₦airaland Forum

Please see reflexes in newborns, perhaps it would put us on the same wavelength.

vaxx:
I am not even debating you. I am discussing here . I want you not to focus too much on the definition but the applicability because the definition are always limited in scope.


I already imply what it means by swimming and I have gave reasons why baby do.

I raised a question what is the essentials of swimming?

The only 'reason' you gave was 'reflex', which wiki said was not swimming. If you remove the adult support from the baby, will it swim, vaxx?

If we can't agree on the definition of "swimming" we are not going to get anywhere with empathy, innate, compassion etc. Focus, and let us learn, please.

vaxx:
Budaatum ...the bolded...

"Reflexes that make it look like they are", specifically implies they are not swimming, at least within context.

Vaxx, I've told you about this thing of yours you do when we've discussed before and would not be doing it again here. The wiki page has a clear position on infant swimming!

Martinez19:
empathy is like(not exactly) anger, we are born with the ability to be angry but what we are angry at depends on REASON. If there is no reason to get angry, we don't get angry. I can be agree at someone but when I upgrade my reasoning and find out that there is no objective reason to be angry at that person then I stop being angry. Hope you get my point.

I have seen lots of people get angry for no valid reason except their very own stupidity. And as a basic instinct, or reflex, there is no better example, though innate of the worst form. But the ability to be the more desired, less angry, however, is taught, and can be learned. A classic is turn the other, a lesson teaching the abandoning of reflex action for improved superior behaviour.

vaxx:
you aready had it in your quote. Maybe i will bold it.

Please do.

vaxx:
There are study to prove baby already had this mechanism inbuilt. Wikipedia page you reference support it.

Please provide a single quote from the page that makes you say the above!

Martinez19:
The ability to kick a ball(be empathy and compassionate) is inborn for normal people where as a professional level of play(what we show empathy and compassion to) is developed and learned. Empathy and compassion is inborn but through reasoning, we decided what to show show empathy and compassion to.

I categorically reject the distinction you are attempting to make here! You yourself mentioned Messi, so don't try making it "kick a ball" now. Professional level of play is not "what we show empathy and compassion to"! Its simple kicking a ball better!

The ability to kick a ball at all (be empathic and compassionate) is inborn (yuk) for normal people, but whether one is empathic or compassionate at all, is learnt.

Yuk is to denote very reluctance leaning to acceptance with very strong reservations.

Martinez19:
Learnt - no! , developed over time - it depends. As far as empathy and compassion is concerned, we are born with the ability to show empathy and compassion ^{but what we show empathy and compassion towards depend on and is regulated by reasoning (our judgment based on our intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convinction). You can't learn or develop empathy/compassion itself but what you show empathy and compassion to is dependent and regulated by reasoning}.

When you say "ability to show empathy and compassion", do you mean that humans are capable of being empathic and compassionate? If you do, I agree. Just as humans are capable of becoming lawyers, or dentists or accountants. But if one doesn't put in the effort to learn to be a lawyer, or dentist or accountant or show empathy and compassion, and continue to develop those learnt skills (which is what they are), one wouldn't exactly be any good at any of them.


See Can Empathy Be Taught

vaxx:
This is where learnning take its position. Baby ofcourse we need an adult guide to perfect this skills.


The baby in its own posses an inbuilt reflex That allow this but adult aid is needed to accomplish it.

So, it has to be taught, and learnt? Do you understand where learning lies in the definition of 'innate'?

Reflex is not a skill, vaxx, in this instance, at least!

vaxx:
the reflexes is the innate ability.

And not "swimming"?

Martinez19:
I would have to side budaatum on this one. If I know how to play football better than Messi but I have no legs, do I have the ability to play football? Ability to perform a certain task means you have all it takes to successfully execute the task.

Thank you. And there's the fact that Messi developed over time and was not born with a football at his feet when he came out the womb.

So, can we say, the ability to be empathic is innate?
And to what extent would it be innate, if it were?

Martinez19:
When I use the word innate, I mean inborn only. My post made it clear.

