Memories from the womb?
What compromises a "memory"? Why do humans not remember the trip down the birth canal or the slap on the bottom they received after the trip?
I have read a little on this. Seems those who give this a lot of thought seem to think that the memories we have after we learn language become easier to remember. It is easier to remember thoughts from our later development because we have words to cue us in and associate what the memories mean. We can remember the black (or green) blackboard that our 1st grade teacher wrote upon because we understand what the words blackboard and chalk mean; and it is easier to recall this experience because of the word association.
But do we have no memories from before we understood language? Dogs do not speak. But dogs remember where the water bowl is and after a few beatings with the rolled up newspaper they remember that they better pee outside the house!
I am going to recall something from childhood to try and prove that some of us can remember back into the womb. When I was rather young, perhaps around 8 or 9, my parents bought some new appliances. The cartons from the appliances ended up in the back yard and us kids started playing in them. As we played, I crawled into one of them and closed the flaps behind me. Feelings of warmth and security started washing over me and I instinctively curled into the fetal position and soaked in the bliss. This lasted only until the other kids had enough of it.
I did not think about it at the time, but later in life I started to contemplate where did these feelings come from? I came to the conclusion that these feelings come from remembrances of what it was like to be in the womb. Perhaps it is hard for me to remember with pinpoint clarity these experiences because at the time I was in the womb I had no understanding of language. However the experience went on for long enough that my mind retained some echoes of what it was like to be in there.
Is a baby inhuman before it learns to speak? Were we not human before the time we can remember with pinpoint clarity?
Some humans are born lacking some of the senses. Some are blind, some are deaf. Since they lack these senses are they less then human?
If the fetus develops lacking some sensory input while it develops, is it less then human? If it does not yet know how to formulate thoughts into words, is that the criteria?
I have decided that when we can prove it "thinks" we are close to deciding things from an ethics viewpoint. A newborn is not born with the ability to speak, but it is still a human. From my own experience I feel that the point of "becoming human" extends into the womb. I regret we "humans" do not possess tools to define with pinpoint clarity at what point this happens. I am willing to error on the side of caution when we consider this. I am unwilling to accept the feminist (left wing extremist) viewpoint on the rights of the unborn.
At some point that which grows in the womb starts to think. When it starts to think, then it is as human as I am now.
I have read a little on this. Seems those who give this a lot of thought seem to think that the memories we have after we learn language become easier to remember. It is easier to remember thoughts from our later development because we have words to cue us in and associate what the memories mean. We can remember the black (or green) blackboard that our 1st grade teacher wrote upon because we understand what the words blackboard and chalk mean; and it is easier to recall this experience because of the word association.
But do we have no memories from before we understood language? Dogs do not speak. But dogs remember where the water bowl is and after a few beatings with the rolled up newspaper they remember that they better pee outside the house!
I am going to recall something from childhood to try and prove that some of us can remember back into the womb. When I was rather young, perhaps around 8 or 9, my parents bought some new appliances. The cartons from the appliances ended up in the back yard and us kids started playing in them. As we played, I crawled into one of them and closed the flaps behind me. Feelings of warmth and security started washing over me and I instinctively curled into the fetal position and soaked in the bliss. This lasted only until the other kids had enough of it.
I did not think about it at the time, but later in life I started to contemplate where did these feelings come from? I came to the conclusion that these feelings come from remembrances of what it was like to be in the womb. Perhaps it is hard for me to remember with pinpoint clarity these experiences because at the time I was in the womb I had no understanding of language. However the experience went on for long enough that my mind retained some echoes of what it was like to be in there.
Is a baby inhuman before it learns to speak? Were we not human before the time we can remember with pinpoint clarity?
Some humans are born lacking some of the senses. Some are blind, some are deaf. Since they lack these senses are they less then human?
If the fetus develops lacking some sensory input while it develops, is it less then human? If it does not yet know how to formulate thoughts into words, is that the criteria?
I have decided that when we can prove it "thinks" we are close to deciding things from an ethics viewpoint. A newborn is not born with the ability to speak, but it is still a human. From my own experience I feel that the point of "becoming human" extends into the womb. I regret we "humans" do not possess tools to define with pinpoint clarity at what point this happens. I am willing to error on the side of caution when we consider this. I am unwilling to accept the feminist (left wing extremist) viewpoint on the rights of the unborn.
At some point that which grows in the womb starts to think. When it starts to think, then it is as human as I am now.
posted by Little David at 1/01/2006 10:18:00 AM
7 Comments:
There are serious flaws in your arguments.
Firstly, you are confusing several different types of memory.
