Philosophy Now Forum

Whenever we do something, how do we do it?

We do it either from our experience of how we have done it before or through the experience of someone who has done it before. We can recollect from memory – we may have read about it, seen it being done or heard about it. But if we have not read or heard about it, have no personal experience of it and haven’t seen it being done before, then, could we ever do something? Chances are – no. But how does a baby, that is just born, know even with its eyes closed that it has to drink its mother’s milk to survive? Isn’t it a paradox? How is it possible for that young baby to know this? The young infant has just arrived into the world. It hasn’t been told how to do it, it hasn’t seen this before, nor has it ever experienced it - then how does this young baby do it?

This is a very important question to ponder on because this will make us realize certain truths that will help us uncover the mystery of life. But before we can uncover the mystery of life, we must stop and ponder on this: How is it possible for this young baby to be born and start doing things that nobody has taught it to do; things that he has never experienced before? How does this magic happen?

AiR

I'm going to take a wild guess. Has it got something to do with God?

AiR wrote:Whenever we do something, how do we do it?

We do it either from our experience of how we have done it before or through the experience of someone who has done it before. We can recollect from memory – we may have read about it, seen it being done or heard about it. But if we have not read or heard about it, have no personal experience of it and haven’t seen it being done before, then, could we ever do something? Chances are – no. But how does a baby, that is just born, know even with its eyes closed that it has to drink its mother’s milk to survive? Isn’t it a paradox? How is it possible for that young baby to know this? The young infant has just arrived into the world. It hasn’t been told how to do it, it hasn’t seen this before, nor has it ever experienced it - then how does this young baby do it?

This is a very important question to ponder on because this will make us realize certain truths that will help us uncover the mystery of life. But before we can uncover the mystery of life, we must stop and ponder on this: How is it possible for this young baby to be born and start doing things that nobody has taught it to do; things that he has never experienced before? How does this magic happen?

AiR

A human being is a combination of instincts and learned behaviors. A person is born with several instincts that are necessary for survival and some instinctive behaviors only need the body to mature enough for the behavior to be physically possible. Walking is a good example of this, a Baby already knows how to walk, it's just that the body is not physically developed enough at birth. As a person grows there are more and more learned behaviors, either from experience, watching or reading, or many different ways of acquiring a behavior or skill. Unfortunately there are some who believe that instinctive behaviors should be replaced by certain approved learned behaviors, and this can lead to some emotional problems and should be avoided. If someone is telling you to adopt a behavior that goes against your nature, get away from them as soon as you can. If you like you can attribute instincts to God, or not.

FYI, instincts are part of the genetic code that is passed from parents to children, so in that sense the parents could take credit for teaching a baby certain behaviors.

Doc said:

"A human being is a combination of instincts and learned behaviors." Here's a good question. That first human being, was he or she all instinct or was it part learned behaviors. If learned behaviors, then from whom and what were those learned behaviors? (from the Neanderthals?)

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Doc said:

"A human being is a combination of instincts and learned behaviors." Here's a good question. That first human being, was he or she all instinct or was it part learned behaviors. If learned behaviors, then from whom and what were those learned behaviors? (from the Neanderthals?)

PhilX

Compared to the human time scale, evolution is a slow process that only happens a little at a time from one generation to the next. At one point the human ancestors were animals with mostly instinctive behavior and a little learned behavior, at some point the group evolved and became human and there was more learned behavior that was learned from the parents and others in the group. There was no "first human being" there was a group of individuals that gradually acquires all the characteristics we now call human. Trying to pin down the exact time when humans became human, is chasing a phantom that does not exist.

I will assume that you are referring to external behaviors, as internal activities, such as breathing and digesting of food, all happens without conscious thought. One more extreme example, do you think that you are going to think?

Doc said:

"There was no "first human being" there was a group of individuals that gradually acquires all the characteristics we now call human. Trying to pin down the exact time when humans became human, is chasing a phantom that does not exist.

