Is Love Logical

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

[mymistake]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

 

Love is a real emotion people and some other mammals experience naturally. Works through faith is a religious delusion.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

 

Love is a real emotion people and some other mammals experience naturally. Works through faith is a religious delusion.

True, but my point still stands. He's trying to use one thing to prove another which is completely and utterly unrelated and unsimilar.

[mymistake]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

 

Love is a real emotion people and some other mammals experience naturally. Works through faith is a religious delusion.

True, but my point still stands. He's trying to use one thing to prove another which is completely and utterly unrelated and unsimilar.

 

Of course your point still stands. I've never seen End refute anything in all the time I have been here. Haven't seen Thumby refute anything either.

 

I was trying to add to what you wrote rather than to take away from it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree with you.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

 

Love is a real emotion people and some other mammals experience naturally. Works through faith is a religious delusion.

True, but my point still stands. He's trying to use one thing to prove another which is completely and utterly unrelated and unsimilar.

 

Of course your point still stands. I've never seen End refute anything in all the time I have been here. Haven't seen Thumby refute anything either.

 

I was trying to add to what you wrote rather than to take away from it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree with you.

Its all good. I don't get why they think everything they come up with to present here is so gamechanging and profound either, especially when its always something rehashed from past profound discoveries they made or some preacher somewhere came up with. Its gotten old before christianity existed. Look at their talk about why your prayers don't get answered, sometimes you're given the same reasons you'll find in the Babylonian theodicy, their arguements are just that old, they're almost as old as civilization itself, and even organized religion!

[Guest end3]

but which side do y'all stand and how does the admitted stimuli differ from works through faith?

The same way the sensory input of anger differs from oranges and apples.

 

Love is a real emotion people and some other mammals experience naturally. Works through faith is a religious delusion.

True, but my point still stands. He's trying to use one thing to prove another which is completely and utterly unrelated and unsimilar.

 

Of course your point still stands. I've never seen End refute anything in all the time I have been here. Haven't seen Thumby refute anything either.

 

I was trying to add to what you wrote rather than to take away from it. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree with you.

 

Truthfully, I can't imagine not making the connection

 

For example:

 

I cook dinner or do a load of laudry or make sure my youngest is fed and washed so that the wife can rest when she gets home.

Or, I mow the elderly lady's grass down the road because she can't.

 

Both are works or actions meaning to manifest love.....external stimuli.

 

And as far as refutation folks, I have yet to hear how anyone refutes some inane definition like "orginates in the brain" as valid. But then again, I'm intellecutally lazy and since the post is mine, it's my obligation to prove all this to each and every.....lol.....sorry, I forgot.

[oddbird1963]

And as far as refutation folks, I have yet to hear how anyone refutes some inane definition like "orginates in the brain" as valid. But then again, I'm intellecutally lazy and since the post is mine, it's my obligation to prove all this to each and every.....lol.....sorry, I forgot.

 

How is the statement that love originates in the brain inane? As in vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant.

 

And how is it your ideas about love, faith, works aren't more vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant?

 

So are you trying to show that "Love" has a source outside the brain? That's it? A "Ghost in the machine" that is not our souls but our emotions?

 

You'll never be able to demonstrate that.

[Guest end3]

And as far as refutation folks, I have yet to hear how anyone refutes some inane definition like "orginates in the brain" as valid. But then again, I'm intellecutally lazy and since the post is mine, it's my obligation to prove all this to each and every.....lol.....sorry, I forgot.

 

How is the statement that love originates in the brain inane? As in vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant.

 

And how is it your ideas about love, faith, works aren't more vacuous - empty - senseless - blank - foolish - vacant?

 

So are you trying to show that "Love" has a source outside the brain? That's it? A "Ghost in the machine" that is not our souls but our emotions?

 

You'll never be able to demonstrate that.

 

The statement that was put forth was that the brain does love without any input......inate, as is, the medical definition that I was using. "originates in the brain at birth". Just wanting to know as people here are asserting this, how that was tested.

[Guest end3]

For example, and maybe this is where the wires are crossing......a baby pops out....theoretically nothing but a brain.........does the brain itself produce it's on chemical reaction without any stimulus from the body? Granted I am largely ignorant here, but a body without a brain is brain dead, so what is a brain without a body, alive or dead?

