[mbivert]

I was half-joking (hence the "more seriously").

Nonetheless, the serious half is to be understood with a contextually reasonable definition of "thinking": "the thoughts running through the mind of an adult [when he tries to relax]". It seems fair to argue that such thoughts require a prolonged, sophisticated interaction with human society, which newborns lack.

[krisoft]

> "the thoughts running through the mind of an adult [when he tries to relax]".

So by that definition teenagers don't do any thinking because they are not adults?

Also by that definition nobody ever thinks at work because they are working, not trying to relax.

(Not even mentioning that the definition as given only applies to males.)

I'm suspicious of this definition and doesn't match how I use the word "thinking". But I see that if you have this definition then tautologically newborns don't do it.

[mbivert]

> I'm suspicious of this definition and doesn't match how I use the word "thinking". But I see that if you have this definition then tautologically newborns don't do it.

Let me rephrase the argument then: if you've been meditating at least a little, you'll know that the thoughts running through your mind simply cannot occur in the mind of a newborn. When those thoughts go away, your mind go quiet, hence it's reasonable to assume that newborns are naturally, essentially quiet.

Besides, I'm not proposing a mathematical/exact definition here: common sense/good faith is naturally required to make sense of it. I am not redefining what "thinking" means, but locally using the word "thinking" as a loose shortcut for "the mind activities occurring when one tries to relax/meditate".

[krisoft]

> if you've been meditating at least a little, you'll know that the thoughts running through your mind simply cannot occur in the mind of a newborn

That is interesting, because i would have used the same example of meditation but to argue in the opposite direction. People intentionally need to learn how to meditate. Calming your mind takes practice and effort. The default state of being seems to be not the meditating state.

Newborns seems to have all the bits adults have, except they don’t really have a good control over them yet. I assume this is the same for their mind. Therefore i would assume they have all kind of racing thoughts. Clearly of course non-verbal ones, more like bundles of emotions and feelings. But i would assume their head is full of “proto-thoughts”. They of course are not worried if their tax returns were filled out correctly, for the simple reason that they don’t know what a tax return is. But i wouldn’t assume that their head is a calm place.

I’m not saying that I am right, and newborns have thoughts. What I am saying is that it is not obvious to me why they wouldn’t. Why would their mind be the only thing they have better control over than at adulthood?

Now maybe i just haven’t meditated enough. ;) Maybe if i just reach a higher level of consciousness it will be all clear to me. But so far you haven’t convinced me.

[mbivert]

I agree that we can't assume that their head is a calm place. It's probably still safe to argue that the range/intensity of emotions/feelings they have is noticeably below those adults (e.g. lust).

If you agree, then I'd shift to a weaker statement: they have a stronger potential [than adults] for being calm, but with little to no conscious incentive to exploit it, in general.

That is, assuming calmness is proportional to emotions/feelings.

Out of curiosity, I've googled "emotions innate": there doesn't seem to be a status-quo [0][1]. AFAIK, imitation is crucial for learning, but I'd be surprised if nothing had been left from the mother's womb.

[0]: https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/februa...

[1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3z50ur/are_emot...