I will assume that you are referring to external behaviors, as internal activities, such as breathing and digesting of food, all happens without conscious thought. One more extreme example, do you think that you are going to think?" With your last question, I can ask you the same?

Since anthropologists keep on giving out estimates on when Homo Sapiens started, then the thought or question is valid. To say that the group couldn't be conceived of starting off as a single individual smacks of illogic and flies in the face of evidence.

It doesn't matter to me if you regard an external behavior as an "internal activity." To mention the food example is a poor one to characterize as being internal because you must normally start eating the food using your teeth to gnaw it down which is an external activity and perhaps cook it too to put it into a digestible state.

Let's get back to the beginnings of Homo Sapiens. What are the possibilities? Either a man or a woman was born whose genes could have been altered by cosmic rays. Then that person could have had sex with a Neanderthal leading to further Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. A possible problem is where a Homo Sapien man and a woman with the same bloodline try to have sex and children where the children wouldn't survive. As the anthropologists explore further, maybe they'll discover something that could explain.

So what do you "think" about this?

PhilX

AiR wrote:...

We do it either from our experience of how we have done it before or through the experience of someone who has done it before. ...

Or we use trial and error.

We can recollect from memory – we may have read about it, seen it being done or heard about it. But if we have not read or heard about it, have no personal experience of it and haven’t seen it being done before, then, could we ever do something? ...

By trial and error.

Chances are – no. But how does a baby, that is just born, know even with its eyes closed that it has to drink its mother’s milk to survive? Isn’t it a paradox? How is it possible for that young baby to know this? The young infant has just arrived into the world. It hasn’t been told how to do it, it hasn’t seen this before, nor has it ever experienced it - then how does this young baby do it?

It doesn't the mother teaches it, breast-feeding takes a while and a lot of trial and error and how the baby does it is due to the suck reflex of the body, smell and hunger.

This is a very important question to ponder on because this will make us realize certain truths that will help us uncover the mystery of life. But before we can uncover the mystery of life, we must stop and ponder on this: How is it possible for this young baby to be born and start doing things that nobody has taught it to do; things that he has never experienced before? How does this magic happen?

Evolution, genetics, a CNS and trial and error. Without the mother or father the baby will just die.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:"Doc said:
I will assume that you are referring to external behaviors, as internal activities, such as breathing and digesting of food, all happens without conscious thought. One more extreme example, do you think that you are going to think?" With your last question, I can ask you the same?"

It doesn't matter to me if you regard an external behavior as an "internal activity." To mention the food example is a poor one to characterize as being internal because you must normally start eating the food using your teeth to gnaw it down which is an external activity and perhaps cook it too to put it into a digestible state.

PhilX

To be clear, I was only referring to digestion as an internal unconscious activity, eating or cooking the food is certainly a conscious external activity. Please read more carefully.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Doc said:
"There was no "first human being" there was a group of individuals that gradually acquires all the characteristics we now call human. Trying to pin down the exact time when humans became human, is chasing a phantom that does not exist."

Let's get back to the beginnings of Homo Sapiens. What are the possibilities? Either a man or a woman was born whose genes could have been altered by cosmic rays. Then that person could have had sex with a Neanderthal leading to further Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. A possible problem is where a Homo Sapien man and a woman with the same bloodline try to have sex and children where the children wouldn't survive. As the anthropologists explore further, maybe they'll discover something that could explain.

So what do you "think" about this?

PhilX

Homo Sapiens existed separately from Neanderthals and only encountered them after both had evolved, so interbreeding with Neanderthal's had nothing to do with the evolution of human beings. Again there isn't a single pair that evolved into human beings, but a population that evolved, there is no reason to believe that there was a single pair, there is no reason to expect nature to conform to human prejudice.

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Doc said:
"There was no "first human being" there was a group of individuals that gradually acquires all the characteristics we now call human. Trying to pin down the exact time when humans became human, is chasing a phantom that does not exist."

Let's get back to the beginnings of Homo Sapiens. What are the possibilities? Either a man or a woman was born whose genes could have been altered by cosmic rays. Then that person could have had sex with a Neanderthal leading to further Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. A possible problem is where a Homo Sapien man and a woman with the same bloodline try to have sex and children where the children wouldn't survive. As the anthropologists explore further, maybe they'll discover something that could explain.

So what do you "think" about this?

PhilX

Homo Sapiens existed separately from Neanderthals and only encountered them after both had evolved, so interbreeding with Neanderthal's had nothing to do with the evolution of human beings. Again there isn't a single pair that evolved into human beings, but a population that evolved, there is no reason to believe that there was a single pair, there is no reason to expect nature to conform to human prejudice.

So let me ask how many HS in this starting group?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote: Homo Sapiens existed separately from Neanderthals and only encountered them after both had evolved, so interbreeding with Neanderthal's had nothing to do with the evolution of human beings. Again there isn't a single pair that evolved into human beings, but a population that evolved, there is no reason to believe that there was a single pair, there is no reason to expect nature to conform to human prejudice.

So let me ask how many HS in this starting group?

PhilX

I believe that one estimate had it around 10 thousand individuals.

If you want to believe the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, you are free to do so, I can't keep you from being wrong.

thedoc wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote: Homo Sapiens existed separately from Neanderthals and only encountered them after both had evolved, so interbreeding with Neanderthal's had nothing to do with the evolution of human beings. Again there isn't a single pair that evolved into human beings, but a population that evolved, there is no reason to believe that there was a single pair, there is no reason to expect nature to conform to human prejudice.

So let me ask how many HS in this starting group?

PhilX

I believe that one estimate had it around 10 thousand individuals.

If you want to believe the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, you are free to do so, I can't keep you from being wrong.

I'll let you worry about Adam and Eve. Where do you think this group estimated to be 10,000 came from, the "population" that evolved from somewhere? Why not a pair or even one to start with? Who did HS evolve from?
Last time I checked it was said we evolved, in part, from Neanderthal with about 3% of their genes inside of us. And no, HS isn't responsible for wiping out the Neanderthals by any warlike means. I'm checking the internet for updates to this story.

PhilX

I found this out about HS:

"All people today are classified as Homo sapiens. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals. It is now clear that early Homo sapiens, or modern humans, did not come after the Neandertals but were their contemporaries. However, it is likely that both modern humans and Neandertals descended from Homo heidelbergensis."

At the very start of HS, they would have the same bloodline which would hinder population growth. How HS got through that, I don't know. There would be many obstacles against population growth (for HS and many other life forms which I look upon as a miracle).

Nowadays I hear about many discoveries (e.g. Homo Naledi) and I'm certain the history books would have to be rewritten.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I found this out about HS:
At the very start of HS, they would have the same bloodline which would hinder population growth.
PhilX

Why would having the same bloodline hinder population growth? I have not heard this before.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:

thedoc wrote: Homo Sapiens existed separately from Neanderthals and only encountered them after both had evolved, so interbreeding with Neanderthal's had nothing to do with the evolution of human beings. Again there isn't a single pair that evolved into human beings, but a population that evolved, there is no reason to believe that there was a single pair, there is no reason to expect nature to conform to human prejudice.

I believe that one estimate had it around 10 thousand individuals.

If you want to believe the Biblical account of Adam and Eve, you are free to do so, I can't keep you from being wrong.

I'll let you worry about Adam and Eve. Where do you think this group estimated to be 10,000 came from, the "population" that evolved from somewhere? Why not a pair or even one to start with? Who did HS evolve from?
Last time I checked it was said we evolved, in part, from Neanderthal with about 3% of their genes inside of us. And no, HS isn't responsible for wiping out the Neanderthals by any warlike means. I'm checking the internet for updates to this story.

PhilX

The genetic content from Neanderthal is thought to be from interbreeding, not descending from.