Read here
Secondly, the cognitive / conscious experience of a "memory" (which is the usual vernacular use of the term) does not extend into infancy. That can be shown rather easily experimentally.
Of the other types of memory, babies most certainly have it.
As for:
As we played, I crawled into one of them and closed the flaps behind me. Feelings of warmth and security started washing over me and I instinctively curled into the fetal position and soaked in the bliss. This lasted only until the other kids had enough of it.
I did not think about it at the time, but later in life I started to contemplate where did these feelings come from? I came to the conclusion that these feelings come from remembrances of what it was like to be in the womb.
Sorry, but that does not prove anything and I find your conclusion dubious. Assuming that it is possible to remember events in utero it should be pointed out that every human being gestated in utero. We cannot separate the world's population into an "in utero group" and "not in utero group" and study if one group has a greater predilection for "foetal position bliss".
I do not consider people who don't like being a foetal position as evidence against in utero memories and similarly, people who like being in foetal positions cannot be taken as evidence for it. In essence, it is unprovable one way or the other if you are just looking at "foetal position".
Now, if you can determine experimentally that babies remember specific experiences in utero that are not common to everyone (e.g., a "Mozart music group for foetuses" vs a control group with no music) then that would be pretty good evidence for foetal memories. Obviously, people have done these experiments and it seems pretty clear that foetuses do not retain any experiential memories in utero.
I think you are placing a little bit too much emphasis on thought. I do not believe that a person is defined by it. It is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, but not the only one.
An "unintelligent" person is not "less human" than a "genius". I do not believe that a foetus "becomes human" when it can think.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Michael,
Your last post led to your statements of: (quote)
I think you are placing a little bit too much emphasis on thought. I do not believe that a person is defined by it. It is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, but not the only one.
An "unintelligent" person is not "less human" than a "genius". I do not believe that a foetus "becomes human" when it can think. (unquote)
Sorry, I disagree with you. I am unwilling to agree that anything less then "human thought" defines that which is a human.
Pigs are intelligent. Some pigs are more intelligent then some retarded humans. I think it is OK to throw a pork steak on the grill while it would be wrong to grill anything that comes from a human.
While it is OK to eat "veal" it is not OK to eat "baby".
Your unwillingness to accept the tools that we have to measure thought within the womb exposes you. We might not have great tools, we can only use the tools we have. Until we come up with better tools we should use the tools we have. EEG is the best tool we have. If you are unsatisfied with this tool, then devote your life to coming up with a better one.
If I was a barbarian forced to use stone tools because I was wise enough to know one day tractors would be invented, I would not refuse to use the the stone tools in the mean time.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you on EEGs. I can only suggest that you are completely ignorant on what it actually does and shows.
Using an EEG to look at consciousness is like using a 35 mm film camera to look for pneumonia before the invention of x-rays.
Or using a diesel tractor to fly across the Atlantic before aeroplanes.
It doesn't work.
It isn't "the best tool we have".
We do not have a tool for looking at consciousness
Actually, I take that back. We sort of do... functional MRI and SPECT, but no one, and I mean, no one will be doing either of these tests on a foetus.
Human thoughts make us human. But they are not the be all or end all. It is just one part of many that creates the sum of "human-ness". Your focus on only "thought" could be used to justify killing many people who have "sub-human thought" and I reject that notion.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Michael,
You said:
[quote] Using an EEG to look at consciousness is like using a 35 mm film camera to look for pneumonia before the invention of x-rays.
Or using a diesel tractor to fly across the Atlantic before aeroplanes.
It doesn't work.
It isn't "the best tool we have". [unquote]
You speak of how barbaric our tools are and how humanity might one day come up with better tools. However you do not suggest a better tool we can use in the mean time.
I rest my case.
I rest my case until you come up with the same ole shit. Grin.
I don't see how you can rest your case.
To continue to use EEGs to probe consciousness is like continue to use tractors to cross the Atlantic.
That, futile and probably more than a little bit stupid.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Until we can come with better tools we should use the best that we have.
Until the tractor was invented, farmers used the horse drawn plow to till the earth (and when they wanted to cross the ocean they used a boat). Modern farmers wouldn't call them stupid for having used the best that they had at the time.
You are missing the point.
Modern farmers would have though people to be pretty darn stupid if they tried to cross the Atlantic with tractors.
As it happened, they didn't TRY to cross the Atlantic until they actually had a tool that could do it.
We shouldn't try to pretend we can probe consciousness until we have tools that can do it.
Ploughs are for digging fields, not crossing oceans. EEGs are for looking at some forms of brain abnormalities (e.g., seizure disorders) not for looking at consciousness.
Regards,
Michael Tam
Post a Comment
<< Home