tmj 153 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 That’s the usual pattern, fore mating instincts lead to secondary cleaning up concerns. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 2 hours ago, anthony said: Fore-mating instincts evidently don't exist. Can it be cleaned up? Tony, Done. What a mess, but I did it. I hope what's left is that what you wanted. btw - What makes you think an instinct guarantees success? If it did, most animals and insects would never eat. Formatting or fore-mating on autopilot is pretty close to what operating on instinct feels like. (And do you really need to fore-mate on autopilot? That's disgusting... ) Just be glad a predator was not around to eat you for the autopilot fail. Michael 1 Link to post Share on other sites
ThatGuy 261 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: What makes you think an instinct guarantees success? If it did, most animals and insects would never eat. Still curious as to where the "infallible" part crept in to the definition of instinct... Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 17 hours ago, ThatGuy said: Still curious as to where the "infallible" part crept in to the definition of instinct... To show the common equivocations and quasi-science, one can find this sort of thing, online: "Like all animals, humans have instincts, genetically hard-wired behaviors that enhance our ability to cope with vital environmental contingencies. Our innate fear of snakes is an example. Other instincts, including denial, revenge, tribal loyalty, greed and our urge to procreate, now threaten our very existence". One can dismiss all those with other explanations of human behavior or disprove them entirely (I mean place a snake in a baby's cot and she's most likely going to happily play with it). But - other innate instincts "now threaten our very existence". The very things that are 'instinctively' good for species survival are also turning out - bad for "us". Therefore, doubt is now being raised about the instinct-infallibility factor. NOT because of man's free will and individualism, but because those things are environmentally/socially unacceptable - collectivist again. e.g. population growth by an -excessive- "urge to procreate". Capitalist-industrialist "greed". No longer good, now very bad. Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Tony, Done. What a mess, but I did it. I hope what's left is that what you wanted. btw - What makes you think an instinct guarantees success? If it did, most animals and insects would never eat. Michael Thank you. What - hunger is 'an instinct'? Like with all we animals it's a biological urge/sensation. As a layman I'd reckon signals are sent to the relevant part of the brain from a shrinking stomach and intestines, which relays to the cortex - saying (metaphorically) "feed me". Hunger pangs, explained as mildly discomfiting sensations (on the pleasure-pain scale), signals that warn one of potential harm. Then the pleasant sensation when the hunger has been satisfied. Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 What emerges is that animals - especially higher mammals - are not as instinctive as we'd think. There is also a lot of learned behavior. Or trained. A wildebeest gives birth and barely has the calf been licked free from its sac, but she takes off at a trot. The calf, likely very hungry smells its mother's milk and struggles to follow although hardly able to stand. That is certainly instinctive and innate by the mother. The calf needs to be able to walk and run asap. The big cats and hyenas always go for the weak and solitary. Once imprinted with its mother's smell, the calf will recognize her anywhere and stick close (learned behavior) until they are both absorbed into the safety of the herd which presents a formidable front to lionesses on the hunt. The herd-instinct behavior. Dogs we know well are able to make simple, learned, associations, have simple 'values' and show they clearly have basic emotions - garage door heard opening: excitement, 'they' are home again! As if they are able to add 1 plus 1 - perceptually - while humans can add 1 plus 2 plus 3 ... Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 5 hours ago, anthony said: What - hunger is 'an instinct'? Tony, Wow. I must be writing poorly. That is not at all what I meant. Here is what I meant. And I'm even saying here is what I meant so I won't be misunderstood. So please make an effort to grok this. I am now explaining what I meant and here is what I meant: If an instinct is a guaranteed (infallible) pattern of behavior for an animal's survival (which is more or less the way you keep saying it), that instinct isn't infallible when the animal gets eaten. Something doesn't work, that's for sure. The instinct, even when being acted on, fails to ensure survival. The animal dies and is eaten. And death is the opposite of survival. So if survival were guaranteed by instinct, many animals would not eat. Meaning they would not be able to kill their prey (who survive by their supposedly infallible instincts), thus not have any food. Am I getting through? Or do you need me to say what I am saying in different words? I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation because of this kind of thing. We are doing a form of social yawping right now. On 4/6/2021 at 12:11 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said: Quack. We are not discussing ideas. When every other post starts with "that is not what I meant" or "that is not what I said," or there is a constant repetition of dogma, there is a total breakdown of intellectual discourse. That gets real boring. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I'm at that point. Michael Link to post Share on other sites