[oddbird1963]

For example, and maybe this is where the wires are crossing......a baby pops out....theoretically nothing but a brain.........does the brain itself produce it's on chemical reaction without any stimulus from the body? Granted I am largely ignorant here, but a body without a brain is brain dead, so what is a brain without a body, alive or dead?

 

I think the answer is yes - the baby has certain innate reactions that occur in its brain without any input from the outside. However, since we are evolved to interact with our enviornments and our social group, many brain processes are stimulated due to input from outside factors. There is a whole component of the brain that serves to regulate the processes of the body, so it does depend on input from the body to make sure things remain in balance. So yes to that too.

 

If you are asking if a newborn feels love, I think the answer is no. The newborn feels attachment and a desire to have basic drives fulfilled by its mother, but it in no way has the facilities to return that love. Of course it depends on your definition of love, which may be way to broad to be of any use.

[VacuumFlux]

For example, and maybe this is where the wires are crossing......a baby pops out....theoretically nothing but a brain.........does the brain itself produce it's on chemical reaction without any stimulus from the body? Granted I am largely ignorant here, but a body without a brain is brain dead, so what is a brain without a body, alive or dead?

 

A baby is a whole lot more than a brain and has been since before birth. The brain starts out with lots and lots of neuron connections firing all over the place. Due to input from the body, which isn't at all passive input because the baby will by wiggling their fingers and making noises, and will hear and feel the results of that, some of those connections are strengthened and some are weakened. That initial learning is as much a process of culling un-useful neurons as anything else. Did you know that at birth, there's a whole lot of nerves going between the eyes and the brain, and in order to see images, they baby destroys a lot of the connections that were just making noise? It's not exactly the brain or the body that does this culling; it's something that happens as the two of them work together. You can't talk about the brain as a completely separate entity from the mind-body system. The brain isn't a separate entity living inside the body, the brain is one of many organs in the body. The brain sends out hormones and electrical signals that affect the rest of the body, and the body too sends out electrical signals and chemicals that trigger things in the brain. One is not in control of the other; they're codependent to the point that sometimes it's silly to talk about them as if they were separate things.

 

A body without a brain is alive, but not sentient (which is why we call a person who's brain has been too damaged to ever function again a vegetable, not a corpse). Though if you include the parts of the brain that control the involuntary things like heartbeat and breathing, then a body without a brain is going to end up as a corpse in short order.

 

A brain without a body is not, and cannot become, a human. It may be alive, but it's the interactions with the body both during development and the rest of life that make a human a human. There would be a lot of human-like traits to it, and a brain removed from a body and kept alive in a vat would, for a while, retain the wiring it learned from the body. But a brain grown entirely in a vat without ever getting input from a body would not be human (a sufficiently humanoid android body may allow a brain to develop as a human, but as far as I know we don't have technology to the point where we could even test that on mice). Alive, maybe even sentient if it had other forms of input to learn from, but not human. (And no, that does not mean that someone who is lacking in some of their senses is any less of a human being; the basics of the body are still there. But someone who can't interact with the outside world in the same way as the people around them will often show physical differences in the brain, such as how some blind people use their visual cortex to process audio input. Lacking an entire body would be an enormous change, much different than just missing some of the external senses. And there are internal senses in the body, like how you know where your hand is when you wake up, even if you haven't moved it yet.)

 

Edit: Emotions do not exist entirely in the brain. When you are upset, stressed out, your brain makes adrenaline that changing your digestion, breathing, and heart rate. If you've got some medial issue that causes those changes in the body, your brain sees them happening and assumes there must be some underlying stressor and then you get things like panic attacks. I happen to be particularly sensitive to such things, but most of my emotions exist in my body as well as my mind. Sometimes the best way to deal with my emotions is to look at their physical manifestations and say "hm, I have chest pain/stomach ache/low pain tollerance. I must be upset, even though my conscious mind is trying to ignore that feeling". Same thing with happy feelings; the endorphines cause changes in more areas of the body than just the brain.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Truthfully, I can't imagine not making the connection

 

For example:

 

I cook dinner or do a load of laudry or make sure my youngest is fed and washed so that the wife can rest when she gets home.

Or, I mow the elderly lady's grass down the road because she can't.

 

Both are works or actions meaning to manifest love.....external stimuli.