Do you agree that a thing that is innate is not a thing learnt or developed over time?

vaxx:
read again Buddha....nothing i posted here disagree with Wikipedia references you forward.

You said babies have an innate ability to swim. Wiki says they have reflexes that make it seem they swim but they can't! So how are you and wiki saying the same thing vaxx?

vaxx:
innate ability cannot be lost as it is part Of you ...

This is what is said about infant swimming:

It is extremely important to note that while babies can imitate swimming motions and reflexes, they are not yet physically capable of swimming.

We all know that if you don't learn to swim and jump into the river you would just drink it dry since it would appear you have completely lost the supposed innate ability to swim but which you claim "cannot be lost as it is part of you".

vaxx:
i am aware of this phenomenon and that is why I ask you to make a little research before coming up with evidence .

Of course they need our help to make them perfect the swimming but naturally baby does have a natural ability to swim, the natural ability comes from a pair of reflexes she has when she's in the water. And that is what is am trying to show or prove .

The swimming reflex. If you support a baby in water tummy-side down she will move her arms and legs in a swimming motion.

Dive reflex. A baby will hold her breath and open her eyes when she's under water.

But what you are trying to "show or prove" is not true, at least going by the evidence as posted! Or please provide evidence for the claim that babies swim.

Martinez19:
If something is innate, it means you are born with it. I made it clear in my post.

It is not yet clear to me, and I've said so! Please see the following and note the word "seem", "implies". They don't mean it is exactly so!

SYNONYMY NOTE:
innate, inborn are often interchangeable, but , innate has more extensive connotations, describing that which belongs to something as part of its nature or constitution, and, inborn, the simpler term, more specifically suggesting qualities so much a part of one's nature as to seem to have been born in or with one [inborn modesty]; inbred refers to qualities that are deeply ingrained by breeding [an inbred love of learning]; congenital implies existence at or from one's birth, specifically as a result of prenatal environment [congenital blindness]; hereditary implies acquirement of characteristics by transmission genetically from parents or ancestors [hereditary blondness].

Seun:
But how do we apply it to morality because it seems quite apparent that human beings don't have the same opinions about what is moral or not. This is something that is not debatable at all; it's an obvious fact. This makes me feel that I do not understand the topic at all.

How can we conclude that something is good if no person sees it as good? How can we find out if something is 'objectively' moral?

In fact, I think you do understand the topic, moreso than some even. Or you wouldn't have seen how complicated the topic is!

Subjectivity applies when the quality of being is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. And Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. Subjectivity is "one says", while objectivity "just is" independently of anyone's opinion. Your question, "How can we conclude that something is good if no person sees it as good?" Brings it to fore nicely.

Good denotes that which is to be or should be preferred when posed with a choice between a set of possible actions and is generally considered to be the opposite of evil. You would note the subjective in that definition, the subject "posed with a choice". The objective moralists claim the subjective choice is externally objectively imposed and/or innate. While the subjective moralists say humans decide their own morals.

The question, "How can we find out if something is 'objectively' moral?" Depends on how rigorous you intend to be. Morals, for instance, is a code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society. Do "codes of behaviour" originate from us human beings, or are they independent of anyone's opinion?

Martinez19:
@first paragraph
You are missing my point. Let me explain better so you and Seun would understand my point.

A man's morality is govern by two things: his reasoning and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate but what we shall be empathic and compassionate towards depends on our reasoning (a term I used to refer to our judgements based on our intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convictions). We might be empathic towards animals but if we are convinced that a god exists; we are to fear him and offer animal sacrifices to him and we are brainwashed to think God provided animals to be used as sacrifices, we won't find anything wrong with sacrificing animals to god. In this case, our reasoning blunts our empathy/compassion towards animals. But if our reasoning is upgraded [ ie. We aquire the right knowledge (which obviously influences and dictates conviction)] and we see that there is no God and therefore no good reason to sacrifice animals and we realise that animals have feelings and consciousness and are deserving of empathy, we deem animal sacrifices immoral because it's torturous and has no positive or negative consequences in the long run (check the maths I gave johnydon2z). I dare say that, in a similar fashion, this how the abolition of slavery began. Some men saw that there is no good reason to enslave and torture humans despite the fact that the majority judged slavery okay (the bible and their christian upbringing influenced their reasoning and their empathy towards blacks were blunted but that wasn't the case for the slave liberators whose thinking were upgraded and there was nothing to blunt their empathy. These same slave masters would be found to be empathic towards their children because they have no reason not to except they were like Nigerians who torture their children because A CLERGY TOLD them that their children are witches). The upper case "ACL CLERGY TOLD THEM" highlights what and how there reasoning are influenced.

