dk

dk: First there are a few things we have agreed upon, so they are worth noting.
We agree people are complex creatures part nature and part nurture, hence differ by a number of complex variables. We agree the inherent capacity of peoples to communicate is unique, and complex.
To answer the question I believe people have a predisposition to learn language, or that the structures of language perceived resonate with innate structures of the brain to make higher forms of communication possible. Note that many people born deaf learn to communicate, so it seems these structures (interrupts) aren’t hard wired to any particular sense, but pass through an interface adept at improvisation. This ability probably describes a mechanism with the innate capacity for creative impulse, literally authoring itself in response to sensory input.
dk: No, I’m pointing -these facts out- to demonstrate how little scientists empirically know about the biological functions of the brain.
dk: Hey, MRI is a great improvement from running mice around a maze, sticking electrodes in the brains of monkeys or electric shock therapy. Still, temporal spatial images of electric brain activity are at best a crude metaphor for higher brain function. A lot of progress has been made in mapping specific functions to areas of the brain. This has done a lot to vindicate the goals of phrenologists from the 18th Century, but done little to normalize human behavior. I think the technology is great, but lets be real, North America prescribes 95% of the world’s psychotropic drugs, and 1 in 20 kids are medicated disproportionately by sub performing public schools. Nobody has a clue about the reliability of these treatments, especially with respect to the side affects or long term disorders masked or caused by these powerful drugs. The body count of youth killed, maimed or incarcerated for suicide, depression, homicide, drug addiction, STDs, obesity and drunk driving pronounces Neuropsychology a poor substitute for morality. Meanwhile Neuropsychology in many academic, cultural and media circles continue to degrade morality as a disease, human life to a parasite, fetuses as a STD, education to social engineering, and death as a solution for social problems. That being the case the cure for morality is objectively far worse than the disease. Reminds me of bleeding a fever.
dk: People have known a physical correlate existed between brain and behavior from the beginning, they knew because a person hit in the head with a hard blunt object displayed all the symptoms of a modern day concussion.
dk: You’re free to believe whatever you want, only a rational person is constrained by reason and physical evidence. I do find it a tad moronic when a dialogue degenerates to one party telling the other, “Reasonable discourse is futile because all outcomes are predetermined”. Were that the case this conversation couldn’t take place.

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

DRFseven

Yes, we do agree on these points.

But in your haste to point out where modern brain-imaging techniques are lacking, you lose sight of what is NOT lacking, and what is NOT lacking is the physical correlate of thinking. We know this; subjects are set to tasks involving various mental efforts and the effects are noted. In some studies, parts of the brain are anesthetized to achieve the results of lesion-studies without the lesions, and we are able to see what happens to the subjects' thinking. So we get both sides of the coin; the neural activity and the thinking that is part and parcel.

As neuropsychology never purports to BE a substitute for morality, this ranting is baseless in terms of this particular discussion.

Please give me an example that shows how neurology and the science of brain-imaging has even addressed any of these issues, much less made any such pronouncements. We're talking about how thinking is accomplished, remember?

Then why did you say, "There is no physical foundation for higher brain function, the surface has barely been scratched. "?

That's just it, dk; I'm NOT free to believe whatever I want, BECAUSE I am constrained by factors such as reason and physical evidence. Do you understand what I'm saying? If I were not constrained by those things, I could freely believe anything I wanted. But I can't do that; I'm powerless over whether or not I think things are true; my reasoning schemes are in charge. For instance, at any point in time, if something seems wrong to me, I can't just decide to think it seems ok; it either seems ok or it doesn't.