Love or empathy? The two are different. There was an old lady who lived down the street from me from the time I was 15-18, she became a good friend of mine. I mowed her lawn, cleaned leaves up off her yard, and cleared the dirt from her sidewalk. When I moved 10 miles north, I'd ride my bike those 10 miles to help her out. I don't love her per se, I felt bad that she had to struggle to do it, and I cared about her especially because she was my friend. Also, there are alot of definitions of love, you just meld them together without picking one, and it just seems like such an amorphous definition you are using, that it incorporates everything, whether it be love or not.

 

Also, I still don't get how you're connecting this one in. I get what you are saying, but I still don't think it makes much sense either to your original point nor your first analogy.

And as far as refutation folks, I have yet to hear how anyone refutes some inane definition like "orginates in the brain" as valid. But then again, I'm intellecutally lazy and since the post is mine, it's my obligation to prove all this to each and every.....lol.....sorry, I forgot.

Basic neurology. That's what it means to say "it originates in the brain". You're intellectually lazy eh? Perhaps you'd understand what we meant if you just looked up emotions and how they relate to the brain. The funny part is, there is only one place that emotions originate, the amygdala, a part of the brain.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

And to the second part of your post End3, a baby is born with some things innate (this has been tried and tested, I'll pull up youtube videos since I know you say you're intellectually lazy, and this makes it easier than having to read it), and some things enviromentally conditioned as the grow and develope. Love developes at different times depending on which kind and other factors.

[Spectrox]

Here's one I thought worthy of exploration.......Is love logical.

Groan...

 

 

What is the smell of hope? What does "mean" mean? Is existence a reality?

 

It's all a big fat time waster.

 

What has any of this got to do with The Bible or Christianity? The Bible is highly illogical and it's mostly a book of hate not love.

 

What do you believe, End? Why do you believe it?

[Guest end3]

For example, and maybe this is where the wires are crossing......a baby pops out....theoretically nothing but a brain.........does the brain itself produce it's on chemical reaction without any stimulus from the body? Granted I am largely ignorant here, but a body without a brain is brain dead, so what is a brain without a body, alive or dead?

 

I think the answer is yes - the baby has certain innate reactions that occur in its brain without any input from the outside. However, since we are evolved to interact with our enviornments and our social group, many brain processes are stimulated due to input from outside factors. There is a whole component of the brain that serves to regulate the processes of the body, so it does depend on input from the body to make sure things remain in balance. So yes to that too.

 

If you are asking if a newborn feels love, I think the answer is no. The newborn feels attachment and a desire to have basic drives fulfilled by its mother, but it in no way has the facilities to return that love. Of course it depends on your definition of love, which may be way to broad to be of any use.

 

Watch out for the rapture OB, I think we agree on something.

[Guest end3]

For example, and maybe this is where the wires are crossing......a baby pops out....theoretically nothing but a brain.........does the brain itself produce it's on chemical reaction without any stimulus from the body? Granted I am largely ignorant here, but a body without a brain is brain dead, so what is a brain without a body, alive or dead?

 

A baby is a whole lot more than a brain and has been since before birth. The brain starts out with lots and lots of neuron connections firing all over the place. Due to input from the body, which isn't at all passive input because the baby will by wiggling their fingers and making noises, and will hear and feel the results of that, some of those connections are strengthened and some are weakened. That initial learning is as much a process of culling un-useful neurons as anything else. Did you know that at birth, there's a whole lot of nerves going between the eyes and the brain, and in order to see images, they baby destroys a lot of the connections that were just making noise? It's not exactly the brain or the body that does this culling; it's something that happens as the two of them work together. You can't talk about the brain as a completely separate entity from the mind-body system. The brain isn't a separate entity living inside the body, the brain is one of many organs in the body. The brain sends out hormones and electrical signals that affect the rest of the body, and the body too sends out electrical signals and chemicals that trigger things in the brain. One is not in control of the other; they're codependent to the point that sometimes it's silly to talk about them as if they were separate things.

 

A body without a brain is alive, but not sentient (which is why we call a person who's brain has been too damaged to ever function again a vegetable, not a corpse). Though if you include the parts of the brain that control the involuntary things like heartbeat and breathing, then a body without a brain is going to end up as a corpse in short order.

