Discussion Forums > The Lounge

A Whole New Light

<< < (28/35) > >>

megido-rev.M:
Living organisms have instincts; this much goes without saying. From one perspective (at least from what I recall :laugh:), humans are supposed to have somehow managed to actively repress their instincts, to some extent anyway. Regardless, instincts driving complex thoughts? Doubtful. I find them essentially to be signals that manifest from the transience in the physiological functions.

Take this example: the signal sent to the brain by the stomach is due to physiological function, not instinct; waking up from hunger would be a reaction due to an instinct; getting up and obtaining a bite is a complex response, not something driven by instinct.

tl;dr: If people say their instincts made them do shit, or say they can suppress their instincts, they're lying or oblivious :P :P.

kadatherion:

--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 10:39:30 PM ---I just can't help it and use one argument from debate that got awfully similar. Not my opinion, but it fits in well, in very awkward way.
Just because you are unaware of God, it doesn't mean he isn't there.
--- End quote ---


Ach, that's a low blow! :laugh:
We have however scientific (meh, I'm not sure how much psychology can be called an actual science: I may love to blabber about it in quite the Freudian way, but still I hate psychologists, how they generalize and objectify something inherently subjective as the human mind, and I still believe Freud was the real nutcase, so much for consistency in my thoughts) reasons to admit the existence of certain instincts. The extent of their influence can be debatable, but we know of them.
God's existence only relies on ignorance, the opposite. Mind me, in this case I'm not using "ignorance" as a negative term, it's just what faith literally is: to believe in something without any proof of it. As man has problems to fully explain the nature and laws of the universe, he (instinctively, actually...) fills the gap with a creation of his own to give some sense to it, an apparent order.

The point per se, though, is unquestionable. I can't prove God doesn't exist. Not even Stephen Hawking can. Just as I can't prove the imaginary friend a small child has isn't real.
Fact is, to me there's no reason to even try to do it: as there's no pointer that would logically, scientifically lead to presuppose there is a God, it's safe and obvious to assume there isn't one. Who doesn't come to that conclusion is simply being illogical. Illogical and wrong are two inherently different words though.


--- Quote from: elvikun on April 11, 2012, 10:39:30 PM ---I simply disagree. Universe is chaotic. People are chaotic. Not everything must have reason and objective to exist
--- End quote ---


My choice of words might have been quite poor. I shouldn't have used reason, I should have said cause. The former has too much philosophical significance.
The universe is chaotic? Not at all. Well, apart from the whole entropy thing, I mean, but that's another thing. Everything we have the ability to observe and analyze is ruled by a physic law, and most of all everything is ruled by the laws of cause and effect. In such meaning everything happens, no matter how chaotically, for a reason. That reason might be blurred, self-contradictory (how many times evolution, as we stumbled on it already several times in our discussion, apparently takes by chance what really doesn't seem the easiest, most efficient path?), but the actual cause isn't. Even when a cause is completely random, when it comes to be by pure chance, it only means it is under the rule of statistics (and quantum mechanics, but I'm not going there, I'm already annoying enough as it is).

Just to lighten things up a bit, are you familiar with Isaac Asimov? In his Foundation saga he theorized this fictional science, psychohistory, that would be able to reliably predict - to a certain margin of statistical error - the future of humankind and its history. The basic premise behind it was that just as much as the motion of a single molecule isn't predictable but we are able to mathematically predict the motion of a mass of molecules (kynetic theory), it would be possible to mathematically predict the "motion" of a mass of people even though the motion of every single one of them is absolutely unpredictable.
I always found it - apart from simply good storytelling - an extremely poignant metaphor of what really is the human being and his mind from a strictly scientific standpoint. I'd be curious to hear what your thoughts on that are.


--- Quote ---Put a primitive man into civilized society to see what insticts are. Something we have long forgotten.
Well. That's a cool twist.
--- End quote ---

It's consistent with my theory though. A primitive man is in direct contact with his needs, and his mind is accustomed with them much more than with desires as we are. Probably, if that primitive man were an adult when we "time shift" him I agree he'd never be able to adapt and learn to redirect and elaborate (you might say suppress and overcome) his instincts. But if we time shift him as a baby, as long as he still is of the sapiens sapiens variety of course, there would be no measurable difference in his thought development and patterns from ours.
When we do the opposite, put a civilized man in a primitive environment, he'd have difficulties to adapt as well, of course, and he probably wouldn't survive. But almost assuredly he will "fall" into the most primeval of behaviours as long as they could help him survive. Think about those people stranded after a plane crash that ended up eating human flesh to save themselves. The survival instinct was so strong that it even overtook several other instincts that tell us eating human flesh is a no go (I believe these instincts come from the fact cannibalism has far higher chances of spreading diseases, as all diseas that could actually infest a human being are of course compatible with any other one of us; morality and customs came after).


However here, by this train of thought I've got to take a step back. In such extreme circumstances it is known that few human beings chose death. As it is very different from suicide, and it actually was a reasoned decision between the strongest of instincts and social/moral values (which are at most only a byproduct of instincts), that's something I can't easily deny. I could maybe try to find in instincts the reason why those moral values could assume such overwhelming relevance, but I already realize my argument would end up being kinda weak.
I still believe in the fundamentals of my view on the matter as inherently consistent, but I've got to give up on such exceptions, I give you that.

Damn.  :P


--- Quote ---I do not see the paradox, because I did not mean "the perfect purity" and true free will in the philosophical or even theological way, but in fact, in a practical way. It is far from impossible to get rid of almost all effects of culture an society, just as repressing or ignoring the trivial thinking processes. Of course, the "perfect" purity is something else and not very far from dead brain in a living body, hah.
--- End quote ---

The paradox there was rather simple: is it possible to reach a status of mind free (or anyway more free) of those instincts push when it is instincts themselves (under the guise of desires) that make you want to get there? Can someone learn to dominate his instincts, when it's those instincts themselves what compel him to do so? It's contradictory at best. I myself believe that is actually the direction we are evolving into, but we are eons from reaching any real evolutionary cornerstone on the matter. While we only are few millennia, a ludicrously small amount of time evolutionary speaking, from cavemen. It still is mostly in the realm of philosophy and science fiction, imo, even though there can be a glimpse of the potential.
Hard to me to say if that glimpse really is there or it is just hope, just another form of faith, however.




--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 12, 2012, 01:59:22 AM ---Regardless, instincts driving complex thoughts? Doubtful.

--- End quote ---

Well, it's what all psychologists agree on. It's called subconscious. If you look at Freud's first model, it is assumed to work in a fundamentally similar way as an electric circuit. They don't drive them, as complex thoughts are in the realm of the conscious mind, of course, but they are the spark that causes them and often have unseen effects on them we are unaware of.
Psychoanalysis is the "science" of identifying what instincts lurk behind a certain behavior, and to what extent and in what way they influence thoughts en route, so to say.

Mind me, as I aforementioned, I believe most of the derivative interpretations they end up with have the same scientific credibility as Scientology: by its own nature interpretation is as subjective - and thus unreliable and non scientific - as it gets, but the basic model makes lots of sense and is the only thing that could be somewhat proven with the scientific method.

rostheferret:
"Yes, As I have said a few times, it changes."
I was careful not to say either way. To put it bluntly, I disagree. I don't think instincts have changed at all.

"Yet again, in the past, intelligence did not matter."
Of course it did? Who survived, the one who realised the berries were poisonous or gluttonously ate them? The one who realised he could tie a sharp rock to a stick or the one who just tried to punch deer to death? Intelligence has ALWAYS paid a pivotal role in the development of mankind. The idea that the intelligent are LESS likely to survive is ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a balance between intelligence and strength, but that just means evolution would promote BOTH aspects, favouring neither one over the other. Either way it's getting off topic as neither of these aspects are instinctive but evolutionary.


" I have said it's in fact declining because being "healthy (read overwight but NOT obese) and busty" no longer means "she must be great kid factory and she will probably survive the long winter."
Actually, it still does. I see when you said overweight you actually meant healthy now (you could have cleared that up a lot easier by saying you meant a healthy weight from the start; I get not 30% of your body weight level of obesity but overweight still implies to unhealthy proportions. Everyone is technically overweight or under, but if you're within something like 18-25 BMI you're considered 'healthy,' which appears to be the demographic you intended), but if you ask most guys, you'll find that they don't find those super skinny sacks of bones particularly attractive, much preferring those of a healthier weight, and that does in fact go back to the whole "she's good at procreating" thing. If you still disagree the point, tell me how evolution has decided to alter our instincts to go for someone of a different stature and how that helps the race from an evolutionary perspective.

"Instincts are merely an information packet. Only way human being can send those and other packets to offsprings is genes. Over many generations, the conetents change. If they didn't, there would be no homo sapiens to begin with."

You're confusing Genetics with instincts. Yes, instincts are in our DNA, but its common between all man. It's like the ability to process food, for our lungs to breathe or for blood to pick up oxygen; it's in there somewhere, but it's not changing. I couldn't find evidence for the adrenal gland shrinking but it would make sense. We are no longer required to put ourselves in dangerous situations on as regular a basis so the quantity of adrenaline we need declines. This is evolution. The fact that we still HAVE fight or flight hasn't changed; the instinctive nature of what it does is still as sharp as it ever was. Think what you want; I know when someone tries to pull a knife on me to rob me my adrenaline goes instinctively and I have no control of that. I know when I have clean up vomit in the toilets at work I turn up my nose, my mind subconsciously warning me away from it for safety reasons and I have no control over that. I know when an attractive women walks past I can't help but look longer than I probably should but I can't help it because my brain is thinking that she would produce healthy offspring and it would be advantageous for me to spread my seed in her, simplified of course to "dat ass." I know when I see something cute, a puppy or such, it's probably my brain instinctively activating a paternal response manifested as "whose a good boy *ruffle*."

"To be considered instinctual a behavior must a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable)." - Wiki


You say instincts have dulled, I disagree.

megido-rev.M:

--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 12, 2012, 09:27:47 AM ---
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 12, 2012, 01:59:22 AM ---Regardless, instincts driving complex thoughts? Doubtful.

--- End quote ---

Well, it's what all psychologists agree on. It's called subconscious. If you look at Freud's first model, it is assumed to work in a fundamentally similar way as an electric circuit. They don't drive them, as complex thoughts are in the realm of the conscious mind, of course, but they are the spark that causes them and often have unseen effects on them we are unaware of.
Psychoanalysis is the "science" of identifying what instincts lurk behind a certain behavior, and to what extent and in what way they influence thoughts en route, so to say.

Mind me, as I aforementioned, I believe most of the derivative interpretations they end up with have the same scientific credibility as Scientology: by its own nature interpretation is as subjective - and thus unreliable and non scientific - as it gets, but the basic model makes lots of sense and is the only thing that could be somewhat proven with the scientific method.

--- End quote ---

Underlined irrelevant point: (human) brains emit EM fields/waves, and along with the nervous system, runs electrical activity; this is characteristic of basic electrical circuits.

Bold point simply confirms you're not disagreeing with me, really. The topic of subconsciousness is itself non-concrete, so it is not appropriate to claim instinct = subconscious. Let's say, functionally speaking, that the instinct is the immediate output of the subconscious upon reception of whatever signals. This instinctive reaction might as well be anything, for example a random invocation of deep memory, possibly the execution of a response, which is perhaps complex thought processes. So, we end up with instinct driving thought. The subconsciousness is still a passive component of mentality, as it should be. One could claim the italicized clause above is false, but because everything happens in the brain, with the subconscious integrated, it is plausible. The premise remains, but since the steps made above seem to have firm connection, very likely it is invalid since the beginning.

