This topic involves what is considered as a normal mental functioning human being and their belief system. By belief system I mean, everything that one comes to accept as true throughout their entire life.

How does one come to believe something is true?

Seeing how that is the foundational element in this line of thinking, I believe that question needs to be objectively addressed. I will do so by offering a premise which is necessarily true in all known cases.

1.) One's initial belief system is learned and starts simple.

To me this is self-evident, however that is contingent upon some other fundamental principles. A mature belief system is a complex mechanism which has at it's beginning an adopted ideology that is learned from parents or whomever rears the child. Seeing how an adult's personal belief system requires complex conscious correlations, I think that a child's must begin much more simply. It requires the ability to recognize simple correlations between actions and consequences, the mental recognition of cause and effect. The term simple is important here because children are necessarily - at first - simple minded. It is common sense that a child does not/cannot have an elaborate understanding of complex ideas before they gain the understanding of the more simple elements which combine to produce those more complex ideas. One does not just begin speaking about complex concepts, rather a child begins with simple utterances which mean simple things. We are born with a physiological nervous system. We have an innate ability to physically perceive the world around us. We do not need 'outside' help to be able to see, hear, taste, feel, and smell. We do not need to be able to recognize the world around us in order to physically percieve(sense) it. Without being able to identify that which is being perceived, we must conclude that a child cannot be born with a complex understanding of things which have yet to have been perceived or learned of.

It makes sense then, that a child first begins to realize through the unknowing use of the innate physiological nervous system that certain actions get certain results/consequences that amount to anything that feels 'good' and/or they like, such as being fed, held, talked to, etc. while others get others that amounts to anything that feels 'bad' and/or they don't like. Through such a conscious correlation being made between behavior and reaction, the person begins to consciously identify cause and effect relationships through their recognition of consistency concerning these things.

In much the same way, I believe that one also begins to learn to correlate specific vocalized sounds with specific objects of perception - one begins to have a working use of language. It makes sense to me that when one is first learning how to speak and/or effectively communicate they are beginning to accept things as being true as well, but it is a slightly different kind of recognition in thought which is more like a realization that a specific words means something specific. They begin to believe not only that so and so word means this, or that so and so word means that, but also why that is the case through distinction from other words and their appropriated correlational objects. That constitutes reason to believe that one is taught not only what things are called, but by that they also learn to make distinctions between things. They learn that things are not called something else. In this way, learning the names of different things necessarily comes first in one's belief system.

That is all I will write for now. I am curious to see what kind of interest this generates. The topic has always fascinated me.

I'm not convinced that all adults have 'complex conscious correlations' in their belief system. It may be that a child's begins more simply, but a very young child may develop a more complex set of associations than the average adult.

Two sentences later, I think the sentence is more 'on point' if you replace the word 'children' with 'humans', as follows:





The conclusion may be true, but it is not directly logically required by the observations. You seem to be simply dismissing a range of hypotheticals related to storing information in the genes, activities during gestation, and non-material models of reality.

However, I think that sane, sensible, and science-literate people will reasonably come to the same conclusion you have.



I suppose this may simply be an example of a means by which a human develops understanding of cause and effect. I think that the interaction with the inanimate world provides an excellent basis for developing an understanding of cause and effect. Grab the bottle, put it in the mouth - obtain milk. See object on side of crib, push it, it falls. See 2nd object, push it, it falls.



I hold that they have already accepted things as being true, without labels. They form associations between being thirsty, drinking from the bottle, and no longer being thirsty. These associations form 'beliefs', without forming 'statements'.

Good points massage and I would agree with them.

This is a very good point actually. I should have written 'spoken things', because that is really where my thoughts were when writing that section. I felt like there needed to be a distinction made between one's innate physiological nervous system and the language factor, because somewhere in time they merge and what is being perceived is colored by language.

The non-verbal associations you're mentioning needed to be given more due than I gave them, because they also help to build one's confidence in cause and effect relationships before one has acquired language capabilities. There is no reason I can think of to believe otherwise.

I appreciate your observation here.

'a normal mental functioning human being..' interesting, is there such a thing?
an idea that is complex to an adult may not be so to a child
i don't believe that children necessarily adopt their parents or carers ideologies
my first memories are dreams and an interaction i noticed between dreams and awakeness. to me the dreams were as real as when awake and more profound. i have always questioned the reality of anything i am experiencing as a result
though perhaps am not a normal mental functioner

You can conclude that if you believe it.

(And I have childhood memories since before I could speak that were very complex.)

There are also known and verified cases of children born with some memories of past lives. (Whether these memories are in the genes or cells or whether reincarnation, makes no difference.)

How can you be sure that your conclusions are not based on your own belief?


Comes first? I don't think so. Learning the names of things is probably more related to learning what 'other people' are calling them and then an agreement is reached.

"Okay, my mom says that this is a banana. So, I will agree to call it a banana."

Solberry wrote:



'Normal' meaning properly developed in a physical sense during pregnancy and at birth.



Well, there are very bright children and not so bright adults, so I would agree with this as a general statement when and if children have already began developing their problem solving skills or perhaps have an innate 'knack' for something in particular, however, right now I am focus upon and speaking about the very beginnings of a person's belief system.



Because of the fact that we are unique individuals in many ways, I would agree that a child(while as a child) may not completely adopt another's ideology, however what possible reason(s) could one give for the parents ideology, whatever it may be, to not be the original foundation upon which one's original world-view is based?

I agree with you Creative.

And in the normal psychology of a growing child a time comes that they separate from their parents and accept that they are individual. At this point the acceptance of what they were taught and how they see the world individually clashes in their minds. The end result is the beginning of the adult complexity.

I can remember as a child looking at the sky to see god because that is what my parents said and church said. I also remember feeling fear because of the things I perceived as wrong that I had done. Thinking I needed to go tell on myself so that god wouldn't punish me for them. But my fear of my parent's wrath was stronger than my fear of god's...lol Maybe that was the start of the end for my religious beliefs....

My mom said I was the questioner as a child, nothing was beyond question. I was also the rebel. So I guess I was bound to not be the "norm".

I can see in some people that the clash of individuality never seemed to happen for some reason and they continue to carry their parents outdated beliefs with stubborn intensity.

I do not base logical conclusions upon belief, I make every conscious and deliberate attempt to do it the other way around.



Verified by whom, and by what measure? I mean, how could that possibly be tested for accuracy?



Are you asking me personally, or is this a general question and 'you' actually means 'whomever'?



Two things here, the first being the known fact that a child's brain is not developed enough at that age to perform that kind of reasoning. Secondly, making an agreement does not contradict what I am saying here, in fact it is a large part of it. However, because of the fact just given, I am not talking about that kind of mental activity yet.

Interestingly enough though, I must give you credit here for noticing that something was not quite 'right' with that conclusion, beause it is not framed properly. For the reasons already discussed with massagetrade, we can know that a child begins to associate cause and effect prior to language, therefore I should have included the non-spoken aspect into that conclusion. That conclusion refers to the language aspect, which is not the very beginning of the belief system. It should've been clearer. The entire OP was written off the cuff and is a little loose as a result.

It is interesting to watch and communicate with children who are in the beginnings of that 'stage'. Although, I am not sure 'stage' is the proper word, because it is more like a right of passage in a very personal sense, not the same sense as others. Most of those others are commonly known to be recognized and sometimes even celebrated by the adults as well.

What actually triggers this kind of thinking is interesting to think about.



I can certainly see how that could be the case.

I have always held the idea that in order to be able to change one's core belief system, if and when such a thing exists within a person, there must be some kind of exposure to *something* which they already agree with. I call that a transitional truth. Although I can imagine cases in which whatever it may be is not necessarily true, so I probably need to reframe that as well.





Yes, based upon my own experience, I do believe that there are many people in this world who almost completely adopt another's ideology as their own, with little to no questioning.

I think that the intensity of the mental 'clash' may be determined or at least directly correlate to the significance of the differences between what one has been taught, and what one has come to believe otherwise.

I have done some reading on the subject and the verification was about information that came from a child about a previous life having facts and even names that were verified. Sorry, I can't give you any more information than that. It was a long time ago and I was not that interested in pursuing the research further myself, but there are many who do.



I was asking you personally.





At what age? I'm not sure we named a specific age. Also, I think a lot of people underestimate the reasoning or thinking ability of a child.



okay.

I am absolutely sure that my conclusions(and everyone else's) are based upon my(their) belief system. Keep in mind that by belief system I am referring to everything that one comes to believe as true.



With a duly noted italicized correction...



At whatever age a normally developing child is first learning to say the word 'banana', s/he cannot possibly have the cognitive ability required to silently and consciously apply this kind of reasoning to a situation in which the mother is pointing to an object while saying the word "banana".

"Okay, my mom says that this is a banana. So, I will agree to call it a banana."