 

A brain without a body is not, and cannot become, a human. It may be alive, but it's the interactions with the body both during development and the rest of life that make a human a human. There would be a lot of human-like traits to it, and a brain removed from a body and kept alive in a vat would, for a while, retain the wiring it learned from the body. But a brain grown entirely in a vat without ever getting input from a body would not be human (a sufficiently humanoid android body may allow a brain to develop as a human, but as far as I know we don't have technology to the point where we could even test that on mice). Alive, maybe even sentient if it had other forms of input to learn from, but not human. (And no, that does not mean that someone who is lacking in some of their senses is any less of a human being; the basics of the body are still there. But someone who can't interact with the outside world in the same way as the people around them will often show physical differences in the brain, such as how some blind people use their visual cortex to process audio input. Lacking an entire body would be an enormous change, much different than just missing some of the external senses. And there are internal senses in the body, like how you know where your hand is when you wake up, even if you haven't moved it yet.)

 

Edit: Emotions do not exist entirely in the brain. When you are upset, stressed out, your brain makes adrenaline that changing your digestion, breathing, and heart rate. If you've got some medial issue that causes those changes in the body, your brain sees them happening and assumes there must be some underlying stressor and then you get things like panic attacks. I happen to be particularly sensitive to such things, but most of my emotions exist in my body as well as my mind. Sometimes the best way to deal with my emotions is to look at their physical manifestations and say "hm, I have chest pain/stomach ache/low pain tollerance. I must be upset, even though my conscious mind is trying to ignore that feeling". Same thing with happy feelings; the endorphines cause changes in more areas of the body than just the brain.

Thank VF. I honestly appreciate the information. Blessings.

[Guest end3]

Here's one I thought worthy of exploration.......Is love logical.

Groan...

 

 

What is the smell of hope? What does "mean" mean? Is existence a reality?

 

It's all a big fat time waster.

 

What has any of this got to do with The Bible or Christianity? The Bible is highly illogical and it's mostly a book of hate not love.

 

What do you believe, End? Why do you believe it?

 

I hear what you are saying Spectrox. I find myself not being nearly as fundamental as I used to be, but everyone exists at some point in the life venture. So i believe in humanity, but not ready to sell out to any idea the appears "good". When those understandings come to me in some revelation-type truth, then I will camp on that understanding. There are many things I have yet to make a final decision on. And realistically, it all changes routinely. So whatta ya gonna do, except your best in this world, and pray that it works well for everyone else.

[Akheia]

End, seriously, this would be a lot less complicated for you if you'd stop trying to be a courtroom lawyer trying to cleverly lead people to the conclusion you've already decided on. And if you'd just for the love of little green frogs pick up some non-religious books on the subject of emotions. You're arguing about something you flat-out don't understand. What VF and others have shared is the merest tip of the iceberg, and even those few crumbs have already completely destroyed your apparent working model. Science long ago up-ended your Alan Shore act by having the real murderer walk through the courtroom doors.

 

The truth is painful but here it is: Emotions are not given by a deity. We're quite capable of feeling empathy, compassion, and love all by ourselves. Hell, even animals show these traits. Some of it does originate in our brains, but it doesn't just materialize out of thin air by the grace of some divinity. Research has refuted that a thousand times over. Besides complicated neurological connections, our environments and thousands of years of evolutionary programming bring us to the emotions we feel. There's not a debate on the topic anymore. And a guy who doesn't even grasp the simplest concepts in developmental psych sure isn't going to bring anything new to the table about it. But you do realize that that's the MO of the fundamentalist mindset, this distrust of science, and this reliance on "experts" who have absolutely no training in their fields (I look now at the ID freaks and that Barton fucknut). Time to break free, End!

 

Here's the real pickle: if it's true that emotions are NOT divinely-granted, and let me stress that it absolutely is true that they are not, what does that mean for your courtroom act?

 

Bonus question: How were you actually planning to get from "divinely-granted emotions" to "emotions that are divinely-granted by the deity depicted in my specific holy book, which is utterly unreliable and disproven in every single particular"? That does seem to be the leap that most apologists have trouble with. They normally dart away from it with a worried little "We'll get to this later," but you're the one who's on a forum trying to open an already-settled question for debate, so you don't get that luxury. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

 

Next time you feel like doing a stupid, please at least educate yourself on the subject a teeny tiny bit first so we're not working to educate a kindergartener about the moon being rock and not green cheese.