dk

dk: - Later in the post I think you pinpoint where our opinions diverge.
dk: - I wouldn’t use the word lacking, but unreliable. The usefulness and unreliability of correlation stems from inference, it indirectly quantifies the relationship between two or more dissimilar events.
dk: - I’m left gasping for a response, this thread is about morality (the right order of human conduct). To the extent neuropsychology reliably explains human behavior in terms of experiences, potential, perceptions, emotions, intentions, appetites and aspirations it comments on morality. The rub on psychology in general stems from unreliable results based upon biased inquires, fraudulent data and unethical procedures. From correctional facilities to family planning what makes a person tick quintessentially purports on the right order of human conduct (morality). Let me try to explain with an analogy, when people go on a diet to loose weight, what they really do is change their diet. In the same sense Hitler’s Third Reich claimed to usher in a New World Order, i.e. change morality. Every human being is on diet, else they starve to death. Everybody subscribes to morality (even anarchists), because its morality that constructs human conducts in terms of right v. wrong, good v. evil, benevolent v. malevolent etc…
dk: - First let me point you to an interesting interview, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/baker.htm" target="_blank"> Lee D. Baker is an Associate Professor of Cultural Anthropology at Duke University </a> I would suggest that bioethics (and neuropsychology has many possible applications) are sometimes expedient, efficient and opportunistic but are wrought with unreliable and catastrophic side effects. There are plenty of governments, institutions, corporations, and special interests groups that would love to take a brain scan in conjecture with DNA analysis to pre-select 7 year olds for special opportunities. In George Orwell’s novel “1984” Big Brother through systematic brainwashing, indoctrination, monitoring and gene therapies subordinates the individual’s free will to state control. There are plenty of recent historical examples; , Jefferson’s letters of scientific inquiry to justify slavery, the 19th Century science of phrenology to justify imperialism, U.S. policy of Separate but Equal, Hitler’s scientific racism, Stalin’s purges, US WW I, WW II military use of biometrics putting poor people on the front lines, U.S. college deferments issued in Vietnam,,, etc… What we can gleam from the struggles of many peoples in the modern world is the plasticity of human potential that make a joke out of Biometrics. I’m not contrary to biometrics or neuropsychology so long as the inquiry is regulated by the highest possible moral and ethical standards.
dk: - By a physical foundation I mean empirical evidence not clinical trials that correlate mental illness with behavior.
dk: - I’m defining freedom as inalienable because people are suited (by the nature of reason and intellect) to participate in their destiny. Objective knowledge doesn’t require an individuals assent, for example gravity is an external force that could care less about me. I’m saying an honest person is forced to tell the truth whether it serves his interests or not; but a liar will tell a lie when the truth would serve him better. It is in this sense that an honest person participates in their destiny, whereas a liar's future is determined for him. In an objective sense we participate in our own destiny by conforming to moral principles and ethical behavior, when people fall short for whatever reason they loose a piece of themselves, People aren't suited to fascism because they are required to do as they are told, and nothing more. People aren’t suited to fascism because they have inalienable impulses to innovate, create and pursue new possibilities for their own reasons. It’s unreasonable to command or train someone to be innovative, because creative impulses are intrinsic to to human nature, a function of plasticity that embodies human potential.

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

DRFseven

People with agendas exploit every field. I think the reason many don't want to look at the mechanism of thinking is that they are afraid of what they'll see; the perception is that explaining thinking actually explains thinking away. But thinking is whatever it is and neuroscience, itself, is blind to any agenda; it's no good trying to link it to eugenics or various hate groups. As I said earlier, the floodgates are open and the data is flooding in and available for all to see.

As anyone can see by perusing neuroscience journals on the internet for information on functional brain scans (which will soon be replacing polygraphs for lie detection), there is no shortage of empirical evidence.

I certainly have no argument against your belief that humans participate in their own destiny; we definitely do that to the extent that we learn to do it. I just don't know why people call it "free will", when the will is entirely dependent on brain state.

