• Announcements

    • Cap'n Refsmmat

      SFN Upgraded   07/22/17

      SFN has been upgraded to IPB version 4. View the announcement for more details, or to report any problems you're experiencing.
Ten oz

Instinct vs Consciousness

118 posts in this topic

Gee,

I call your calling my definition of instinct from high school hogwash, hogwash.

I read the wiki article and it said exactly what I said. 

It must be (FAP),  a complex series of behavior, it must exist in most members of the species (species wide), and must be unlearned.

So far I am not seeing where you see my definition as outdated.  We use the same one we had in 1980.

And the article did not provide me with the hundred human instincts you say scientists have isolated in the last 37 years, that I have not been informed about.

Can you provide a link?

Please also provide the definition of instinct, different from our 1980 definition (and wiki's current definition) that you wish to go by in a non hogwash fashion.

Regards, TAR

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tar said:

Gee,

I call your calling my definition of instinct from high school hogwash, hogwash.

I read the wiki article and it said exactly what I said. 

Yes it did! It also stated other ideas that conflicted with yours -- that was my point. You chose the idea that supported your belief, "my definition of instinct from high school", which is what we philosophers like to call farm work; specifically, cherry picking.

Science likes consistency in it's definitions and conclusions.

Philosophy likes truth in it's definitions and conclusions.

Cherry picking is neither science, nor is it philosophy.
 

Quote

 

It must be (FAP),  a complex series of behavior, it must exist in most members of the species (species wide), and must be unlearned.

So far I am not seeing where you see my definition as outdated.  We use the same one we had in 1980.

 

It must be and probably is a lot of things depending on whom you are talking to. Instincts is one of the most ill defined and overly defined concepts that exist, second only to consciousness itself. That is what makes this thread so interesting and difficult. Tar, I have been studying consciousness, and by extension instincts, for most of my life -- there is very little that you can tell me about it that is new.

I am not saying that your definition is "outdated", I am saying that it is wrong. According to your post, humans do not have instincts except for "perhaps suckling", which means that according to you, humans do not have survival instincts. Which means that biology needs to reconsider it's definition of life because the definition of what is alive depends very heavily on survival instincts. A rock, by all indications, does not care if it is destroyed -- it is not alive. A virus will exhibit indications of life only when it is within another body, so it is at best quasi-life or parasitic life, but does not qualify as life. All life forms will do anything and everything that they are capable of in order to preserve or continue life -- these are survival instincts.

Quote

 

And the article did not provide me with the hundred human instincts you say scientists have isolated in the last 37 years, that I have not been informed about.

Can you provide a link?

 

I do not believe I said "hundred", I think I said thousands, but don't know how to go back to my post from here to check. I am absolutely sure that I did not say "scientists have isolated in the last 37 years" so I will expect a retraction from you. Please try to be more accurate in your posts if you expect a response from me.

Quote

 

Please also provide the definition of instinct, different from our 1980 definition (and wiki's current definition) that you wish to go by in a non hogwash fashion.

Regards, TAR

 

I will go with biology and their definition of survival instincts because I trust their ability to test their ideas and their definition is consistent and much more likely to be true. As far as the definitions in Wiki, I expect that I would give the most credence to Psychology's explanation of "drives" of the Id as defined by Freud because they very closely reflect biology's survival instincts.

Gee

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spent a lot of time thinking about our subconscious vs conscious minds and have concluded that our conscious mind is like an overlay on top of the subconscious mind added on later like early Windows used to be an overlay on top of  DOS.

We already know that the conscious mind evolved later out of a need to communicate with other humans. Further more I believe our conscious thinking process trains our subconscious mind how to think, which then is able to work repeatedly and automatically in the background.

Therefore as we think consciously through a complex problem multiple times we are training our subconscious to take that same line or possibly even anticipate new lines of thinking automatically and persistently running in the background even in our sleep which explains why we often we wake up knowing the solution of a problem.

