soc.women

Vandar wrote:
>
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
>
> >>>The adult notion of poor child memory doesn't withstand honest scrutiny.
> >>
> >>Yeah... "repressed memories" are real reliable.
> > ------------------
> > Repressed memories are confabulated or imagined, memories that are
> > supported by the recollections of family and others are not.
> >
> > Anyway, if humans really didn't remember their first year, then how
> > to they remember how they learned to walk or talk?
>
> They don't.
-----------------
Of course they do, or they COULDN'T walk or talk!


> > And if humans really didn't remember their first year, then that is
> > an even stronger argument in favor of fetuses not being human!!
>
> Of course they are human. They certainly aren't part of any other
> species. What they aren't are "persons".
---------------------------
Absolutely, but because they can't recall being BEINGS!


> > It suggests that if we had been killed the first year, we would
> > never have even known it! Thus it wouldn't actually happen to
> > "anybody".
>
> Riiiiight. Infants are conscious. That doesn't mean that we remember
> what it was to be one. Even you don't remember your first year. No one does.
----------------------
No, that's NOT true. Congitive research proves that we recall great
portions of the first year, and the things we learned there, they just
aren't indexed for easy retrieval as well, is all.

But before the 4 to 6 week mark after birth, they find there is nothing
more that is attributable. And experiment with infants shows they learn
nothing before that which evidences a personality, they cannot find
themselves in a mirror, understsnd humor, or anticipate a conditioned
response as a personalized being does.
Steve