A Whole New Light

[kadatherion]

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

Well, that's a given. I'm just trying to not get overly technical in the debate. We are already boring enough

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

And the Catholic Church is... ?
Sorry, couldn't help it, the temptation was too strong 

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.

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.

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.

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.]

Since the wall of text is getting annoying:

Intelligence is relative,.

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]

Since the wall of text is getting annoying:

Intelligence is relative,.

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.

(click to show/hide)

Since the wall of text is getting annoying:

Intelligence is relative,.

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.

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.

[kadatherion]

Intelligence is relative; a cumulative experience of one generation teaching the one before it.

Ahem. That's called knowledge. Intelligence is another thing.

But yes, we have dissected the matter long enough, I agree.


@elvikun
Yep, in hindsight I'd say actually a good part of the discussion revolves around us using different terminology for what - even with certain differences - is more or less the same concept.

We all know what matters at the end of the day. Boobs.

[rostheferret]

Intelligence is relative; a cumulative experience of one generation teaching the one before it.

Ahem. That's called knowledge. Intelligence is another thing.

But yes, we have dissected the matter long enough, I agree.


@elvikun
Yep, in hindsight I'd say actually a good part of the discussion revolves around us using different terminology for what - even with certain differences - is more or less the same concept.

We all know what matters at the end of the day. Boobs.

I've just done a 12 hour shift and woke up after 2 hours sleep for no reason. Bite me. (Yes, I did mean knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to use knowledge constructively). And as if to prove you wrong further, I'm definitely more of an ass man... Though at this arguments core is a misunderstanding somewhere. I'm just trying to figure out where.

[elvikun]

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

[megido-rev.M]

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

Well, that's a given. I'm just trying to not get overly technical in the debate. We are already boring enough

[...]

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.

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.

Blue point:: it is no different from what I stated. The mechanism of instincts can be integrated with the subconsciousness, but I do not agree with the claim stating the two abstractions are equal: I have already given one exploit of the claim previously. Separated concepts is what I advised, but I do not claim that they can neither be embedded nor exist in conjunction.

Underlined point:: instincts themselves are not actually "inheritable information packets". However, offspring should be able to develop the instincts of their predecessors by means of genetic inheritance, loosely speaking: reproduction. The only debate that could be involved in this would be an issue of categorization class: define instincts. Using non-concrete definitions is a cheap way to avoid contradictions and mask subtleties, which is a nonsensical loss of opportunities for information.

Instincts can be active regardless of consciousness states, yet do not exclusively belong to the physical form outside the brain. Furthermore, humans don't begin to exist with brains, although instincts can reside in them-- etc.: we end up with circular deductions, hence why strictures are necessary.

Green point:: polypantheism . Humans in the beginning of history were not incapable of accepting unification. As well, we do not have evidence at hand pertaining to what extent the differences in their beliefs actually were at the beginning of collisions, so you might as well be merely considering only the resolutions of these collisions.

And what does denial of death have to do with instincts? We have no information on 'exposure to death', because "One does not simply die to acquire data on death". It is this lack of information that is common, therefore the conclusions are derived from the same basic premises.

And the Catholic Church is... ?
Sorry, couldn't help it, the temptation was too strong 

It's not like I care about any church. But if you are unaware, Scientology basically was created by a failure of a science fiction novelist .

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.

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.
[...]

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.

Before I begin, for the record when I said "reinforce what rostheferret responded with" I implied only additions of rebuttals, not affirmations of his disagreements. Anyway...

Define nature w.r.t. instincts (not the reverse). Instinct itself may have a nature, so why can't it tie in with the overall nature of an organism? There is no guarantee that instinct, its nature and activeness are preserved as the organism itself changes in nature, yet simultaneously instinct is a component of that overall nature. However, the tie between instinct and nature is just what it is, and its tightness is questionable; thus, as with subconsciousness, one cannot claim instinct and nature are equivalent concepts either.

Cultural imprinting should not have direct influence on instincts. It might to the consciousness, which feeds the subconsciousness, wherein its processes, such as those corresponding to emotions, occur, and that would serve as feedback to one's instincts. Role and culture belong to the 'nature vs. nurture debate', so I'll cease this here.

FYI: You conclude instincts do not change, but you are agreeing with a point stating that it does .

tl;dr: getting things straight.

Know what? The rest of the responses are messes beyond sorting through. I'm better off having Kind Arthur chop your house down with an axe while singing the trololololololololo l song.

[Saras]

A whole new world!

Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.

[elvikun]

A whole new world!

Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.

Dude. That just doesn't fit in at this point.
It's like walking in a room full of dead people and yelling "Surprise!".

[Saras]

A whole new world!

Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.

Dude. That just doesn't fit in at this point.
It's like walking in a room full of dead people and yelling "Surprise!".

I was waiting for it to fit in, but after I went to bed you lot got an extra 5 pages on me.

[kadatherion]

And what does denial of death have to do with instincts? We have no information on 'exposure to death', because "One does not simply die to acquire data on death". It is this lack of information that is common, therefore the conclusions are derived from the same basic premises.

Well, you make me more or less repeat myself, so it's boredom multiplied by two now, but to me the omnipresent need to explain the unknown every human has is blatantly one of the most basic instincts we have. Actually it's a mix of two instincts, imo. The first one is called curiosity, and is the spark that led human evolution and history. You'll notice how the more evolved an animal is, the more curious it is about his surroundings, and the more inclined to explore them it is. In the case of humans, capable of abstract thought, there's a whole new, endless world of pure intellect to explore. The second one is called fear: fear of the unknown. Humans instinctively fear what they don't know/understand just like they instinctively fear the dark: because in the unknown might reside dangers. What is more unknown than the concept of non-existence, especially as it is tied to the very realization of our most scary inner, instinctive fear of death?

If it weren't for these instincts, there would have been little need to find explanations that actually deny death. Some people could have come up with those, but at least as much people (and probably the vast majority) would just have gotten to the simpler, logical conclusion death is death: it happens, as shit does.
As they all felt compelled to find an acceptable explanation for something they didn't understand, they all came to the same conclusion, that death doesn't exist. You may use afterlife, you may use reincarnation, or you may use new age bs that's pretty much FF7's lifestream to idealize how your soul will keep living inside the grand scheme of the biosphere or in an actual embodiment of the living world called Gaia, all these differences are purely cosmetic. All tell you there is a soul that carries on, so you don't die, even if in concept only. Doing so, most of them also flatter your pride suggesting that you are more than just a bunch of meat that happens to be able to think by a lucky variable in evolution.

Only today we have some atheists that try to admit that it's just illogical and silly to think there has to be something only because we are too ignorant to conceptualize what nothingness is. And even between them I wonder how many are really comfortable with that deep down and how many are just diverting their eyes and looking at science in a religious way waiting for it to give them an equally acceptable answer about that. How evolution is often simplified in popular culture into something that closely resembles becoming a superior being is a bad symptom.

It's not like I care about any church. But if you are unaware, Scientology basically was created by a failure of a science fiction novelist .

I know. The difference is the novelist behind Christianity was more successful. How he pulled it off I really don't know... I mean, imaginary friends, women born of ribs, talking snakes, gods playing pranks at you (sacrifice your son to me! / Ok... / trololololo you fell for it!) and putting around "don't press me" red buttons... I mean, come on, it's not even good fantasy, this God character is too whimsical to be taken seriously!

Well, I have never read the novels written by that Hubbard guy (that I remember of, at least), but they can't have been that bad.
Scratch that, just checked on wiki: I must have read at least two of his novels when I was a kid. And I don't remember a single word of them. So yep, the B-Book must have had to be better somehow. Probably comedic value, I guess. All those things about philistines and their foreskins... yep, it was pretty funny. And gross. Troma might have been behind the original concept.

FYI: You conclude instincts do not change, but you are agreeing with a point stating that it does .

Nope, you misunderstood me. I just stated how the mind can redirect them. The instinct still is very simple: "I want to fuck and impregnate the woman that is the best possible mate to grant me an healthy offspring and its correct upbringing" (man, I feel such a douchebag... is it just me? I want to believe I can still love; ponies, maybe, not women, but still! ). It never changes and it never can be elaborate, it can only be an impulse. The instinct doesn't even know what a "woman" is, even such a basic factor is understood only by our perception.
The perception of what is the best possible mate is what can change as the environmental conditions change. And even cultural imprinting, that pervasive imprinting that can leak into the subconscious too, can change that perception: that's how a body build that by logic would probably still not be the best one even in the current environmental conditions might appear to be so.

I'm not sure it's called rabbit therapy in English too, but the idea is pretty simple: take a rabbit, give it food, but anytime he gets near it electrocute the poor bastard. Soon enough two things will happen:
1 - each time it sees food it will become scared like hell;
2 - it will stop eating. As it has learnt that trying to eat brings pain (and pain means danger of death) his instincts are led to believe that on balance trying to eat is a more imminent danger than not eating at all. And it will starve to death.
The instincts haven't changed in the slightest, but its perception was twisted so much that the very survival instinct lead it to an inevitable death.
I know, it's an horrible practice, but believe me:

(click to show/hide)

The asshole had it coming

The only way such instincts could change is through long evolution. Let's say (silly sci-fi, there's no way an artificial custom such as this could remain unchanged for hundreds of generations) we begin reproducing only in vitro. That's a pretty efficient way to ensure we have the healthiest possible offspring. And we do that for a looooooong time. It is safe to assume the reproductive instinct - as we know it - might slowly dull, as it isn't needed as much anymore, and individuals who don't waste too much energy on it have the same chances of "mating" than anyone else, thus in the genepool the factor "reproductive instinct" gets slowly "watered down" as it isn't anymore a trait favored by species selection.
We would slowly be less and less attracted to the opposite sex, up to the point we could completely forget the meaning of sex. Then the whole in vitro fertilization system crumbles down. Would we immediately revert to feel that same instinctive urge with the same strength we do now just because suddenly it is needed again? I'd say no, it would once again take a while, as it would need to be sharpened once again: those few that still have it sharper than others would be more successful at mating, and evolution would slowly find a new balance.

Know what? The rest of the responses are messes beyond sorting through. I'm better off having Kind Arthur chop your house down with an axe while singing the trololololololololo l song.

The whole topic can be tl;dr; to this: It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit!

And I try once again to make everything slide into something maybe less self-flattering than verbal diarrhea, but surely more fulfilling: boobs.

(click to show/hide)

[rostheferret]

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.

At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:

Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.

The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?

P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.

At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:

Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.

The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?

P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.

Ok let me end this with a comical relief. You knw what are you reminding me of terribly?

Question: Do you trully believe in all parts of the bible, be it literal or figurative interpreatition?
Answer: You might be filled with hatred-hrrr and you might me blind-hrrr but STILL-hrrr  Jesus loves, he still loves you as your father-hrrr the God-hrrr does! Amen! AMEN!
Question: Could you answer the actuall question?
Answer: I will! I will-hrrr! BUT! First tell me this! How do you believe-hrrr in science-hrrr and not in your Lord Jesusss-hrrr when the science proves God-hrrr too? Amen!
Question: But the Bible?
Answer: Oh yes-hrr! I indeed mean the second-hrrr law of thermodynamics-hrrr! Amen. Amen!
*Hrrr! (Have you ever talked to trully fanatical christian? Then you know what the hrr at the end of words means. It's a sounds which, sadly, can't be written)
** (If you do not see it, you may ask. Example: Using cellular characteristsics as a proof of certain though process, calling something with a "reflex" in name an instinct...)

What I'm saiyng? You dodge in the most annoying way I am familiar with -ignoring ceratin parts,let's twist this here a little bit, answering questions which never were asked-  and then just go on about your truth. This is something life long scholars and experts do not agree on, so it would be rather strange if we did, but still.

So, to be honest, as far as I can express my feelings, it is "Fuck. You." (figurative speech, and you are definitely entitled to think the same back)) for this discussion, however, as far as I can express the feelings towars you personally, it's "Ok man, that was cool, let's aree that we disagree, let's go have a beer."(figurative speech). So let's just go with the second one and be all merry and happy. Fair enough?

[megido-rev.M]

Well, you make me more or less repeat myself, so it's boredom multiplied by two now, but to me the omnipresent need to explain the unknown every human has is blatantly one of the most basic instincts we have. Actually it's a mix of two instincts, imo. The first one is called curiosity, and is the spark that led human evolution and history. You'll notice how the more evolved an animal is, the more curious it is about his surroundings, and the more inclined to explore them it is. In the case of humans, capable of abstract thought, there's a whole new, endless world of pure intellect to explore. The second one is called fear: fear of the unknown. Humans instinctively fear what they don't know/understand just like they instinctively fear the dark: because in the unknown might reside dangers. What is more unknown than the concept of non-existence, especially as it is tied to the very realization of our most scary inner, instinctive fear of death?