Check out the maths I gave johnydon2z that describes how people are biological wired to build up their moral codes and see the interplay of empathy/compassion and reasoning. What a man would deem moral or immoral depends on two factors: his reasoning(his judgments based on intelligence, logical prowess, knowledge base and convinction) and empathy/compassion. Empathy and compassion is innate(as it is an ability we are born with) but what we would be empathic and compassionate towards is not innate and it depends on our reasoning. Since our reasoning are different, what a person would deem immoral is what another man would not deem immoral. Men in Muslim countries deem premarital sex immoral and a taboo but atheists do not deem it immoral because they reason differently. However since truth is objective, if people's reasoning are upgraded(ie. they acquire the right knowledge and they believe it), the range of things they find moral shall increase proportionate and the limit of that increase in the objective morality(that only moral code no one can make a case against) . So while that is not yet happening, what people deem moral shall vary. Hope my stance on morality is understood?

@second paragraph
What? we don't learn things because we want to know what is moral and immoral. We learn truth because of curiosity, academic reasons and survival . Some of these truths we learn(eg. Yahweh does not exist) will inevitable influence what we deem moral, okay and immoral. Did we develop culture because we want to inform ourselves on morality? Nah!

I think we need to flesh out what is meant by "innate". Too many words in your retort sound more like "developing over time", to me, which is opposite to my understanding of an ability being 'innate'.

vaxx:
Do you know babies have the ability to swim and hold their breath. But Unfortunately they lose it fairly quickly and have to relearn later. Research on this phenomenon before you respond....

Did you "Research on this phenomenon" before you posted about it?

Infant swimming is the phenomenon of human babies and toddlers reflexively moving themselves through water and changing their rate of respiration and heart rate in response to being submerged. The slowing of heart rate and breathing is called the bradycardic response. It is not true that babies are born with the ability to swim, though they have reflexes that make it look like they are. Babies are not old enough to hold their breath intentionally or strong enough to keep their head above water.

vaxx:
when I said developing, it does not automatically translate to learning.. It means the brain passes thru stages to become fully matured just likes our bones

I understand. The definition of innate states "determined by factors present in an individual from birth". I carefully referred to this "ability", when I wrote that it is "no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable".

There's a difference between having the ability to do a thing and actually being able to do the thing. Many people can list abilities they have had that seem to have been present in them from birth but which they have no more because they failed to develop them. If the factors are not there for the development of the ability the ability remains undeveloped and eventually nonexistent.

vaxx:
emphaty can be learned....so it is both inate and learned .

VAXX!

"emphaty can be inate....so it is both learned and inate" (sic)

vaxx:
Genetic empathy is not an all at once understanding. ""According to neurologist"", It takes until you are twenty-five for the brain to finish developing. Until then, a person can appear to be very unempathetic. The first showing of empathy is when you are a child.

So, one can start learning from age child and finish developing until twenty-five?

That sounds nothing like it being 'innate' to me. Nor genetic, for that matter. My genetic eyes never waited that long to turn purple!

Perhaps as seun said, we should define our terms, and if not for everyone else, for ourselves, so we know what we mean.

Innate
1 : existing in, belonging to, or determined by factors present in an individual from birth : NATIVE, INBORN

And see Empathic accuracy.

Mizwisdom:
But Adeleke won so what's the mistake? The only mistake was robbery, he was robbed that's all. A man that made INEC to tear voting paper? Happy rigging jor

Adeleke did not win! Aegbe's APC had been so bad for Osun that a less compromised candidate would have won this last Saturday. 'Robbery', 'rigging' is what the naive losers say. To me, that's Nigeria elections, though it's being done less by every election we hold. If Adeleke was robbed, as you claim, the courts would overturn the result just as they have competently done in the past.