[Guest end3]

End, seriously, this would be a lot less complicated for you if you'd stop trying to be a courtroom lawyer trying to cleverly lead people to the conclusion you've already decided on. And if you'd just for the love of little green frogs pick up some non-religious books on the subject of emotions. You're arguing about something you flat-out don't understand. What VF and others have shared is the merest tip of the iceberg, and even those few crumbs have already completely destroyed your apparent working model. Science long ago up-ended your Alan Shore act by having the real murderer walk through the courtroom doors.

 

The truth is painful but here it is: Emotions are not given by a deity. We're quite capable of feeling empathy, compassion, and love all by ourselves. Hell, even animals show these traits. Some of it does originate in our brains, but it doesn't just materialize out of thin air by the grace of some divinity. Research has refuted that a thousand times over. Besides complicated neurological connections, our environments and thousands of years of evolutionary programming bring us to the emotions we feel. There's not a debate on the topic anymore. And a guy who doesn't even grasp the simplest concepts in developmental psych sure isn't going to bring anything new to the table about it. But you do realize that that's the MO of the fundamentalist mindset, this distrust of science, and this reliance on "experts" who have absolutely no training in their fields (I look now at the ID freaks and that Barton fucknut). Time to break free, End!

 

Here's the real pickle: if it's true that emotions are NOT divinely-granted, and let me stress that it absolutely is true that they are not, what does that mean for your courtroom act?

 

Bonus question: How were you actually planning to get from "divinely-granted emotions" to "emotions that are divinely-granted by the deity depicted in my specific holy book, which is utterly unreliable and disproven in every single particular"? That does seem to be the leap that most apologists have trouble with. They normally dart away from it with a worried little "We'll get to this later," but you're the one who's on a forum trying to open an already-settled question for debate, so you don't get that luxury. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

 

Next time you feel like doing a stupid, please at least educate yourself on the subject a teeny tiny bit first so we're not working to educate a kindergartener about the moon being rock and not green cheese.

 

I don't see this addressing my argument A. And let's for the sake of discussion talk in my "stupid" terms.

 

So a baby pops out.....new brain, new body. And not addressing the stimuli the baby had in the womb, I'm gonna assume the baby has a blank slate brain. Please answer this yes or no. Does the baby at second one of their life know what love is. Not CAN the baby, but DOES the baby. My assertiion would is that input is vital.

 

What I gather you sayiing is the baby already knows what love is and the brain does this chemisty without any input from the body at second one.

 

And to me, this is lacking because we are ignoring the womb.

 

But I'll try and look and see what I can find regarding research.

[oddbird1963]

End, seriously, this would be a lot less complicated for you if you'd stop trying to be a courtroom lawyer trying to cleverly lead people to the conclusion you've already decided on. And if you'd just for the love of little green frogs pick up some non-religious books on the subject of emotions. You're arguing about something you flat-out don't understand. What VF and others have shared is the merest tip of the iceberg, and even those few crumbs have already completely destroyed your apparent working model. Science long ago up-ended your Alan Shore act by having the real murderer walk through the courtroom doors.

 

The truth is painful but here it is: Emotions are not given by a deity. We're quite capable of feeling empathy, compassion, and love all by ourselves. Hell, even animals show these traits. Some of it does originate in our brains, but it doesn't just materialize out of thin air by the grace of some divinity. Research has refuted that a thousand times over. Besides complicated neurological connections, our environments and thousands of years of evolutionary programming bring us to the emotions we feel. There's not a debate on the topic anymore. And a guy who doesn't even grasp the simplest concepts in developmental psych sure isn't going to bring anything new to the table about it. But you do realize that that's the MO of the fundamentalist mindset, this distrust of science, and this reliance on "experts" who have absolutely no training in their fields (I look now at the ID freaks and that Barton fucknut). Time to break free, End!

 

Here's the real pickle: if it's true that emotions are NOT divinely-granted, and let me stress that it absolutely is true that they are not, what does that mean for your courtroom act?

 

Bonus question: How were you actually planning to get from "divinely-granted emotions" to "emotions that are divinely-granted by the deity depicted in my specific holy book, which is utterly unreliable and disproven in every single particular"? That does seem to be the leap that most apologists have trouble with. They normally dart away from it with a worried little "We'll get to this later," but you're the one who's on a forum trying to open an already-settled question for debate, so you don't get that luxury. Go ahead. I'm waiting.

