This question   What optical features do we use to distinguish life from non-life?  on Philosophy SE prompted me to write this question.The question poses, do we recognise a living thing, from what we already know to be a living thing.  I am posting some of this to give a background of what prompted this question.I quote from the original question:  Imagine you see a picture of a tiger: You instantly recognize it being  a living thing, more specific: Something you call tiger. You have  seen tigers before (or at least heard of them and saw pictures or so).  You have some kind of (vague) concept of what a tiger might be and this  thing fits perfectly in it. And you know that a tiger is a living  thing and you believe that what you see is a tiger: So you believe  that the thing you see is a living thing called tiger.  ...What exactly are the features we all recognize living things kind of accurate (even though when they don't exist in reality and are, just like the Nasobm, just imaginary animals someone invented)?I have modified this question to ask: Is the ability to discern between living and non-living things learnt or innate?In the original question the OP includes an image of a 'Nasobm', a make believe creature that looks a little squid like. 
Is the ability to discern between living and non-living things learnt or innate?
cognitive psychology;perception;memory;intuition;semantic memory