Discussion Forums > The Lounge
A Whole New Light
kadatherion:
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM ---Intelligence is relative; a cumulative experience of one generation teaching the one before it.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 13, 2012, 03:05:23 PM ---
--- Quote from: rostheferret on April 13, 2012, 02:16:20 PM ---Intelligence is relative; a cumulative experience of one generation teaching the one before it.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 13, 2012, 02:06:52 PM ---
--- 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 ---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.
--- End quote ---
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 :P. 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.
--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 13, 2012, 02:06:52 PM ---And the Catholic Church is... ?
Sorry, couldn't help it, the temptation was too strong ;D
--- End quote ---
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 :P.
--- Quote from: kadatherion on April 13, 2012, 02:06:52 PM ---
--- 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.
[...]
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version