Be that at is may, the reason we were discussing freedom in the first place was that vixstile was pointing out, by way of example, the difference in objective and subjective classification of moral beliefs. The question was, what would motivate a person to comply with a so-called objective moral code, when s/he felt that detection and punishment would not be forthcoming. My answer was that there would be no motivation because the individual would have no subjective interest to be served (such as "feeling good" for dong the "right thing", or "feeling bad" for doing the "wrong thing."). It is our learning to value things as good or bad, right or wrong that forms the only basis for moral behavior; morality is not an outside force that compels us like gravity. For example, I usually obey most laws, including stopping at traffic lights, but if I were at an intersection in the middle of the night, with no police car in sight, I might run the light because it would not cause me any discomfort since it doesn't seem wrong to me. On the other hand, no matter how nonexistent the risk of detection, I would not, say, steal something from another person, because it would cause me personal distress to commit that particular transgression, which seems wrong to me. In fact, that is the whole benefit of some rules being learned as morals; people who learn them feel uncomfortable (to varying degrees) going against them.

dk

dk:: - Why do you think that people are afraid of data? Why aren’t Neuroscientists afraid of data? Maybe this is like the Emperor’s New Cloths, people that can’t see the conclusion for the data (forest for the trees) are fools. I’m giving you every opportunity to make your case, on the other hand I’ve demonstrated that neuro-psychologists, neuro-biologists, neuro-physicist, developmental-psychologists, mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists and philosophers struggle towards an empirical definition of “consciousness”.
dk: - With all this empirical data, please offer an empirical definition of “consciousness”; to difficult? Then name one clinic or hospital that diagnoses a neurosis by reading a MRI, EEG, CAT, PET, or MEG scans, still grasping? These scans diagnose a remarkable number of cancerous, degenerative and structural diseases throughout the body. Come to think of it, they even use scans on the brain, not to diagnose neurosis, but to eliminate a physical basis for the clinical malady.
dk: - They call it free will because individuality requires: 1) a degree of autonomy 2) access to reason. Moral truths serve to protect or cover a person’s autonomy. Without some degree of autonomy a person’s access to reason is governed by compulsion and reflex . A virtuous person acts of their own volition consonant with their nature, while a vicious person’s acts are driven by compulsions.
dk: -And I countered: an honest person tells the truth whether it serves their interests or not; a dishonest person lies when the truth would serve their interests better. This demonstrates how morality integrates behavior with intent to make self knowledge possible. It’s absurd (unreasonable) to postulate a person can act in their own interests without self knowledge. To the extent the results of neuropsychology advance self knowledge, the data is reliably beneficial to all humankind hence moral. To the extent neuropsychology denigrates self knowledge it’s a degenerate science.
dk: - I’m amazed at the verbal gymnastics sometimes used to avoid the phrase “I feel guilty when…”. Let me try another track. The personal distress you feel at stealing is called a guilty conscience. Freud explained the “conscience” as a part of the super ego that passes judgment on thoughts and behavior. No doubt some or most of us have participated in a mob or gang action that mutes conscience in a collective response. People who act unconscionably have no autonomy, hence lack free agency necessary to access reason (get it mob action). The reason a free societies grows and prospers where totalitarian societies wither and die is morality, because morality protects and preserves the individuals autonomy from the collective. Without access to reason people forfeit the capacity to participate in their destiny. People can freely abdicate their free will (autonomy) by submitting themselves to collective actions to engage drugs, base appetites, compulsions and vices, but in doing so they loose themselves (their soul). I submit justice is an authoritative expression of love that starts with self control. It is justice that activates the conscience with reason. Only a person of good conscience can actualize self knowledge that is essential to self interest. Moral Truths infuse the (human) Law with just principles that inform the conscience (righteously).

A free people must objectively and openly submit themselves to Moral Truths (big T) else they forfeit their freedom. People that forfeit their freedoms are degenerates i.e. they behave like psychopaths. The collective actions of a degenerate society defy reason with panic, viciousness, and hatred. The evidence may be inferential but the reality is undeniable, for example NAZI Germany, Heaven’s Gate, Waco (on both the FBI and Davidians behalf), stock market crash of 1929, 1992 L.A. Riots,,, etc.. Neuropsychology lacks direct empirical evidence that the conscience exists, but it’s common knowledge that people and societies with a misinformed consciences (or mob mentality) degenerate into psychopaths. This doesn’t make neuropsychology right or wrong, but it does require people of good conscience to question the moral and ethical implications of it's applications. The casual way many of our scientists, intelligentsia and opinion makers brush aside the moral and ethical implications bodes ominously for post moderist civilization. Just how degenerate has our society become, some say, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing else to loose.”

