10. Development, Nature & Nurture I 

Lies again? Drug Nurofen

"He once spoke fluent Russian" is a very vague term. For example, Vitalik Buterin also used to speak fluent Russian, but more than 20 years ago, his family moved to the US, so now his "fluency", in some ways, even worse than the one that he had at 6. He sounds less natural than a 6 years old kid. But he definitely knows way more words and can express way more concepts, even deep concepts. So did he become more or less fluent? I believe that his ability to speak deteriorated because speaking required a lot of precise subconscious muscle movements, and by practicing another language, you can lose some of the pronunciation mastery of another language (I myself sound a bit more weird when I speak Russian when compared to me 10 years ago), and the same thing probably happened to your friend. However, what I can't belive, is that your friend "lost all ability to understand Russian". In my experience, in most cases when people say that they "lost an ability to understand the language", usually means that they weren't on a high level in the first place. They might've been able to get by talking to kids on some simple topics, but in most cases, their level wasn't really high enough to understand everything they think they did. In my experience, usually speaking skills deteriorate over time, but understanding skills only improve, even years of not hearing a language. I could be wrong, but that is what I think.

Captions help a bit

Take a look at microbes as well. (I highly recommend the RU-vid channel 'Journey to the Microcosmos', and note, I do not have any affiliation with that channel other than being a subscriber). Many microbes appear to move about as if they had consciousness, memories and thoughts, although they do not have a physical brain.

Speculation on my part: (copy and paste from my files): LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS? * (Lowest Level): Just energy in a coherent format interacting with itself. * Some sort of feedback mechanism, but with no real consciousness, memories or thoughts. * Some sort of 'memory' established, but still no consciousness to consciously interact with that memory. Just basically like stored preprograms that get activated at certain times. * Low level unconscious activity occurs that can interact with those stored memories. * Higher level consciousness activity occurs, while still having unconscious activity, that interacts with those stored memories with 'thoughts'. (Where we are currently at).

Maybe it is something to do with back and forth engagement. Maybe a baby can recognize when its environment is actively engaging with it. They can tell when they make a motion and then its environment responds to it. The baby knows when another entity is engaged with it. They see their behavior reflected in other entities response?

at 33:50, someone proposes a the question "So couldn't that just mean that the perception network develops really quickly right after birth? " Is the baby is scanning for high-quality, immediate, real-time behavioral reciprocation? Is it scanning for this upon birth? Is it experiencing this when it sees a face? If so, is it constructing around this? When it recognizes this type of behavioral reciprocation, does it prioritize this? Does it develop some framework around it? Some construct?

I don't know either, but it's obvious that recognizing other humans is critical for survival. It would be more surprising if humans (and other animals) didn't recognize their own species.

I would agree that the evolutionary process essentially gives us a form of ancestorial knowledge . I'm curious as to your definition of "important" in this context

@@davyroger3773 - just specifying that the universe doesn’t require us, it will keep on going after we’re gone

@@juancampos1164 Currently: Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)

Because infants have lousy vision. It sounds like you don't really understand the scope of the lecture and are instead throwing out fanciful thoughts. It's not her role here to mention bla bla bla.

Watch the first video. Her Story of Bob has many self-aggrandizing moments, nevertheless, the information she is providing is interesting.

@@walterneta3679 maybe Bob was just a story, I personally can't verify that ... so I assumed that its just a pedagogical trick of sorts. You need to give credit of trust to ppl when you first meet/see them, right? So, pumping up yourself in front of others is not necessarily wrong if that serves good purpose and doesn't come at other real ppls cost ... what do you think? ps: I watched the whole playlist and really liked it

@@illiakailli It matters not if the "Story" was real or not, but instead, I viewed the numerous times she, what appears to be to me, humble-brags and self-aggrandizes as interesting. I do not believe you "need to give credit of trust" to people when you first meet them, however, your point as to why she did may have merit; if it really was for a good reason like to establish rapport or as a pedagogical tool. However, she has 4 of the 5 basis of power: legitimate, expert, reward, and coercive (French & Raven, 1959). It is well established that the more an individual in power uses or reinforces power differentials the more the less powerful develops resentment e.g. the more she humble-brags the more likely it will come across negatively (Singh, 2009).

I think she's pretty cool. She keeps the material fascinating. She's very excited and full of ambition about these topics. It's like she has to keep holding herself back like she wants to just run off at full speed.

@@Cruzaflo agree, she is definitely a charismatic teacher and I enjoyed watching all her lectures. Will likely re-watch once again at some point!