It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A newborn child who has never fallen before and posses neither a rational mind nor any beliefs will instinctively flinch if you were to move it in a way that it seems to be falling. The same I would assume goes for almost every animal.
Originally posted by boncho
Motion is causing the flinch. As the child would probably flinch moving upward at high speed or sudden jerk. But children will crawl off balconies, or in my case I went down the stairs. (Survived of course)
If children had some inherent warning signal, the manufacturers of baby safety gates would go out of business overnight....
What is your source for that claim?
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
The fear of falling comes from neither a rational mind (although it is rational) nor is it some animalistic belief which got passed on through time as in learned behaviour. It is a deep rooted instinct programmed into the brain just like the recognition of a face.
My interpretation is that it's not really clear from this research that your claim is true that "It is a deep rooted instinct programmed into the brain"; it sounds to me like we aren't really sure about that, or that even if that's a factor, it's probably not the only factor influencing the fear of heights behavior.
Research being done at the Infant Studies Center at Berkeley has found that it is not as simple as pre and post-crawling, but that there is a delay of a few weeks between the time babies start to crawl and when they show a fear of heights. This supports the fact that it is experience crawling, not simply an immediate side effect of development at this stage that causes the fear to emerge. This also fits with anecdotal evidence of babies crawling off the edge of beds or changing tables or even down the stairs when no one is watching (3).
However, one study, which is in the minority, goes against the experience hypothesis. Richards & Rader (1991) found that it was age of crawling onset, not crawling experience, that predicted behavior on the visual cliff (4). Contrary to what would be expected, those babies with an earlier crawling-onset age (hence more crawling experience at the time of testing) performed the worst—that is, did not avoided the drop-off as much as later crawling-onset babies. Testing age did not predict performance. These researchers explained their finding by saying that early crawling onset "during the tactile phase of infancy interferes with later visual control of locomotion" (4). These findings have not been supported but they do raise a red flag at assuming experience leads to more of a fear of heights.
Regardless of whether crawling experience or age of crawling onset has more of an effect on fear of heights, all of this evidence shows that the fear is not completely innate in humans—that we have to either grow into or learn some of what we think of as our "instincts."
This reflex is a response to a sudden loss of support, when the infant feels like it is falling. It is believed to be the only unlearned fear in human newborns. The primary significance of this reflex is in evaluating integration of the central nervous system (CNS), and it involves 3 distinct components:
1. spreading out the arms (abduction)
2. unspreading the arms (adduction)
3. crying (usually)
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by 1littlewolf
I see...thanks for providing the source and the clarification. It's interesting that reflex disappears as the child gets older...I learned something.
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by 1littlewolf
can you explain this moro effect, i just cant make sense of the wikipedia link.
is it fear of falling?
how did they get to this conclusion?
spreading arms is more like getting ready to fall, no?
also is an instinct really a fear? I don't think so, am I wrong?
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by 1littlewolf
don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.
this is called "fringe science" and "psuedoscience" to the close-minded members we see in this thread...but you and I both know consciousness' role in physics plays a much bigger role than they give it credit for...let's just let these grumpy kids play by themselves in this thread
Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by 1littlewolf
THANK YOU!
On a sidenote, you are aware the every year many babies, toddlers fall from incredible height and survive without a scratch.
its interesting.
off course many die, but those who survive, are unexplained. no freak physics or fall break and such.
i will collect these articles from now on, as I demand an explanation!
good to learn something new.edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)edit on 3-2-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
reply to post by 1littlewolf
don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.
this is called "fringe science" and "psuedoscience" to the close-minded members we see in this thread...but you and I both know consciousness' role in physics plays a much bigger role than they give it credit for...let's just let these grumpy kids play by themselves in this thread
It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon, and matter pivots on the function of consciousness, not the other way around.
That's what the movie "What the Bleep..." would have us believe, but if this is so, it certainly has never been proven. And it's not an obvious feature of the double slit experiment which is why I made a thread to illustrate another example of the
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
don't bother even speaking with these guys, It is an obvious feature of the double slit experiment and of quantum physics in general that CONSCIOUSNESS is the base unit of all phenomenon
The fact that the tire pressure is altered by observing the air pressure doesn't mean the tire has consciousness, so I don't understand why people assume this is so unless they are brainwashed by the "What the Bleep..." movie. In my thread I give another example of the observer effect I discovered in my kitchen, which again has no implications of consciousness.
In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on the phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics.
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Stapp favours the idea that quantum waves collapse only when they interact with consciousness. He argues that quantum waves collapse when intelligent brains select one among the alternative quantum possibilities as a basis for future action.[5]
Planck certainly deserves credit for being the founder of quantum theory. However he didn't even believe his own theory would survive. Here's more about Planck:
Originally posted by metalshredmetal
you guys can poke fun and call names all you'd like. it doesn't make you one bit credible.
all these highly credible and successful PhDs > completely anonymous forum member somewhere
wiki quantum consciousness/mind
Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the founder of quantum theory.
max planck quote:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
As quoted in The Observer (25 January 1931)
He was philosophically disgusted by the fact that his own theory proved to be true. And what you quote from him are more philosophical incantations from the same guy who was philosophically revulsed by his own creation. So what does this tell us about the foundations of his philosophical viewpoints?
Planck expected that wave mechanics would soon render quantum theory—his own child—unnecessary. This was not to be the case, however. Further work only cemented quantum theory, even against his and Einstein's philosophical revulsions.