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

DRFseven

And I HAVE made my case; it's just that the case I've made is different from the case you seem to be arguing! I'll say it again; we are discussing the process of thinking because of it's function in morality acquisition. We are not trying to determine whether or not people should develop moral opinions (though we both hope they do, I think). We are not trying to find or give up looking for the neural correlate of consciousness. We are discussing whether morals are personal opinions or not, and if they are not, what motivation an individual might have for compliance.

The empirical data I refer to is of cognition, dk. The physical process of cognition, which turns out to be a function of memory, which CERTAINLY ties it to experience. The data bank of human brain scans delineating talking, dreaming, working math problems, painting, solving problems, etc. is abundant.

Well, technically, individuality only requires an individual organism. But, yes, autonomous humans require access to reason, which means only that they must be able to learn from their experiences. There is just no way you can get around the fact that people are nothing without experience.

You must not understand that people who feel it is right to be honest ARE serving their own best interests because they have learned to feel that way. Their interests are better served by the feeling they get from returning a lost wallet than from the feeling they get from keeping the $500 in the wallet.

Why on earth would you think I'm trying to avoid that phrase? The establishment of guilt feelings are one of the first steps of morality acquisition in children.

Duh! And how do you think I managed to get this guilty conscience? By learning to think certain things were wrong; if I had not learned they were wrong, I obviously would not feel guilty, as many people unguiltily going about their lives obligingly show us every day.

Every time I ask you to show me how reason tied to experience equals freedom, you start ranting about consciousness. Please just give a simple answer; how can reason be "free" when only experience makes it possible?

dk

dk: - Whether the faculties of cognition (in any combination) are of a metaphysical, newtonian, relative or quantum nature is irrelevant. Why? Because a teleological view of objective morality derives its legitimacy from the whole of human nature, not the summation of minutia evident in neuro biological processes. If all people share a common nature, then the right order of human behavior revealed by moral [t]Truths derives from a union of the whole, not religious, secular, personal, social, cultural, national, institutional idiosyncrasies. The justification for racism, socialism, capitalism, egalitarianism, totalitarianism, altruism, utilitarianism, positivism, existentialism, environmentalism, atheism, multiculturalism, etc… all derive their (il)-legitimacy from human nature, hence articulate a “the right order of human conduct” (morality).
dk: - Empirical studies on cognition are designed to correlate cognition with experience, but science succeeds by producing tangible reliable results. Malthus claimed the science of economics proved population outpaced the means of reproduction. Comte claimed the science of sociology was reliable. Freud claimed the science of psychology proved sexual repression caused neurotic behavior. Marx claimed the science of history proved the cure for economic disparity was violence and revolution. Galton claimed the science of eugenics proved Negroes an inferior race. Skinner claimed the science of behaviorism proved legal positivism. Hey, all these guys (and there disciples) provided a plethora of empirical data gleamed from experiments that proved their theories. Unfortunately when their theories were put into practice (on a world theater) they proved tragically unreliable. How is that the hard sciences are so reliable, and the soft science yield such unreliable results, its like social scientists use another method and mathematics.
dk: - People are nothing without hydrogen, carbon, hydrogen, proteins, and oh yes experience, there is no way to get around it. All people experience life!!! Hehehehe, there I got around it. Your response is a fallacious transposition of a condition and its consequent.
dk: Your statement is a self-justifying explanations for unacceptable behavior. My statement demonstrates that free will is contingent upon self-knowledge. Dishonesty is unacceptable because it deprives a person of self-knowledge hence is an obstacle to one’s self interest.
dk: You’ll have to explain how experience teaches a child to feel guilty. I feel guilty when I intentionally act, or my failure to act, causes illegitimate pain and suffering to someone.
dk: - Reason isn’t tied to experience, and I simply don’t know in what sense reason could possible be free.

What about mathematics. Math really doesn’t fit into the real universe, so it’s very hard to say how one experiences mathematics, though no doubt they do. There is an undeniable gap between mathematical objects and the real objects. I suppose a person could speculate that experience transports math students back and forth between the real universe and the math universe, but then even the best (or worst) math students never actually go anywhere. So it must be intellect that bridges the gap between the two universes. Clearly intellect can take a person’s consciousness where experience can’t. I’m just daydreaming, so maybe somebody might have a better answer.

DRFseven

There is no reason to have a teleological view; because there is no reason to think that nature is "trying" to do anything (except for the reason that you have learned, though your experiences) to think so). And the "whole of human nature" is contained in the schematics of the human body, including the brain.

You have illustrated my point, dk. We are not free of any number of things, including experience. Our thoughts depend upon a plethora of biological and experiential factors. To have memories, we must, of course, be alive and we must experience the world.

You do know that humans MUST have experience, don't you? Humans who experience profound sensory deprivation (such as infants kept in total isolation) NEVER learn to think anything and will eventually die. Even children who experience some, but not much, contact develop abnormally and can die. This condition is known as <a href="http://caringonline.com/eatdis/topics/infant/more.htm" target="_blank">marasmus</a> and is distinguished from malnourishment.

You make no sense. Are you saying that returning someone's lost wallet without taking the money in it is unacceptable behavior? Why is that unacceptable?

I am saying that whomever does such a thing does so because they would experience discomfort (the painful conscience) at not doing so, and because they feel rewarded for doing so. This is how the motivation system works. No one would ever do anything for anyone else if it didn't make them feel good. Motivation is all about mental comfort. And comfort is all about learning.

You seriously don't understand that? It goes like this: Toddler plays with glass lamp and is happily amused when lamp breaks. Parents scold toddler with accompanying emotion; tell toddler that breaking others' things is bad. Toddler is unhappy to be scolded. This happens with some variation on several occasions. By the time the child is three s/he
feels that breaking others' things is "bad", that it is wrong to do so, and will feel unhappy (and guilty) when s/he breaks things (though s/he won't be able to distinguish between breaking done accidently and breaking done with intent for a few more years; both seem just as bad to a three-year-old).

The same thing has happened to you. You have learned from various sources in your culture that some things are wrong and you have experienced "punishing" consequences (such as literal punishment when you were a young child and, later, disapproval). Your parents may have role-modeled that, for instance, lying was wrong, and they may have backed this up with real-life lessons showing what happens to people who lie. This may have been reinforced by various cultural institutions, such as school, church, clubs, etc., and by peers. Children are so malleable that they can be taught that almost anything is good or bad, right or wrong.

OK, please tell me, then, how a person knows that objects fall down instead of up. This is a piece of information that a person can use to build a foundation for reasoning about his/her physical environment. But how does the person find out about objects falling without manipulating or watching objects, learning a language, learning to read, being told, etc? And as for your statement, ..."and I simply don’t know in what sense reason could possible be free.", that's MY line! This ought to be interesting.

Gee; why mathematics? If you're talking about math as I understand it, number one, people have to understand that there are things in the world, so they have to experience sight or some other means of sensory detection of objects. Then they have to be introduced to numbers, and, usually, they have to be taught to count, add, etc. Some people may not need actual teaching to perform mathematical calculations, but even "idiot savants" (ala "Rain Man"), need to be exposed to the concept of numbers and some type of language.

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

dk

dk: Certainly there is a reason the word teleological exists. To assert there is no reason for the word teleological deprives language of words. To deny language access to words is an obstruction to communication. The purpose of language is communication, and communication can only succeed by imparting knowledge and understanding. So one can assert a word is confusing, misleading, incomprehensible, unintelligible etc… but “teleological” has a clear non-ambiguous meaning, so its unreasonable to deprive language of its use. Teleological: “relating to the study of ultimate causes in nature or of actions in relation to their ends or utility” (Encarta online dictionary ©). The topic of this thread quintessentially has teleological implications.
dk: - I know that all living creatures experience life and death. Since many living creatures aren’t cognizant in a human sense, yet clearly experience life, experience is a necessary condition of life, not cognizance. Experience is therefore a necessary but insufficient condition of cognizance.