 

Next time you feel like doing a stupid, please at least educate yourself on the subject a teeny tiny bit first so we're not working to educate a kindergartener about the moon being rock and not green cheese.

 

I don't see this addressing my argument A. And let's for the sake of discussion talk in my "stupid" terms.

 

So a baby pops out.....new brain, new body. And not addressing the stimuli the baby had in the womb, I'm gonna assume the baby has a blank slate brain. Please answer this yes or no. Does the baby at second one of their life know what love is. Not CAN the baby, but DOES the baby. My assertiion would is that input is vital.

 

What I gather you sayiing is the baby already knows what love is and the brain does this chemisty without any input from the body at second one.

 

And to me, this is lacking because we are ignoring the womb.

 

But I'll try and look and see what I can find regarding research.

 

You need to pick up a copy of Stephen Pinker's book The Blank Slate. He pretty much refutes the notion of the blank slate based on the available research.

[Guest end3]

I just looked and found Harry Harlow's research. Looks as those those monkeys didn't fair well without input. And he was criticized for his work. Just wondering why the monkey's brains didn't fulfill role or did they. There were words like self-clutching and rocking.

[Akheia]

Jesus, End, seriously. Go read something about your actual question. That paper is not in the least related to what you were talking about. You suffer from a lot because of your own ignorance. Oddbird's suggestion is excellent. Also any textbook on developmental psych, as well as anything about neuropsych, will help you resolve your own questions.

 

If you want this to continue meaningfully, please link some peer-reviewed lit about any proof for your wild hypothe-guess (it's not even a hypothesis, as you are ignorant of even the most basic information in the field) about emotions being divinely inspired. Nobody has yet tried to argue that emotional development could happen in a vacuum. You're making one of your (yet another in a fucking long line of) false equivalencies. You're also shifting from emotions to emotional development. Can't you keep on your own target?

[Guest end3]

Look A, I tried/am trying to tell you my line of thought. I can think freely and ask questions and discuss without the criticism. Read about tabula rasa a minute ago.....so I am not alone in my "ignorance". I asked please, a yes or no question from your understanding.....not mine. Does an infant at birth know love already. I'm doing my work by looking as you suggest. Humor me in our relationship by giving me your opinion as you claim knowledge highground. You really don't have to beat me up as I confess ignorance here, and the book OB suggests is not in the office here where I work.....so I can't read it atm.

[roadrunner]

Look A, I tried/am trying to tell you my line of thought. I can think freely and ask questions and discuss without the criticism. Read about tabula rasa a minute ago.....so I am not alone in my "ignorance". I asked please, a yes or no question from your understanding.....not mine. Does an infant at birth know love already. I'm doing my work by looking as you suggest. Humor me in our relationship by giving me your opinion as you claim knowledge highground. You really don't have to beat me up as I confess ignorance here, and the book OB suggests is not in the office here where I work.....so I can't read it atm.

no an infant at birth is not developmentally capable of loving yet. It merely is dependent on mom and being loved. no complex thoughts origionate in an infant brain. Its mainly processing of various stimuli. 0-2 yrs the brain goes wild. teh brain goes from developing the nervous system (jerky babies) to processing stimuli to make sense of the world, to learning language, to gross motor skills all in 2 years

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Look A, I tried/am trying to tell you my line of thought. I can think freely and ask questions and discuss without the criticism. Read about tabula rasa a minute ago.....so I am not alone in my "ignorance". I asked please, a yes or no question from your understanding.....not mine. Does an infant at birth know love already. I'm doing my work by looking as you suggest. Humor me in our relationship by giving me your opinion as you claim knowledge highground. You really don't have to beat me up as I confess ignorance here, and the book OB suggests is not in the office here where I work.....so I can't read it atm.

O poor persecuted me! I put forth arguements that don't make much sense, dance around them, and try to get others to agree with my nonsense that I put in The Lion's Den, and then I cry "stop beating me up!" I'm a victim!

 

No one is beating you up, you posted your arguement in the Lion's den, have thicker skin! I've posted stuff in here that people disagreed with, and my arguements got hammered. You don't see me crying victim.

 

Guilt trip not needed nor necessary.

 

I love how you ignored my response though.