This is also why epiphany is something that just occurs to us probably when the needed missing pieces fall into place but which also likely involves complex thinking ability.

This could also be consistent with short and long termmemory working in a parallel process. or as working memory recalls required data as needed subconsciously

 

  

Edited by TakenItSeriously
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some researches which prove that little babies know how to make adults smile and use theirs cuteness to make people around take care of them. Babies do not have a functional mind yet trained enough to use this advantage but by instinct they do it. The other thing i remember is fear. Animals feel a danger and react to that. But humans only suffer of fears without a real reason. In my mind, its an instinct also as cant be counted as a reason of rational thought

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee,

I actually am in strong alignment with certain aspects of your understanding of consciousness, as I have discussed certain aspects with you, concerning hormones and pheromones and the thrust of some of your ideas have played important roles in my personal theories surrounding the serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine complex we have that establishes desire, motivation and reward in humans across the board, in a similar manner.  The survival instinct, you are talking about is heavily bound to this complex, in my estimation.

So it is not helpful in segregating instinct from consciousness because the neurotransmitters are, according to my muses, bound to both these innate phylum wide survival instincts, and our consciousness and thought and language, and problem solving abilities found in humans more than our relative mammals.  It is not that I don't believe other animals are conscious,  they are, and its probably for similar reasons that we are, but we have taken it further, then other species, and can think, be conscious, as a group, more successfully than other species.

Other mammals, having similar brain construction, and being relatives on the evolutionary tree, probably have analogs to our serotonin norepinephrine dopamine system...a leap I make without evidence or knowledge, as a test of my theory.   If we developed our survival instinct and maintained it, passed it on through our genes to our children, through the development and passing on of the serotonin norepinephrine dopamine desire, motivation, reward system then it would be required that other lifeforms, displaying a survival instinct similar to ours, would have something close to, or something with the same working components, as our desire, motivation, reward system.

That is the people arguing on this thread for instinct and innate to be considered the same idea would be satisfied.

And the people arguing that other mammals have consciousness would be satisfied.

Left in the lurch would be creationists that do not believe in evolution or our relationship to the apes,  and those scientists that think they are operating on some higher plane that does not require animal desires, motivation and reward.

Regards, TAR

,

 

Edited by tar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and left in the lurch would be anyone, religious or scientific, that thinks their consciousness is going anywhere, without their body/brain/heart group

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

I've spent a lot of time thinking about our subconscious vs conscious minds and have concluded that our conscious mind is like an overlay on top of the subconscious mind added on later like early Windows used to be an overlay on top of  DOS.

We already know that the conscious mind evolved later out of a need to communicate with other humans. Further more I believe our conscious thinking process trains our subconscious mind how to think, which then is able to work repeatedly and automatically in the background.

Therefore as we think consciously through a complex problem multiple times we are training our subconscious to take that same line or possibly even anticipate new lines of thinking automatically and persistently running in the background even in our sleep which explains why we often we wake up knowing the solution of a problem.

This is also why epiphany is something that just occurs to us probably when the needed missing pieces fall into place but which also likely involves complex thinking ability.

This could also be consistent with short and long termmemory working in a parallel process. or as working memory recalls required data as needed subconsciously

 

  

Are you referencing the thread I created on the illusion of choice? Your respond would be perfect for that discussion. As for instinct and the idea of consciousness training a subconsciousness there are simply too many things one must do to survive prior to having training. A new born must know to up it's eyes, how to cry (vocalize), how to suckle, and etc. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Evgenia said:

There are some researches which prove that little babies know how to make adults smile and use theirs cuteness to make people around take care of them. Babies do not have a functional mind yet trained enough to use this advantage but by instinct they do it. The other thing i remember is fear. Animals feel a danger and react to that. But humans only suffer of fears without a real reason. In my mind, its an instinct also as cant be counted as a reason of rational thought

What is a "functional mind"? Babies can breathe, their hearts beat, they have sleeping and waking states, and etc. