|
|
|
|
|
|
by krisoft
862 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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...