Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Young infants' object permanence is not solely learned fr... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Young infants' object permanence is not solely learned from experience; some cognitive capacity for it is innate or early-developing.

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Infants as young as 4 months demonstrate object permanence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.At 4-5 months, infants have had insufficient experience for such a representation to be learned from scratch.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There is something in the infant's cognitive apparatus sufficient to generate the expectation that hidden objects persist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Violation-of-expectation paradigms measure looking time, which may reflect perceptual novelty or statistical learning rather than genuine object permanence representations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Baillargeon's 'impossible event' findings are consistent with a low-level perceptual continuity mechanism that extrapolates sensory patterns without requiring innate conceptual content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing innate conceptual knowledge from rapidly acquired perceptual regularities requires evidence that current paradigms systematically fail to provide.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Piaget's constructivist account holds that sensorimotor schemas are themselves generative mechanisms: acting on objects builds the invariance representation, so early competence reflects rapid schema construction, not innateness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The inference from 'insufficient time for learning' to 'must be innate' presupposes a stimulus-response empiricist model of learning that Piagetian and dynamical systems theorists explicitly reject as the only alternative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    At 4-5 months, infants have had insufficient experience for such a representatio...Baillargeon's 'impossible event' findings are consistent with a low-level percep...Distinguishing innate conceptual knowledge from rapidly acquired perceptual regu...Infants as young as 4 months demonstrate object permanence.
    +5 moreShow less
    Piaget's constructivist account holds that sensorimotor schemas are themselves g...The burden of explanation falls on any view that claims this capacity is entirel...The inference from 'insufficient time for learning' to 'must be innate' presuppo...There is something in the infant's cognitive apparatus sufficient to generate th...Violation-of-expectation paradigms measure looking time, which may reflect perce...

    Similar

    Very young infants (4-5 months old) represent objects as persisting ev...87%Infants as young as 4 months demonstrate object permanence.83%If infants lacked object permanence, impossible events involving hidde...81%Piaget's and Quine's claims that young infants lack object permanence ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: innateness-cognition
    View source passageHide passage
    Object permanence. In the last 35 years, the baby’s representation of objects has been re-explored with striking results. A landmark study (Baillargeon et al. 1985) used the violation-of-expectancy paradigm to test the Piagetian claim that infants lack object permanence. Five-month-old infants were shown a screen that rotated 180 degrees up from the surface of a table and back again to its initial position. In the habituation phase, the babies got used to the screen motion and their looking time
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit