the researchers presented infants with words they understand, paired with an image of the object to which it referred (e.g., apple, banana, grapes). Next, infants heard a new word while the image of a novel object (e.g., a kumquat) was hidden from their view. Finally, two novel objects appeared (e.g., a kumquat and a whisk), and infants were asked, e.g., "where is the kumquat?”
Fifteen-month-olds, but not 12-month-olds, looked longer at the novel fruit (e.g. kumquat) than the novel artifact (e.g., whisk). Although they had never seen any object paired with that novel word, 15-month-olds nevertheless used the context clues to identify which object was most likely the one to which the novel word referred.
"The study shows that even babies who are just beginning to say their first words learn from the language they hear, even if the objects or events being discussed are not present,” Waxman said. "Babies take in what they hear, and even if no object is present, they form a mental representation, or ‘gist’ of the new word’s meaning, one that is strong enough for them to use later when its referent object does appear.”
This suggests to me that the babies aren't learning from the ground up. Of course no scientist would dare say that because it flies in the face of the materialism of modern science and suggests there might be more to reality than what can be seen, touched, and measured.
One of the problems in many sciences these days, and particularly evolutionary biology, is that it is all inductive; they start with a group of facts and work their way up. In bygone days deduction was equally important; start with a fundamental rule and work your way down. Deductive reasoning tells us that, say, a fetus is a human being because we know what a human being is and we know where it comes from - a fetus in the beginning. But modern man is crazy, having eschewed such deductive reasoning so you have scientists claiming it's NOT a human being because we haven't seen it develop yet.
That's one example. There are plenty of others. The whole transgender business is another such example.
We used to believe in Natural Law, which said there were some principles that were built into the universe, self-evident, and you could deduce a great deal from those laws. But our modern world is entirely pragmatic - challenges every self-evident thing because Copernicus challenged geocentrism and was correct. Modern science is completely bound up in this iconoclasm, the idea that everything can and should be challenged all the time. Frederich Nietzche argued that Science would fail precisely because of this iconoclasty; it would eventually stop believing in the core assumptions that lead to seeking Truth. He was right; the modernists have systematically undermined the basic principles of science. That's why they find themselves unable to actually define male and female, for instance. They have come to disbelieve in ANY concrete reality.
Relativism is all now.
So they won't admit this may, just may, be proof of life beyond this universe. It's just not possible if you can't expand your mind beyond the mud.
I think this suggests immortality and the existence of God, if you ask me.
BTW there are many other clues to suggest babies and small children have access to knowledge outside of our frame of reference. All small children believe in beings that are not physically present, for example. "Imaginary friends" are ubiquitous. Why? Seems to me an unformed brain would be the exact opposite, lacking the creativity to imagine people who do not exist. But children do, and they lose that as they grow up.
There is also the outrage and unfairness that all children possess. Where does that come from? The universe is grossly unfair, and there is no evolutionary benefit to being outraged at unfairness. But there you have it. As children get older they lose that too.
I could go on but the point is made. I think this is just another proof that God exists, that there is an unseen world beyond birth and the grave.
Of course Darwinists will sneer and mock me because "there is no proof" when in fact this IS the proof, or one piece of evidence, anyway.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
08:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1151 words, total size 7 kb.
27kb generated in CPU 0.0487, elapsed 0.1702 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1652 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.1652 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