The point is, even when I'm not even giving a hard disproof of anything, without concrete definitions and definite properties, you're just asking to end up with contradictions or be hanged on subtleties like no tomorrow. There is also no guarantee that two humans host the same set of instincts whereas they might have the same 'type' of subconscious processes.

tl;dr: this is confusing shit; I figure instincts should be a concept distinguished from subconsciousness, just with interfacing in between.

Forget Scientology. They are a cult sect based on some science fiction.

But goddamn I'm not reading the rest of that wall, so I'll just reinforce what rostheferret responded with:

Intelligence is a necessity. Claiming otherwise implies memories are useless. Intelligence is what memory serves while at the same time intelligence is the extension of memory. Having no intelligence, to rely on instinct alone means no reorganization of data that gets retained in memory, thus such organism could only adapt to an environment after suffering the realities of that environment (or not at all if the result is death).

Simply perceiving weight alone is useless. One must consider skeletal support and muscular density, among other things (e.g. height :P).

Instincts are not inheritable information packets. They are more of resemblance to physiological signals fed to the brain than anything else. The only way I figure inheritance would be involved is when it concerns gene inheritance, as ros mentions, because, simply, normally humans begin their existences with neither brain nor body, ergo no instincts.

Instincts are automatic in the sense they are part of some kind of flow, but that's about it. If one were able to tamper with that flow (very possible), who's to say it's not controllable? Aside, instincts are essentially trivial reactions, weak or so to speak, and whether they can be repressed lies within the individual. Not so much on species which basically specializes on a specific set of physical traits.

What you describe as an "instinctual organism" is better suited to jellyfish, and even then those can do weird stuff when they are dead. What does doing things after being dead have to do with instincts?

tl;dr#2: do not attempt to make instincts analogous to other concepts.

elvikun:

--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 12, 2012, 01:48:17 PM ---"Yes, As I have said a few times, it changes."
I was careful not to say either way. To put it bluntly, I disagree. I don't think instincts have changed at all.
Well, and yet even you'll living proof that humans change, but we'd have to know each other better for me to say to what extent.

"Yet again, in the past, intelligence did not matter."
Of course it did? Who survived, the one who realised the berries were poisonous or gluttonously ate them? The one who realised he could tie a sharp rock to a stick or the one who just tried to punch deer to death? Intelligence has ALWAYS paid a pivotal role in the development of mankind. The idea that the intelligent are LESS likely to survive is ridiculous. Yes, there has to be a balance between intelligence and strength, but that just means evolution would promote BOTH aspects, favouring neither one over the other. Either way it's getting off topic as neither of these aspects are instinctive but evolutionary.
Well, that's a minsunderstanding yet again. I did not consider using a stick or realising that NOT eating the berries after everyone in your group who did dies to be "expceptional mind". I have also talked about club. Clubs came after the sticks.

Let me tell you what I've said before, bluntly this time. I  don't disagree with everything you are saying, I disagree with you. I talked about that people with exceptionaly gifted mind could not survive or have chance to procreate because at one point it did not matter, because no arts for example mattered compared to fitness and strenght. What the hay does basic low intelligence possesed even by animals, that allows you to figure out that breaking a coconut with a stone is better than with your head have to do with that. 

" I have said it's in fact declining because being "healthy (read overwight but NOT obese) and busty" no longer means "she must be great kid factory and she will probably survive the long winter."
Actually, it still does. I see when you said overweight you actually meant healthy now (you could have cleared that up a lot easier by saying you meant a healthy weight from the start; I get not 30% of your body weight level of obesity but overweight still implies to unhealthy proportions. Everyone is technically overweight or under, but if you're within something like 18-25 BMI you're considered 'healthy,' which appears to be the demographic you intended), but if you ask most guys, you'll find that they don't find those super skinny sacks of bones particularly attractive, much preferring those of a healthier weight, and that does in fact go back to the whole "she's good at procreating" thing. If you still disagree the point, tell me how evolution has decided to alter our instincts to go for someone of a different stature and how that helps the race from an evolutionary perspective.

