[MD] Science begins to catch up to Pirsig

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --



> Those who have read and understand the MOQ realize that science
> is often a lagging indicator. Take for example an article in the Boston
> Globe entitled "Inside the baby mind." Among the points it makes:
>
> Babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults.
>
> Baby brains can take in a much wider spectrum of sensation.
> They are more aware than we are.
>
> Babies are able to assimilate vast amounts of information with ease.
>
> Children are much better than adults to pick up on all the
> extraneous stuff going on.
>
> Baby brain comes with another advantage: utter absorption
> in the moment.
>
> In some situations it might be better for adults to regress to
> a newborn state of mind.
>
> When we need to create something completely new,
> thinking like a baby is our best option. ...

Thanks for the link, Platt.  I read this article because I'm interested in 
child development.  It would appear to be a review of a book by psychologist 
Alison Gopnik, as most of the scientific information is credited to her. 
While the points you cite are interesting from a philosophical perspective, 
some of the conclusions need to be confirmed by neurophysiologists before 
they're accepted as factual.  For example, isn't it a bit naive to suggest 
that "babies are more aware, more conscious of the world than adults" when 
babies don't yet know what the world is?

Hyperawareness may allow infants to "assimilate more information [from] a 
wider spectrum of sensation," but thinking is the process of integrating 
information which requires "intellectual reasoning" and a narrow attention 
focus, neither of which is an infant capability.  I suspect that Gopnik 
herself would have problems with the reviewer's assertion that "the infants' 
inability to focus their attention" is a "crucial asset in the learning 
process."  And while "a walk with a 2-year-old" may demonstrate that the 
child is "seeing things you don't even notice", this is no evidence that the 
child is learning or comprehending from the experience.  Also, "utter 
absorption in the moment" may be an advantage in Zen meditation (the book 
title is "The Philosophical Baby"), but would certainly not be an asset 
when, say, crossing a busy street.

Not to be critical, but book endorsements by philosophy journalists are not 
the best source for valid scientific information.  Admittedly, getting 
inside a baby's mind is asking a lot of empirical science, and
investigative research has undoubtedly lagged behind in this area.  But 
jumping to the conclusion that "thinking like a baby is our best option 
...whether sorting irrelevant information or creating something new," is 
hardly what I would expect from a scientist.

All told, it's probably a good thing that you ended your post with a Pirsig 
quote on this subject:

> "From the baby's point of view, something, he knows not what,
> compels attention. This generalized 'something',' Whitehead's
> 'dim apprehension,' is Dynamic Quality."

Best regards,
Ham