Discussion Forums > The Lounge
A Whole New Light
kadatherion:
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 13, 2012, 12:48:17 AM ---
tl;dr: this is confusing shit; I figure instincts should be a concept distinguished from subconsciousness, just with interfacing in between.
--- End quote ---
Well, that's a given. I'm just trying to not get overly technical in the debate. We are already boring enough :P
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 13, 2012, 12:48:17 AM ---Forget Scientology. They are a cult sect based on some science fiction.
--- End quote ---
And the Catholic Church is... ?
Sorry, couldn't help it, the temptation was too strong ;D
--- Quote from: megido-rev.M on April 13, 2012, 12:48:17 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
This is debatable. The vast majority of today's psychologists agree on Jung's theory of archetypes, of collective subconscious. By those theories, there is a fundamental part of the subconscious - the part where also instincts reside - that is shared between all humans. There are different subtheories as to how this common pool would be shared by everyone: some think it indeed is hereditary, hidden somewhere in our genes, some that the result comes to be the same simply because the starting conditions are similar and as such we are just looking at statistics doing their work.
To make a simple example: how come most people throughout human history, even when completely isolated from one another, all came up with fundamentally identical religious/superstitious explanations for things such as death? Differences are purely cosmetic, one God or more Gods, afterlife or reincarnation, but still the solution is mostly the same everywhere, anytime. The instinct that originally drives us to deny death as we are unable to conceive it is clearly the same for everyone, and the much more elaborate, conscious thought process that's called to address the matter appears to reach the fundamentally same conclusions through fundamentally similar processes, patterns and logic.
--- Quote from: elvikun on April 13, 2012, 01:51:31 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
And that's a point for her. As I consider instincts something as strong and inherently tied to our very nature just as much as the fact of us walking on two legs, just as evolution can change the body it can change instincts, dull some and sharpen others.
Fact is, however, evolution doesn't happen in centuries or thousands of years. That's a scale of measurement substantially meaningless for evolution. It happens in millions.
There's no measurable divergence between us and the first homo sapiens sapiens, yet, apparently, the superficial behaviour of humans - as the environment around them changes by their own hands - has extreme changes in extremely short time spans. Let alone the grand scheme of things, the whole debate spurred from attraction to certain traits of the other sex. We indeed today seem to prefer certain traits that weren't attractive only a couple hundred years ago, and vice versa. Believing that comes from an evolutionary adaptation of the reproductive instincts is what is preposterous to me: it's simply impossible for it to have happened in such a short amount of time.
What has changed are the environmental conditions, and how those traits might be perceived as favourable or unfavourable from that instinct's "point of view", even when, maybe, that perception might be considered distorted, misguided, extremized by culture: for instance, the fact that it seems we lean towards a far skinnier build for women than what was true only 50-100 years ago could very well come from the fact we suddenly live in an era where having access to too much to eat is actually the source of some of the most threatening health issues. Body fat - even when not in excess by any real medical standard - might then whisper to our subconscious that woman might not be leading an healthy life and as such she could be prone to develop hearth issues. While this is obviously not true for a medium build (that anyway as has been said is still probably what the majority of males still leans towards in truth), no one states that instincts are always right or that they can't be fooled and misguided by thought and social imprinting.
The cultural imprinting we are given might end up telling our subconscious that a skinny build really is the healthier one, and our instincts react accordingly to fulfill their role and goal. But as instincts themselves they haven't changed in the slightest.
rostheferret:
Since the wall of text is getting annoying:
Intelligence is relative; a cumulative experience of one generation teaching the one before it. We're referring to a time where there wasn't much to pass on. And I'm going to assume you don't have any pets, else you'd know animals eat just about anything. I've dragged dogs away from eating rabbit poop, had guinea pigs chew through electrical wire and live with a cat who will give just about any bit of stray plastic a good gnaw, just in case. You say arts didn't matter, so why does caveman art even exist?
Read This. It essentially explains how our ability to learn and teach others was critical to early man's survival.
BMI is indeed an awful comparison, no argument there, but it's a guide for a 'healthy weight,' though one to be taken with a grain of salt. Actually, reading this back it seems you're misunderstanding me; I assumed you were referring to 'overweight' to anyone of an actual healthy weight and not underweight. I never said 'men like big boobs,' I've asked why you think men should like big boobs, and indeed larger women. If this an evolutionary alteration of human instinct, how is it advantageous to go for larger breasted women less likely to produce healthy offspring? Assuming you didn't mean healthy weight, if you meant healthy weight then I can't see how anything's changed in terms of body weight, just that you think bigger boobs = better from an evolutionary stand point. Again, I think it's somewhere closer to the middle, just as it's always been. You are right though, my description of evolution 'deciding' is inaccurate.
I gave a wiki quote because it defines what an instinct is. It is, in fact, a reflex; an uncontrollable urge or thought process which cannot be overwritten by the mind. The mind can only choose not to act upon that instinct; a pretty woman walks in, my instinct tells me to have sex with her, my mind decides whether or not to act upon that instinct. My adrenaline goes, my mind decides whether or not to fight or take flight in such situation, acting upon the instinct. And no, I can't control smelling foul smells, I wish I could but I can't. You've given plenty of examples of how evolution has occurred, but not so much on how our instincts; our uncontrollable human behaviour has changed.
@Kadath: You talk of cultural influence on body size and I completely agree, the image often projected in the media is of very thin women, and it's warped our views on what a healthy weight truly is. Body fat is required for warmth and energy! Furthermore, just about every guy I've talked to on the subject will prefer women larger than those on the catwalks and on the TV; we like a little something to hold on to and caress, and we certainly don't like the look of ribs and bones sticking out. It's tragic really, women everywhere think they're fat and try to lose weight whilst us guys are taking them out to dinner to try and put a little more meat on them...
EDIT: I don't know why it posted before I'd finished :/
metro.:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM ---Since the wall of text is getting annoying:
Intelligence is relative,.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I stopped reading this a few days ago. I read a few posts and then just realized they were arguing different points and wanking off to how smart and intelligent they were.
At least that's what a very tired me got out of it.
elvikun:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM ---Since the wall of text is getting annoying:
Intelligence is relative,.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I would very much like to see answer for the very last part of what I said to you. It's just one or two words needed.
Then we can all agree that we disagree or agree that we actually agree for a long time and the go have a sushi tonigh, hah.
--- Quote from: metro. on April 13, 2012, 02:20:37 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM ---Since the wall of text is getting annoying:
Intelligence is relative,.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I stopped reading this a few days ago. I read a few posts and then just realized they were arguing different points and wanking off to how smart and intelligent they were.
At least that's what a very tired me got out of it.
--- End quote ---
Well, you just actually slided around and said something like "Donuts with pink creme!" from time o time.
...Trolololo...lo.. .lolo....
@kadatherion
Well, I have to point you to the very last paragraph I said to Rosh as well. I really wanted to answer you too, but then it suddenly got very tiresome and I never got to finish the wall. It's a bit defferent discussion, but I think it's the same idea. We were talking about slightly different things.
rostheferret:
I'm posting this because I accidentally posted early and made massive changes to a post and I want people to realise I made massive changes to that post.
tl;dr, this is a bump to be deleted.
Kittens.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version