A human being kept in state of profound sensory deprivation may experience an unnatural death, and that would be murder. If a creature experiences death, then they have also experienced life.

Marasmus is a form of protein-calorie malnutrition, chiefly occurring among very young children. It is characterized by growth retardation (in weight more than in height) and progressive wasting of subcutaneous fat and muscle. Other symptoms include diarrhea; dehydration; behavioral changes; dry, loose skin; and dry, brittle hair. <a href="http://www.britannica.com/seo/m/marasmus/" target="_blank"> from Online ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA </a> I have no idea what you’re talking about.
dk: - Its rude and unethical to edit my posts, then pretend to comment on my post. You cut out the explanatory text without inserting a (snip… snip). I explained, “My statement demonstrates that free will is contingent upon self-knowledge. Dishonesty is unacceptable because it deprives a person of self-knowledge hence is an obstacle to one’s self interest.” This exchange is a good demonstration of intellectual dishonesty. The problem with dishonesty is that it deprives a person of self-knowledge. How? Most people start out being dishonest as a defense mechanism to gain acceptance or achieve some short term gain. Then over time dishonesty becomes a bad habit that subjugates identity to a façade. Eventually a dishonest person looses themselves in the façade. Very sad.
dk: - Sounds like another rationalization out of the book of behaviorism. I submit comfort is its own reward, but unsustainable without effort. A person solely motivated by creature comforts sells themselves short.
dk: - Your telepathic abilities are truly amazing. I think toddlers are perceptive in ways older people can’t imagine, much less study. But any fool knows to put glass lamps, and other dangerous items out of harms way, until the toddler is properly trained. Parents that don’t train their toddlers properly and leave dangerous objects out for a toddler to break should bare the guilt, not the toddler. Parents that make a guilt issue out of material objects miss the point. It’s not the object that’s important, but the person’s feelings that values the object. The concern isn’t for the lamp, but the toddler and people. Some toddlers may get a kick out of smashing glass objects, but the painful cuts teach their own lesson.
dk: - How does a homing pigeon find home? How does a newborn whale know to keep their blowhole closed? How do salt water salmon know to swim upstream to spawn? etc.. Your guess is as good as mine, lets just call it instinct. Where does instinct end, and higher brain functions being begin, I don’t know, but because people have the capacity for self-knowledge and reason they can override their instincts, and sometimes that’s good, and sometimes that’s bad. My track of thought throughout this discussion has been to subscribe hard sciences like neurobiology to objective morality.
dk: - So I guess a person experiences mathematics by looking, sucking, smelling, cracking, and listening to their toes, this little piggie went to the market… I’m not sure who taught Pythagorean about right triangles, Descartes about the Cartesian plane or analytical geometry, Euclid about Geometry, Newton about physics, Einstein about relativity. Any thoughts?

Mathematics is one of an infinite number of ideas that exist only in people’s minds, but some of these ideas will shape the future for humanity and all matters under human dominion. How the directed efforts of humankind collectively shape the future forms the basis of objective morality and ethics. For example morality objectively determines whether nuclear power creates holocaust (bad) or reliable energy (good). When people treat one another like mere objects, or as the means to an ends, then their collective activities degenerate into a mob mentality. A mob mentality deprives most individuals of reason and self-knowledge boding ominously for a good future.

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

DRFseven

I said there is no reason to HAVE A TELEOLOGICAL VIEW; I did not say there is no reason to use the word teleological. Did you think I would let that slide?

Please stop trying to avoid the question and address the real question; I'm asking if such an individual could THINK, and if they're dead, they're not thinking, are they? . Assuming healthy brain structure at birth and adequate nutrition, oxygen, etc., can a person form attitudes and opinions without experience of the outside world? You'd be a fool to deny that the answer is "no." All else being equal, the richer the environment, the richer the mental landscape.