If it weren't for these instincts, there would have been little need to find explanations that actually deny death. Some people could have come up with those, but at least as much people (and probably the vast majority) would just have gotten to the simpler, logical conclusion death is death: it happens, as shit does.
As they all felt compelled to find an acceptable explanation for something they didn't understand, they all came to the same conclusion, that death doesn't exist. You may use afterlife, you may use reincarnation, or you may use new age bs that's pretty much FF7's lifestream to idealize how your soul will keep living inside the grand scheme of the biosphere or in an actual embodiment of the living world called Gaia, all these differences are purely cosmetic. All tell you there is a soul that carries on, so you don't die, even if in concept only. Doing so, most of them also flatter your pride suggesting that you are more than just a bunch of meat that happens to be able to think by a lucky variable in evolution.

Your descriptions of curiosity and fearing darkness are over generalizations. This is comes blatantly from the lack of mentioning of connection between them: curiosity drives an organism to seek out information, whereas fear of darkness drives it to seek information on it in the light. Both require intelligence, which is not tightly bounded to instincts as we [should] define them: instincts are involved only to the extent of driving the proper mental processes required to invoke the corresponding emotions, and if necessary the electrical impulses for reflexes, nothing more.

Luck was one major factor of survival in primitive environments. Without intelligence it becomes a grand factor. This is undeniable.

Only today we have some atheists that try to admit that it's just illogical and silly to think there has to be something only because we are too ignorant to conceptualize what nothingness is. And even between them I wonder how many are really comfortable with that deep down and how many are just diverting their eyes and looking at science in a religious way waiting for it to give them an equally acceptable answer about that. How evolution is often simplified in popular culture into something that closely resembles becoming a superior being is a bad symptom.

Are you forgetting? It was because of religious adversities that the number zero had be suppressed from mathematics up to a few centuries ago, one of those being the denial of nothingness. Don't misunderstand, I couldn't care less for those you are referring to, because if they must turn to rely on ideas from others for inconsequential, trivial answers, then they are easily gullible as well.

It's not like I care about any church. But if you are unaware, Scientology basically was created by a failure of a science fiction novelist .

I know. The difference is the novelist behind Christianity was more successful. How he pulled it off I really don't know... I mean, imaginary friends, women born of ribs, talking snakes, gods playing pranks at you (sacrifice your son to me! / Ok... / trololololo you fell for it!) and putting around "don't press me" red buttons... I mean, come on, it's not even good fantasy, this God character is too whimsical to be taken seriously!

Well, I have never read the novels written by that Hubbard guy (that I remember of, at least), but they can't have been that bad.
Scratch that, just checked on wiki: I must have read at least two of his novels when I was a kid. And I don't remember a single word of them. So yep, the B-Book must have had to be better somehow. Probably comedic value, I guess. All those things about philistines and their foreskins... yep, it was pretty funny. And gross. Troma might have been behind the original concept.

To answer your inquiry, the key difference was that the notions of Gods existed before the religions in question. The creations of such religions were streamlined with the others easily, but only pushed far forward due to the ties to success of a certain emperor.

Scientology fits no such criteria, and the only motivation for its existence is monetary.

FYI: You conclude instincts do not change, but you are agreeing with a point stating that it does .

Nope, you misunderstood me.

(click to show/hide)

I just stated how the mind can redirect them. The instinct still is very simple: "I want to fuck and impregnate the woman that is the best possible mate to grant me an healthy offspring and its correct upbringing" (man, I feel such a douchebag... is it just me? I want to believe I can still love; ponies, maybe, not women, but still! ). It never changes and it never can be elaborate, it can only be an impulse. The instinct doesn't even know what a "woman" is, even such a basic factor is understood only by our perception.
The perception of what is the best possible mate is what can change as the environmental conditions change. And even cultural imprinting, that pervasive imprinting that can leak into the subconscious too, can change that perception: that's how a body build that by logic would probably still not be the best one even in the current environmental conditions might appear to be so.

I'm not sure it's called rabbit therapy in English too, but the idea is pretty simple: take a rabbit, give it food, but anytime he gets near it electrocute the poor bastard. Soon enough two things will happen:
1 - each time it sees food it will become scared like hell;
2 - it will stop eating. As it has learnt that trying to eat brings pain (and pain means danger of death) his instincts are led to believe that on balance trying to eat is a more imminent danger than not eating at all. And it will starve to death.
The instincts haven't changed in the slightest, but its perception was twisted so much that the very survival instinct lead it to an inevitable death.
I know, it's an horrible practice, but believe me:

(click to show/hide)

The asshole had it coming

The only way such instincts could change is through long evolution. Let's say (silly sci-fi, there's no way an artificial custom such as this could remain unchanged for hundreds of generations) we begin reproducing only in vitro. That's a pretty efficient way to ensure we have the healthiest possible offspring. And we do that for a looooooong time. It is safe to assume the reproductive instinct - as we know it - might slowly dull, as it isn't needed as much anymore, and individuals who don't waste too much energy on it have the same chances of "mating" than anyone else, thus in the genepool the factor "reproductive instinct" gets slowly "watered down" as it isn't anymore a trait favored by species selection.
We would slowly be less and less attracted to the opposite sex, up to the point we could completely forget the meaning of sex. Then the whole in vitro fertilization system crumbles down. Would we immediately revert to feel that same instinctive urge with the same strength we do now just because suddenly it is needed again? I'd say no, it would once again take a while, as it would need to be sharpened once again: those few that still have it sharper than others would be more successful at mating, and evolution would slowly find a new balance.

I labeled my words with "FYI" indicating I am not concerned about it: no need for three paragraphs worth of response.

Know what? The rest of the responses are messes beyond sorting through. I'm better off having Kind Arthur chop your house down with an axe while singing the trololololololololo l song.

The whole topic can be tl;dr; to this: It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit!

And I try once again to make everything slide into something maybe less self-flattering than verbal diarrhea, but surely more fulfilling: boobs.

(click to show/hide)

FYI: I was also referring to ros' and elvi's argument .

Also, incidentally yesterday I saw a subway poster describing that breastfeeding a baby improves while making skin contact. Not that this will actually matter to them at this point .

[Nikkoru]

A whole new world!

Sorry, I've been itching to do that since the topic started.

Dude. That just doesn't fit in at this point.
It's like walking in a room full of dead people and yelling "Surprise!".

I was waiting for it to fit in, but after I went to bed you lot got an extra 5 pages on me.

It's more pertinent to the discourse than one would initially believe.

Though who the hell knows what you're talking about now.

[rostheferret]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.

At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:

Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.

The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?

P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.

Ok let me end this with a comical relief. You knw what are you reminding me of terribly?

Question: Do you trully believe in all parts of the bible, be it literal or figurative interpreatition?
Answer: You might be filled with hatred-hrrr and you might me blind-hrrr but STILL-hrrr  Jesus loves, he still loves you as your father-hrrr the God-hrrr does! Amen! AMEN!
Question: Could you answer the actuall question?
Answer: I will! I will-hrrr! BUT! First tell me this! How do you believe-hrrr in science-hrrr and not in your Lord Jesusss-hrrr when the science proves God-hrrr too? Amen!
Question: But the Bible?
Answer: Oh yes-hrr! I indeed mean the second-hrrr law of thermodynamics-hrrr! Amen. Amen!
*Hrrr! (Have you ever talked to trully fanatical christian? Then you know what the hrr at the end of words means. It's a sounds which, sadly, can't be written)
** (If you do not see it, you may ask. Example: Using cellular characteristsics as a proof of certain though process, calling something with a "reflex" in name an instinct...)

What I'm saiyng? You dodge in the most annoying way I am familiar with -ignoring ceratin parts,let's twist this here a little bit, answering questions which never were asked-  and then just go on about your truth. This is something life long scholars and experts do not agree on, so it would be rather strange if we did, but still.

So, to be honest, as far as I can express my feelings, it is "Fuck. You." (figurative speech, and you are definitely entitled to think the same back)) for this discussion, however, as far as I can express the feelings towars you personally, it's "Ok man, that was cool, let's aree that we disagree, let's go have a beer."(figurative speech). So let's just go with the second one and be all merry and happy. Fair enough?