Well, first off, let me say that BMI is considered to be rather huge bullshit and I tend to agree with that.
But the important part which somewhat corelates with what I said above, I have said "many people do" I have also specified that it means  "less than quarter of population, by any means", and you still say "But most of guys like big boobs, take that bitch". Can you see what makes this so ... disagreeable and hard to answer?

On the rest. Evolution does not decide. It's just a reaction on what happens around. Which also explains why certain insticts would get dull. The same reason why we aren't hairy like apes anymore. To simplify.


"Instincts are merely an information packet. Only way human being can send those and other packets to offsprings is genes. Over many generations, the conetents change. If they didn't, there would be no homo sapiens to begin with."

You're confusing Genetics with instincts. Yes, instincts are in our DNA, but its common between all man. It's like the ability to process food, for our lungs to breathe or for blood to pick up oxygen; it's in there somewhere, but it's not changing. I couldn't find evidence for the adrenal gland shrinking but it would make sense. We are no longer required to put ourselves in dangerous situations on as regular a basis so the quantity of adrenaline we need declines. This is evolution. The fact that we still HAVE fight or flight hasn't changed; the instinctive nature of what it does is still as sharp as it ever was. Think what you want; I know when someone tries to pull a knife on me to rob me my adrenaline goes instinctively and I have no control of that. I know when I have clean up vomit in the toilets at work I turn up my nose, my mind subconsciously warning me away from it for safety reasons and I have no control over that. I know when an attractive women walks past I can't help but look longer than I probably should but I can't help it because my brain is thinking that she would produce healthy offspring and it would be advantageous for me to spread my seed in her, simplified of course to "dat ass." I know when I see something cute, a puppy or such, it's probably my brain instinctively activating a paternal response manifested as "whose a good boy *ruffle*."

I'm sorry, I though it was obvious enough, but last time I checked, humans still needed to breathe, eat, drink, sleep, et cetera... Why would those base commands change then? Not to mention some of those are reflexes rather than instincts and, as I've said, base body functions, you call hematoglobin picking up oxygen an instinct?

Also, I do not confuse anything. Insticts or anything other is not pased by invisible wireless data transfer, it's passed by genes. That is what I've meant and what I've actually said.
But the adrenal gland part, said it wrong, I've meant the amount of adrenaline produced is smaller, not that the gland is smaller.

All that you've said after the "I have to clean up vomit"... Are you kidding me? You have no control over it? Are you serious? That is not rhehtorhic question. Really. It isn't.




"To be considered instinctual a behavior must a) be automatic, b) be irresistible, c) occur at some point in development, d) be triggered by some event in the environment, e) occur in every member of the species, f) be unmodifiable, and g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training (although the organism may profit from experience and to that degree the behavior is modifiable)." - Wiki
OT: Don't do that. Quting wiki in semi serious debate is kind of like quoting Bible. Unreliable and somewhat vulgar.


You say instincts have dulled, I disagree.
As long as there is one complex organism alive, all the proof needed is present.
The base and still needed instinct stay unchanged, they are in fact still used and often needed for survival even today.
However the behaviour formulas, also called instincts, change. That is the whole fucking point the whole fucking time. Almost all living organisms with a brain are a proof of that, especially humans. Not to mention the theories that insticts as such  never affected behaviour of humans at the first place exist. You can disagree as you do, but then this debate changes completly, because it's get's on the same level as discussing dinosaurs with a creationinst." I disagree, T-rex has those teeth to crack nuts, not tear meat." and I need to adjust to that if I'm not to be offensive.

So, tell me, when I said it like this... You do disargee or is it the mutual misunderstanding I hope it is?

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page