Personally, I prefer the sophistication of the apc guy despite my desire to have seen Aregbe humiliated and crippled so he can't come to my Alimosho lg. Now the fuqer can swagger in with "look what I delivered in Osun State!" My only hope is that Lagosians see this different, or you are correct, and it was "robbery", and the result gets overturned.

Herdsmen:
PDP was sleeping on byke..

Una get election..all of una go sleep..and expect Adeleke to win..

Suffering are lessons..next time..

Make una know say ..blood for blood .. gun for gun ..thugs for thugs.. handkerchiefs for handkerchiefs..

Billion for billions..

Na so we roll in naija..

Gej era is over.. violent men takes power violently..

Thank God this not presidential election..

All lesson learnt ..count your loses and plan ahead..

Apc is brutal.. PDP supposed dey fatal...

No time..

Secoundus..pls wake up..

No gentleman in politics.... Or may you meet ahmadu Ali...for more lectures

Running a candidate like Adeleke was pdps first mistake. The Apc guy is way more desirable, and I don't even know his name!

I'm just sad that Aregbe was not taught a lesson here. Apart from that, sai my bubu!

Daniel Goleman identified five key elements of empathy as

Understanding Others
Developing Others
Having a Service Orientation
Leveraging Diversity
Political Awareness

To which extent could we say these skills are innate? Does one find them in the untutored human (or ape or cat or dog?)

Martinez19:
As I said, moral norms are influenced by cultural and religious upbringings. Cultural and religious upbringings influence reasoning which, along with empathy, govern morality. As it's hard to find a race without a culture and religious ties(which are both merged together with religion dictating culture in all places), it's not unusual to see people disagreeing on what's right and wrong. Back in the days, in Europe, it was shameful, socially stigmatising and disgraceful to not be a virgin, why? Because of the influence of christianity which, in the old testament, placed an unreasonable priority on virginity. It would have been a taboo, then, to suggest that it wasn't a big deal to lose your virginity. Remove religious and cultural upbringings, you will see that people will start agreeing on what's moral or not in most things(probably not all since they will reason different on most things).

This argues against moral norms being innate Martinez19, or I am completely missing your point.

"Cultural and religious upbringings" are all education which would be unnecessary if its already been innately prewired in.

Martinez19:
I might be a christian now but if Islam convinces me, I will start thinking that women should start wearing the hijab, sharia law is okay and that it's okay to cut off a boy's hand for stealing.

Lol! Though, I wonder.

Martinez19:
due to the fact that you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion.

In the first paragraph, you didn't include the role of reasoning in morality instead you treated the case as if empathy alone determines a man's moral compass. You also forgot where I said people's moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings and will different due to different religious and cultural upbringings from place to place. You ignored that because your narrative that christianity is true is more important.

I will reply your posts tomorrow.

Don't annoy me! You've been here long enough to know me by now so please why would buda make a case for Christianity? This wonderful thread specifically says "Atheists Only" and anyone who breaks that rule will burn in hell. buda never said Christianity is 'true' so stop with the projecting!

I understand your position to be that empathy, and morality, and compassion, and the ability to reason, are innate. Yet you yourself present evidence that opposes your position! If a thing is innate, it is prewired in. What is it that would be doing this prewiring? God, perhaps?

If "moral compasses are influenced by religious and cultural upbringings", which are all education, then it is not innate, since it is taught, and nor is empathy in my opinion, since they both have to be learnt. If a person is not taught empathy they very likely would not be empathic.

You could be saying that the 'ability' to be empathic is what is innate. In which case I say no different to the 'ability' of an ape or a dog or a cat to be empathic, and different to a stone, which I assume is incapable of giving a fuq. That still doesn't explain all the unempathic fuqers out there who don't give a fuq unless we want to call them 'stones'.

If morals are "different from place to place", then it most definitely can't be innate, unless you are claiming innateness is location dependent, like living in Nigeria, say, makes one a crook, and on moving to China one fears for ones head. All the same, that just makes it subjective to location, and definitely not innate.

As to "reasoning", which you say I ignore, please explain to me why you would say the "ability to reason is innate"? Do you mean everyone is capable of reasoning perhaps? If so I agree. However, in order to reason competently, one must have undergone some sort of training, or learning at least, or one would blindly strawman others with "you want to subtly make a case for christianity, you misrepresent me, ignore certain parts of my posts and introduce your distortion". You definitely would not say everyone on here is capable of reasoning, I think. Where they in the wrong location when 'reasoning' was being dished out perhaps?

My position is that those who have not learnt to be emphatic, and morally upright, and how to reason, and be compassionate would not be emphatic, or morally upright or reason properly and be compassionate. I don't believe those abilities are innate.

"Make America Great Again?

Just got back from Spike's BlacKkKlansman. Everyone should see it!

Martinez19:
Are you for real? did you expect people of old to empathic to animals when the bible constantly made them an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh? For a man who is convinced of yahweh's existence and whose reasoning is influenced by that, do you expect him to care for animals and forgo making animal sacrifices that would clean his sins?

Yes, I would "expect people of old to be empathic to animals" if the Bible had not taught they were "an object of sacrifice to appease yahweh", but only if empathy were innate. If empathy was innate they would have ignored yahweh for the love of the animal.

"The recent care about animals is due to the new testament (teaching, education, law), which declares animal sacrifices redundant and the upgrade of reasoning that bring about the realization (learning, awareness, consciousness), that animals have feelings and the are deserving of empathy."

Martinez19:
Wait o. I hope you understood my point. If it's subjective FOR HUMANS then different people will disagree on what's moral and their opinions are valid for each of them but if it's objective FOR HUMANS, then only a particular standard can be shown be actually moral using reasoning and empathy/compassion.

Permit me to use certain unofficial words here
Humanocentric morality(moral codes for humans) is objective despite what humans what to believe. Felinocentric (moral codes for cats) is objective despite what any cat might want to think. The same for all specie-centered morality.
However, when you combine all species together and try to look for a universal all encompassing objective moral code, you would be disappointed as such can not exist. For every new organism, there is a specie-central objective moral code for that new organism. Is my point clear before I move on?

Anthropocentrism interprets or regards the world in terms of human values and experiences. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism.

Do you see that your "centrics" imply subjectivity?

johnydon22:
What if compassion or empathy is innate, what makes it good? why is it good? This is the question Martinez is not asking. Why is something good?

We've all heard of parents who have starved the housegirl and even their kids to death, so we can't exactly say 'empathy and compassion is innate in everyone'. And not everyone who has empathy and compassion jumps in to save petrol tyre thief fire Lagos streets, so we can't even say, it's innately equal in those who have it. Saying "compassion or empathy is innate", is no different to saying the reason I dislike dodo is because it's innate in me not to like it. Come to think of it, the reason I don't like dodo is innate, as in, it is for reasons inside me, being that I am programmed to get jedijedi if I eat too much sweet thing, but programmed in me from birth? I wouldn't say so since I was "sweet! sweet" kid, according to ma.

Like a skill, it is learnt, would be my position just like we all learn what good is, as in what I, assume to be good, at least to me is good. It is what most of us do, or show me a person who would consider the hitting of their own thumb with hammer, good, even though it might be good at a point in time for some reason like yesterday and was some bastard's thumb or one was convinced it was good even though it definitely isn't.

So is 'good' an emotional thing? I'd say, somewhat. My child is good, my family is good, my country could be good, the fact that I am an atheist is good, a person wanting to have same sex is just as good as those with three opposites sex, according to me. While to others these good to me things might not all seem quite so good, like it's in the eye of the beholder. Those who tell us to accept Jesus into our lives are offering a good thing, for instance, and according to them, but to the atheist, it might as well be hemlock. But that's not because our atheism is "simply a fabrication of ours given effect", considering how 'show me' we atheists can be.

I wrote the above before going in to see Spike's “BlacKkKlansman”. Go see it. The morals of some people in those days was not innate.