• Benj96
    2.3k
    An infant is born nameless (from their perspective ofc). It is only after some time that they begin to associate the name their parents use to refer to them, as something they are, or possess, something that refers to them. Quickly after this they start to apply names to other things as they have to themselves. Language acquisition has begun. The differentiation or disntiction of "self" from "other". The beginning of object permanence and language permanence.

    A name is, probably, the most basic form of acknowledgement of identity. What noun we use to identify ourselves. An infant doesn't know what "human" means, nor "boy" or "girl", nor many other such basic concepts of identity or the human condition. They don't know the word "I" they just have a feeling of it. They don't even realise their hands are theirs until 2 months where "hand regard" is achieved and they find themselves staring at them.

    So it seems when they're born they are just in a state of "awareness" without even full knowledge of what is part of their body and what is not.

    At most they know a simple Binary - "Good" = milk, warmth, rest and curious observation and "Bad" - hunger, cold, restlessness, pain/illness.

    So "who" or "what" does a baby believe it is? Where does it believe it is? What sort of sense of self or identity could this baby have?

    It's possible that all babies begin as the "center of the universe" so to speak. A little helpless and innocent solipsist. Not even fully understanding what other people are or if they are even separated from it. Egoless perhaps? Just pure awareness with little to no assumptions or "learned beliefs".

    I find this fascinating. And truly innocent. A state where embarrassment, prejudice, bias, shame, guilt, hatred and resentment are no where to be seen. Because these all depend on having a sense of self consciousness, a sense of discrete and defined relationship to the external world.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    It is only after some time that they begin to associate the name their parents use to refer to them, as something they are, or possess, something that refers to themBenj96

    Personally, I am somebody who does not associate my name with my personal identity. It only becomes relevant when people call my name out or if it is on a form.

    I have no idea what I thought as a baby and I believe it is not possible to really know how a baby perceives the world. Some claims about babies in psychology have been overturned or challenged like babies being egotists, selfish and not having empathy (they have been underestimated in various respects.

    What I find interesting is the transition from non-being to being. My earliest memories constitute my awareness of being/becoming but seems completely arbitrary being arbitrarily bought into existence in a particular body on a particular planet.

    I think that we are always all inherently at the centre of our own universe-perspective but as someone on the autistic spectrum who spends a lot of time on his own, this sense could be exacerbated for me.

    I don't know if we can get in touch with a true self uninfluenced by society (which may conflict with my last point.) The people inhabiting our universe have a big impact on us but there is a subjective element in how we perceive each other and each others intentions. But may be we should be on a quest to uncover some kind of true inherent self/destiny?
  • Paine
    2.5k

    There has been, is presently underway, and will be in the future, many ways to explore the experiences of infants through different models of childhood development.

    I am a bit taken aback at your approach of it as a general question of interest when the question is at the center of so many philosophical and scientific discussions.
  • 180 Proof
    15.4k
    Your questions don't make sense because pre-reflective cognition (re: "infancy") doesn't formulate self-reflective beliefs ("I" "who" "what" "where" ...)
  • Jabberwock
    334
    So "who" or "what" does a baby believe it is? Where does it believe it is? What sort of sense of self or identity could this baby have?

    It's possible that all babies begin as the "center of the universe" so to speak. A little helpless and innocent solipsist. Not even fully understanding what other people are or if they are even separated from it. Egoless perhaps? Just pure awareness with little to no assumptions or "learned beliefs".
    Benj96

    Yes, I would think something along those lines. As all our perceptions (and therefore concepts) are just differentiations, a baby does not have a sense of self, as it does not separate itself from anything else yet. 'Warm' means just 'There is warmness'.
  • Josh Alfred
    226
    As all other animals?

    Read: The psychological development of the self-concept.
  • kudos
    411
    What I find interesting is the transition from non-being to being. My earliest memories constitute my awareness of being/becoming but seems completely arbitrary being arbitrarily bought into existence in a particular body on a particular planet.

    What is it about space and time that makes them inherently 'for themselves?' It seems necessary to think of living one's life as simple passing through time and space, and that the idea of living an individual life has to include this notion. However, everything we are seems to convey a single coordinate or 'asymptote,' and that identity feels inescapable in our conscious life, to be a 'placing' of this identity against existence that is increasingly remote or arbitrary. I suspect the idea of simultaneous convergence and divergence to be integral to this relationship.
  • BC
    13.6k
    So "who" or "what" does a baby believe it is?Benj96

    As 180 Proof noted, babies don't have beliefs. I suspect your use of the word was not a suggestion that babies do have beliefs, but rather, just a way of asking, "What's going on in there? Quite a bit, apparently, a lot of it is one-way, all that perception pouring in.

    William James uses the phrase 'blooming and buzzing confusion' to describe a baby's experience of the world as pure sensation that comes before any rationality

    Hmmm, what is that thing down there, poke poke; it seems to have feeling when I touch it. Hmmmm, that could be a piece of me -- hadn't thought about it all these years. poke poke. Oh! My secretary just said that was my foot, Foot! Imagine that. God! There are two foot, one right next to the other one, How did that happen? And they are attached!

    Good to get body part consciousness out of the way early.
  • Art48
    480
    A state where embarrassment, prejudice, bias, shame, guilt, hatred and resentment are no where to be seen. Because these all depend on having a sense of self consciousness, a sense of discrete and defined relationship to the external world.Benj96

    I've been watching some videos about Advaita Vedanta as presented by Swami Sarvapriyananda. I think it can be argued that Vedanta aims to help us return to that state (not 24/7, of course, unless we're ready to leave the body).
  • Benj96
    2.3k
    Hmmm, what is that thing down there, poke poke; it seems to have feeling when I touch it. Hmmmm, that could be a piece of me -- hadn't thought about it all these years. poke poke. Oh! My secretary just said that was my foot, Foot! Imagine that. God! There are two foot, one right next to the other one, How did that happen? And they are attached!

    Good to get body part consciousness out of the way early.
    BC

    Excellently put. I agree.
    I imagine a baby as a sort of un differentiated sense of "me" -ness. And learning begins at the the "I" and rather quickly learns to make distinctions between that which remains with the "I" though experience - the body. And that whuhc changes relative to it - the external environment.

    At the beginning the baby would indeed stare at its limbs and it would dawn on them thay they have direct control over this bit of matter/substance, that it is attached to the "I" in a way other stuff is not.
  • BC
    13.6k
    An interesting discovery about babies is that seem to be born with a few innate expectations about the physical world. Other animal babies also. Kittens, for instance, won't crawl on a surface printed with th optical illusion of a drop off. Adult cats might not either, at least without cautious investigating.

    But back to baby humans. The seem to understand this much about gravity: things fall. All their early experiences indicate that. So, if you show a baby a helium filled ballon (the baby, of course, doesn't know anything about helium) and you let go of it, it rises to the ceiling. This is a shocking revelation to the baby; you can see it on their faces.

    Dogs, lacking pretensions to sentience (most of the time) are frank in their expression of surprise. Dogs shown magic tricks are shocked and appalled.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.