I didn't think I dodged anything. From my perspective you were mostly just trying to counter me by repeating your own opinion and asking further questions without offering any real argument in return except for "clarify this," after completely misunderstanding the arguments and analogies I'm trying to use in explanation; a "What! You think instincts are really robots in disguise?!?!?! But they're changing" over and over. But yeah, I'm done with the argument.

[elvikun]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.

At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:

Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.

The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?

P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.

Ok let me end this with a comical relief. You knw what are you reminding me of terribly?

Question: Do you trully believe in all parts of the bible, be it literal or figurative interpreatition?
Answer: You might be filled with hatred-hrrr and you might me blind-hrrr but STILL-hrrr  Jesus loves, he still loves you as your father-hrrr the God-hrrr does! Amen! AMEN!
Question: Could you answer the actuall question?
Answer: I will! I will-hrrr! BUT! First tell me this! How do you believe-hrrr in science-hrrr and not in your Lord Jesusss-hrrr when the science proves God-hrrr too? Amen!
Question: But the Bible?
Answer: Oh yes-hrr! I indeed mean the second-hrrr law of thermodynamics-hrrr! Amen. Amen!
*Hrrr! (Have you ever talked to trully fanatical christian? Then you know what the hrr at the end of words means. It's a sounds which, sadly, can't be written)
** (If you do not see it, you may ask. Example: Using cellular characteristsics as a proof of certain though process, calling something with a "reflex" in name an instinct...)

What I'm saiyng? You dodge in the most annoying way I am familiar with -ignoring ceratin parts,let's twist this here a little bit, answering questions which never were asked-  and then just go on about your truth. This is something life long scholars and experts do not agree on, so it would be rather strange if we did, but still.

So, to be honest, as far as I can express my feelings, it is "Fuck. You." (figurative speech, and you are definitely entitled to think the same back)) for this discussion, however, as far as I can express the feelings towars you personally, it's "Ok man, that was cool, let's aree that we disagree, let's go have a beer."(figurative speech). So let's just go with the second one and be all merry and happy. Fair enough?

(click to show/hide)

I didn't think I dodged anything. From my perspective you were mostly just trying to counter me by repeating your own opinion and asking further questions without offering any real argument in return except for "clarify this," after completely misunderstanding the arguments and analogies I'm trying to use in explanation; a "What! You think instincts are really robots in disguise?!?!?! But they're changing" over and over. But yeah, I'm done with the argument.

See? See? Thats exactly what I'm talking about. I still think it's a misunderstanding tho, because I was talking about instincts from the psychological point of view while you actually seem to say there is no such thing. Or psychology for that matter. Repetitive argument? Sure. "Instinct do change."- "Then why can we still breathe, eh?"-"No. Instincts. They change."-"But we still need to eat!" If we were even remotely on the same page, it wouldn't be even possible to bring up how freaking part of red blood cells works.

[rostheferret]

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

@Rosh
Honestly, I asked you yes or not question, and you answerd with 12 paragraphs of text.

First you almost laugh at me because you believed I said bigger brain = more intelligence, which I haven't even said and then you link me an article which starts with "Bigger cranial capacity is correlated with higher mental abilities" with "Read this"?

You say I'm confused about terms and then call hemoglobin carrying oxygen an instinct and say instinct is in fact a reflex?

You say that you "Assume" what something means after I told you what it means and assume it wrong at that?

Women with larger breats have lesser chance to have kids?

Insticnts evolved so men now are more likely to like large breasts and hips and I have said that?! You haven't noticed I was making the exactly opposite point the whole time?

If you call a muscle twich and how single cell works an insticnt, then how can I possibly ever tell you how instincts change?

What the fuck man?

Wiki... or softepedia... is not very wellcome, because it's about as credible as my left sock talking about acousto-optics. It's simply wrong on many occasions. Miquotations, stories, Joe editing after he had related class in the high school... Those people talking about telepathy back there can click edit as well.


... Could you just... Perhaps... answer the question at the end of the green text back there. That would help. And be peacefull end.

Edit: Actually, nevermind, let's just forget this, let's go back to defiling altars, fun times, fun times. How about that?