That cannot be reasoned out mentally by a child in that stage of development. Children at the age of first learning a rudimentary vocabulary, such as the example in question, do not question those kinds of things. Without the ability to question how can one consciously and deliberately agree? When one does first develop the cognitive functioning to be able to completely grasp the meaning of the terms being used in a teaching process, the words and the process is not even being questioned. Those first words and their meanings are the basis for all other learned language. It is more like this, and this is not me attemping to attribute cohesive thinking that is based upon correct sentence structure into a child who has not yet learned the language...

The mom is making this sound(the word banana) while showing the child a banana. Mom says "That is a banana." The child will eventually be able to come to repeat - through mimicing the mother - whatever sounds the child hears the mother make while showing a banana. It is a repetitive process.

At that age what is being learned is taken upon faith and faith alone. A normally functioning child completely trusts their parents, unless or until they have something happen which breaches that trust. That includes the names of things.

Oh I see. I did not mean to imply that a child would learn what to call or name a banana the first time s/he heard it.

However, before the child learned what people call that thing, I am quite sure s/he learned that it is something to eat.

Eventually, he would learn how to ask for that food after having heard it referred to as a "banana" enough times. At that point it becomes an an agreement between the child and anyone else who refers to the food as a banana. (Whether he thinks about it being an agreement or not.)

Because of the fact that we are unique individuals in many ways, I would agree that a child(while as a child) may not completely adopt another's ideology, however what possible reason(s) could one give for the parents ideology, whatever it may be, to not be the original foundation upon which one's original world-view is based?


if one has great conflict with their parents and it is obvious to the child that their parents are not being entirely honest with them, then the child will question what they are taught and will not accept their parents ideology

creative:

Two things here, the first being the known fact that a child's brain is not developed enough at that age to perform that kind of reasoning.


a 'known' fact? i would like to challenge the assumption that a brain is wholly responsible for memory retention and/or reasoning ability.
i 'believe' that we are naturally connected to another source from birth that science does not recognize, where our ideas emanate from

You are barking up the wrong tree telling him that. Not only does 'science' not recognize it, neither does Creative.

I too think Creative's "known facts" look more like assumptions to me. I think a child at that age has a great potential to reason. It is communication with the idiot adults s/he has a problem with.

Conflict with parents in this way comes after the foundation has already began, because belief always comes before doubt. In order to doubt something, one must already believe something else which contradicts that which is being doubted. I would agree that not all belief systems are exact duplicates of the parents, because of the facts that parents are not the only influencing factors, in addition to individuality.



Yes, a known fact, in addition to common sense. A child at that age does not even know what a banana is, let alone what an agreement is, therefore cannot consciously and deliberately make one or reason one out as in the example given. You would like to challenge it with what? Both of those things suffer along with the brain, althoug memory could get into genetics. Complex reasoning is based in and is a known function of the prefrontal cortex. Case study after case study shows this to be true, time and time again, even moreso as fmri imaging develops.

Memory is much more vaguely understood.



Why do you believe that? What grounds do that idea rest upon?

A child does not have to know the meaning of 'agreement' in order to agree.

A child is a new observer. If he eats a banana he knows he likes or does not like it and he knows if he wants or does not want it.

If he wants it, and he learns that these other people are calling it 'banana' and he learns how to speak that word to get what he wants, then he is 'agreeing' with their terminology simply because it is what he needs to use in order to get what he wants. He could actually care less what it is called, but he uses the term in order to communicate and get what he wants.

Also a child does not have to know language to reason things out.

How far back does your childhood memory go? I remember things and thoughts I had BEFORE I could speak any language. These thoughts are in the form of feelings and images.

Solberry,

The entire mindset offered in the OP is the epitome of western thinking. It's entirely based on a belief in objective truths. This is the way that many people in the west have been conditioned to think. It's the basis their belief system.

They have been totally blinded to the fact that there can be no objectivity and that all perception is necessarily subjective. Because of this blindness, they tend to refer to their subjective opinions as "facts", because in their belief system, they view their subjective opinions as being objective truths and because of this they have formed a belief that their views must necessarily apply to everyone.

If you are going to suggest a subjective view of reality (along the lines of the Eastern Philosophies), then you may as well be talking to your cat or dog. The western thinkers have cast their minds in the concrete belief of an "objective reality" which they demand that everyone else must either agree with, or be labled as 'illogical' or 'delusional'.

Just so you know.

i believe that the mind is a terrible thing to taste