ThatGuy 261 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 4 hours ago, anthony said: What emerges is that animals - especially higher mammals - are not as instinctive as we'd think. There is also a lot of learned behavior. Or trained. Hmmm...I once saw a spider build a bird's nest while a monkey spun a web from its butt...then there was the that time when the ostrich built a dam while the beaver flew south for the winter...wait... Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: If an instinct is a guaranteed (infallible) pattern of behavior for an animal's survival (which is more or less the way you keep saying it), that instinct isn't infallible when the animal gets eaten. Something doesn't work, that's for sure. The instinct, even when being acted on, fails to ensure survival. The animal dies and is eaten. And death is the opposite of survival. So if survival were guaranteed by instinct, many animals would not eat. Meaning they would not be able to kill their prey, thus not have any food. For every gazelle with its instincts there's a lioness with its instincts. I assumed we well know that every animal doesn't survive, instincts or not. The turtles that head unerringly for the ocean after hatching, some fall prey to other creatures on the beach. Birds have an annual "homing instinct", it is infallible but many don't arrive. Therefore, the "unerring, automatic form of knowledge", instinct, certainly isn't a guarantee of end results for ¬each¬ one. An animal can have a built-in code of survival - I called it - and not live, it ends up as food for another, and that one survives a little longer. Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 minute ago, anthony said: For every gazelle with its instincts there's a lioness with its instincts. I assumed we well know that every animal doesn't survive, instincts or not. The turtles that head for the ocean after hatching, some fall prey to other creatures on the beach. Birds have an annual "homing instinct", but many don't arrive. Therefore, the "unerring, automatic form of knowledge", instinct, certainly isn't an infallible guarantee of end results for ¬each¬ one. An animal can have a built-in code of survival - and not live, it ends up as food for another, and that one survives one more day. Tony, Unerring? Unerring that errs? Heh... We get closer and closer to Orwell's Newspeak every day... Michael Link to post Share on other sites
ThatGuy 261 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 Maybe the wrong questions are being asked, here...let's re-frame it: Who put the bomp In the bomp bah bomp bah bomp? Who put the ram In the rama lama ding dong? Who put the bop In the bop shoo bop shoo bop? Who put the dip In the dip da dip da dip? Who was that man? I'd like to shake his hand He made my baby Fall in love with me (yeah!!) Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, ThatGuy said: Hmmm...I once saw a spider build a bird's nest while a monkey spun a web from its butt...then there was the that time when the ostrich built a dam while the beaver flew south for the winter...wait... wait... https://sciencing.com/innate-learned-animal-behavior-6668264.html Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 This has turned into a new form of philosophical argument: argumentum ad nationalgeographicum. Michael 1 Link to post Share on other sites
william.scherk 336 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 "Maternal instincts"? 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Strictlylogical 27 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 1 hour ago, william.scherk said: "Maternal instincts"? My wife went through a phase, when she was about 23-24 during which she had an intense and visceral urge to have a baby... was drawn almost with a kind of yearning.. to every baby she saw... we finally had a baby close to 10 years later. Those could have been voluntary chosen rational urges... or she may have temporarily and involuntarily transformed into an animal of sorts... like a Weremother or something. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This has turned into a new form of philosophical argument: argumentum ad nationalgeographicum. Michael You're the one who always urges to read the science material. .;) Facts come first. Animal instincts - or human for that matter - need to be demonstrated by example or observed experiences. I have made a point of illustrating some.. The properly scientific approach lays out the criteria: What is instinctive and what is learned? Undifferentiated, for animals and for men, allows in equivocations or conflations (and the internet is full of them). This is unmistakably the criteria to set for the presence of instinct: Behavior which is - "innate"; "inflexible"; "not modified by experience"; "stereotypic"; "intrinsic"; "consummate": Updated April 24, 2018 By Marion Sipe Animal behavior is what animals do or avoid doing. The difference between an innate behavior and a learned one is that innate behaviors are those an animal will engage in from birth without any intervention. Learned behavior is something an animal discovers through trial, error and observation. Most learned behavior comes from the teaching of the animal's parent or through experimentation with its environment. Innate behaviors are ones the animal is born with -- they're essentially hard-wired into the animal's DNA. Learned behaviors are just that -- learned -- and animals will acquire them throughout life. Innate Behavior Instinct is a powerful force in the animal world. It dictates the behaviors necessary for survival, especially in species that don't get much guidance from their parents. These behaviors are programmed into an animal at a genetic level. An innate behavior is inheritable, passing from generation to generation through genes. It is also intrinsic, meaning that even an animal raised in isolation will perform the behavior, and stereotypic, meaning that it is done the same way every time. Innate behaviors are also inflexible and are not modified by experience. Finally, they are consummate, which means that the behavior is fully developed from the animal's birth. Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 23 minutes ago, anthony said: This is unmistakably the criteria to set for the presence of instinct: Behavior which is - "innate"; "inflexible"; "not modified by experience"; "stereotypic"; "consummate". This list of animal instinctual properties (which, together, amount to "unerring, automatic") should now be employed for any/all supposed HUMAN-instinctive activity and tendency. That's the acid test. Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 17 hours ago, william.scherk said: "Maternal instincts"? A regular misnomer substituting a whole raft of other things, I'd expect: Biological, (hormone levels), observed values/emotions (blissful mothers with cute infants), psychological (e.g. to be a complete woman I must procreate; my parents expect it; my friends are already mothers ...etc. ) - and the anticipated focus for a mother to love and nurture - - and more besides. Effectively, biology plus learned behavior plus subconscious needs and desire. Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 For anyone following this, here is a real good example of how the biological fractal works. Breathing. Breathing is mostly involuntary. But you can do it at will. In fact, doing it at will allowed me to become a world class trombonist early in my professional careers (I have had several). But just because I learned to play trombone, that did not stop the involuntary breathing from chugging right along. Also, there are limits to breathing voluntarily. If I exert a great deal of physical effort like running, I can control breathing until I can't, then I have to let the rapid breathing run its course to the point where I can reassert control. There are other limitations like that. Reason and instincts work that way. Fractal. They are both part of the same mind and brain. They work like the fractal works. Even Rand's idea of definition works that way (genus for the broad foundation and differentia for the special individualizing stuff). Michael Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said: This has turned into a new form of philosophical argument: argumentum ad nationalgeographicum. I left out a part. argumentum ad nationalgeographicum ad nauseam Michael Link to post Share on other sites
Peter 250 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Nationalgeographicum? Now this is no joke. What capital’s main street is “Last Chance Gulch”? 6 letters. Answer: Helena, Montana And anudder one? Clue. What is a mid-Atlantic state? Answer: Nausea or Nassau Clue. It doesn't mean fish of the day. 9 letters. Answer: Carpe diem Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Right. Except I show the evidence and scientific validation. No arguments seen contra that, so far. Show me the human instincts, I asked. This far the 'instincts' brought up can be rationally discounted for some other phenomena. Maybe someone wants to know what qualifies as an instinct: "The Maternal Myth" (excerpt): "Surely all women must have a maternal instinct or the human race would die out. We are mammals, and all other female mammals seem to have one. Maternal instincts and breasts—surely that’s what it means to be a mammal. Some women don’t seem very interested in having babies but that can’t be normal—can it? Firstly, let’s look at this term ‘instinct’. The 1961 edited volume ‘Instinct’ laid down some defining guidelines. To qualify as an instinct, the behavior should be automatic, irresistible, triggered by something in the environment, occur at some particular time during development, require no training, be unmodifiable and occur in all individuals of a species. The problem with these criteria is that even the universal instinct to eat when hungry doesn’t fit well". [...] Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Stuart Kelly 1,837 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 Tony is still wrong. Quack. Michael Link to post Share on other sites
Peter 250 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 33 minutes ago, anthony said: the universal instinct to eat when hungry doesn’t fit well" Toddlers seem to have some compulsion to put things in their mouths. Link to post Share on other sites
anthony 178 Posted April 10 Share Posted April 10 "It [instinct] is also intrinsic, meaning that even an animal raised in isolation will perform the behavior..." (M. Sipes' article) What and why is the puzzling, universal desire for intrinsic, innate, instinctive knowledge (and values)? i.e. Intrinsicism e.g. religions? Can only be that it's the desire to gain perfection without effort. Further, effortful knowledge would ¬disqualify¬ it from being 'perfect'. That's not going away anytime, for secularists also. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now