Cranial capacity =/= brain size. If you have a small skull but a large brain, you're likely to do some serious damage to it. The haemoglobin argument was an example of traits common to all mammals that is passed on genetically but doesn't change, I never called it an instinct. I gave you multiple other examples of instincts. Larger women have less chance to have kids, larger breasts is unnecessary beyond a certain point. Evolution has no need to promote either. A muscle twitch and cell function are both subconscious physical actions, an instinct is a subconscious psychological action. I used cheap resources because: a) I'm lazy; b) it stated my point for me [see point a]; c) I no longer have access to all my scientific journals; d) Do you really want to read a 30+ page in depth study of the cranial capacity and early intelligence capabilites with relation to teaching ability between early homo sapiens and neanderthals? Hope that clears up a few issues.

At least we finally agree that when you said overweight you really meant 'healthy weight.' No, I don't agree that instincts change. Rather, I think you're definition of what constitutes an instinct is incorrect; I don't think it's any more a conscious or evolutionary thing as much as it is a commonality between all members of a species; I think people who have lost certain instincts are likely to be considered to have a disorder, for example Congenital Analgesia (people who have lost sensitivity to pain). Lets try another example:

Evolution: A breast capable of producing milk.
Instinct: A baby suckling on a woman's breast to attain the milk.

The first one may indeed change over time, but the instinct of a child to actually breast feed? That won't ever change. Does that help at all?

P.S. Defiling the altars may have to wait, I got a plane to catch tomorrow. Try listening to this in my absence. I know it's not the same, but it's the best I have at short notice.

Ok let me end this with a comical relief. You knw what are you reminding me of terribly?

Question: Do you trully believe in all parts of the bible, be it literal or figurative interpreatition?
Answer: You might be filled with hatred-hrrr and you might me blind-hrrr but STILL-hrrr  Jesus loves, he still loves you as your father-hrrr the God-hrrr does! Amen! AMEN!
Question: Could you answer the actuall question?
Answer: I will! I will-hrrr! BUT! First tell me this! How do you believe-hrrr in science-hrrr and not in your Lord Jesusss-hrrr when the science proves God-hrrr too? Amen!
Question: But the Bible?
Answer: Oh yes-hrr! I indeed mean the second-hrrr law of thermodynamics-hrrr! Amen. Amen!
*Hrrr! (Have you ever talked to trully fanatical christian? Then you know what the hrr at the end of words means. It's a sounds which, sadly, can't be written)
** (If you do not see it, you may ask. Example: Using cellular characteristsics as a proof of certain though process, calling something with a "reflex" in name an instinct...)

What I'm saiyng? You dodge in the most annoying way I am familiar with -ignoring ceratin parts,let's twist this here a little bit, answering questions which never were asked-  and then just go on about your truth. This is something life long scholars and experts do not agree on, so it would be rather strange if we did, but still.

So, to be honest, as far as I can express my feelings, it is "Fuck. You." (figurative speech, and you are definitely entitled to think the same back)) for this discussion, however, as far as I can express the feelings towars you personally, it's "Ok man, that was cool, let's aree that we disagree, let's go have a beer."(figurative speech). So let's just go with the second one and be all merry and happy. Fair enough?

(click to show/hide)

I didn't think I dodged anything. From my perspective you were mostly just trying to counter me by repeating your own opinion and asking further questions without offering any real argument in return except for "clarify this," after completely misunderstanding the arguments and analogies I'm trying to use in explanation; a "What! You think instincts are really robots in disguise?!?!?! But they're changing" over and over. But yeah, I'm done with the argument.

See? See? Thats exactly what I'm talking about. I still think it's a misunderstanding tho, because I was talking about instincts from the psychological point of view while you actually seem to say there is no such thing. Or psychology for that matter. Repetitive argument? Sure. "Instinct do change."- "Then why can we still breathe, eh?"-"No. Instincts. They change."-"But we still need to eat!" If we were even remotely on the same page, it wouldn't be even possible to bring up how freaking part of red blood cells works.

It's definitely psychological. I just don't think they changed, even though they were - Y'know what, I'm not going there again. But yeah, at it's core is a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes an instinct. I come from a genetics background so the distinction in my mind is pretty clear.