Sunday, April 26, 2009

Babies might be more conscious than adults

Modern science has largely agreed, spending decades outlining all the things that babies couldn't do because their brains had yet to develop. They were unable to focus, delay gratification, or even express their desires. The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer famously suggested that "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

Now, however, scientists have begun to dramatically revise their concept of a baby's mind. By using new research techniques and tools, they've revealed that the baby brain is abuzz with activity, capable of learning astonishing amounts of information in a relatively short time. Unlike the adult mind, which restricts itself to a narrow slice of reality, babies can take in a much wider spectrum of sensation - they are, in an important sense, more aware of the world than we are. Jonah Lehrer



Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

probably in your desperation to counter my arguments you have lost your ability to even think properly.

u don't even know what peter singer is for, yet u think u can ally with his positions to counter me?? lol.

peter singer is pro-abortion with his secular applied ethics stance.

u r publishing pro abortion material on a so call catholic apologist blog, how hilarious is that?

i would like to give u the same suggestion , that is to buck up on your studies before u become a disgrace to mr ratzinger n gang with your gaffes.

Cure of Ars said...

I know Peter Singer's position and the article is challenging his assumptions in regards infant mental abilities. I disagree with Peter's utilitarian philosophy but even taking this framework as a given, with this new information, Peter needs to rethink his position.

Anonymous said...

i do not agree with peter singer regarding abortion.

but i do not think peter needs to rethink his position becos the so call new information is not really very strong argument.

1. it is still based on a lot of guess work, they are trying to guess/deduce with the data they have with no explicit method of verification, for example it is impossible to verify what u guess becos u cannot ask babies what they r thinking n get a reliable cognitive answer.

u can deduce, ok maybe this maybe that, maybe they know more than we think, but what is more, how much more? no explicit provable answer.

2. even if they manage to justify their guess work, they are talking abt an infant/toddler/baby.

an infant/toddler/baby is very different from a fetus/embryo, the cognitive abilities of a newborn baby is very different from a 3month old fetus.

n during abortion we are dealing with fetuses not toddlers.

with the material they have, at very best they can only dispute with killing toddlers not abortion.

a pretty relevant comment said...

lastly i do not wish to act as an apologist for peter singer (he does not need any help anyway)

but to treat this in a fair manner, lets revisit the quote:
[ Peter Singer famously suggested that "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." ]

notice it is talking abt a DISABLED infant, how disabled we do not know, but certainly we r not talking abt a normal infant here.

so it's a matter of comparing apples n oranges n the "experts" are barking up the wrong tree.

if the infant is mentally disabled then any prove or data they have from the experiments with normal babies are irrelevant.