You have no idea what I'm talking about? I'm talking about the fact that brain activity is inextricably linked to external stimuli (environmental experience). For a detailed discussion of marasmus/deprivation syndrome, please see <a href="http://www.cyfc.umn.edu/Adoptinfo/institutionalization.html" target="_blank">this article</a>, for The Parent Network for Post-Institutionalized Children, which states, among other things: Explanatory text? You call that explanatory? These two sentences of yours ("“My statement demonstrates that free will is contingent upon self-knowledge. Dishonesty is unacceptable because it deprives a person of self-knowledge hence is an obstacle to one’s self interest.”) explain nothing that relates to your comment that returning a wallet is "unacceptable behavior". Care to explain how it is unacceptable?

You mean the way you continuously avoid answering my questions? I'll try again. Can a person form attitudes and opinions without experiencing his/her environment? Again, this assumes adequate air, food, etc.

A rationalization of what? Yes, of course comfort is its own reward; that's what I said previously. Comfort is the reward for doing that which we have learned brings comfort. The "unsustainable without effort" part of the statement appears to be unrelated to the discussion.

We are talking about mental comfort, here, not Lazy Boy recliners. Sorry if your sensibilities are offended by the fact that we operate by reward systems, but mental comfort is the only game in town.

So, are you saying that your parents did NOT demonstrate morality to you, or are you saying that they did, but you did not learn it? On second thought, perhaps you are being sarcastic and implying that everyone's parents taught them things and so I was bound to be right about that, as if I were trying to impress you with my knowledge of your youthful interaction with your parents. If that's what you meant, I assure you, I was very surprised when you asked how a toddler could learn anything by experience (I mean, most people already know that by observation), so I gave you the very simplified "beginner" version.

Yes, toddler are extremely perceptive. And what do you think they are perceive? They perceive "facts" from their environments, out of which they establish a world view that continues to grow and change as they mature.

You see? You go off on these wild tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. None of this comments upon the way toddlers learn, which is through experience.

Yes, but the lesson is pain, not guilt. To establish guilt, the toddler has to learn that s/he was "bad." They have no way of thinking this until that idea is communicated to them in some way.

Interestingly, you can perform a little experiment with your dog. Demand to know in a stern voice if Snoopy was responsible for crashing the planes into the World Trade Center. He'll probably become very "guilty." I once got a dog of mine to admit guilt over the Iranian hostages affair, though he refused to discuss why he did it and slunk under the bed with his tail tucked. The point is, he was not feeling "guilty" on his own at all; he had to experience a shaming communication first.

Yes, let's do call the behavior of the spawning salmon, et al, "instinct", since that's what it is. But are you seriously trying to tell me you don't know if a person learns that objects fall down or if they are born with that knowledge? Seriously? This has got to be a joke.

Concerning the last sentence of that paragraph, "My track of thought throughout this discussion has been to subscribe hard sciences like neurobiology to objective morality.", you haven't even come close to showing that morality is objective. It is an opinion. An opinion, learned through experience, of what is valued as good or bad. Refute this, if you want to prove that morality is objective. You won't be able to, because you can't deny that our opinions are formed by views we learn and we act upon our worldviews according to a reward system in which we are rewarded by feeling good when we do what we feel is "good" and feeling bad when we do what we feel is "bad."

They encountered shapes, numbers, scientific theories, they observed phenomena, they remembered and associated. They built a wealth of associations, as we all do, but they were a little wealthier than most!

But holocausts and reliable energy are only bad and good according to our desires. How could we say that if our whole planet disappeared it would be objectively bad? We can't; we can only say what WE want, what WE think would be good. There is no giant report card for the universe in the sky with physical events marked down as good and bad, A's and F's, C's and D's. "Dinosaurs disappeared, remnants became birds = C+"; or "Ring appears around one planet, visible to life forms inhabiting another planet = B"; or "Human life forms become extinct = F."

Stuff like the above illustrates your subjective opinions about what people should and shouldn't do and about what you value as good and bad.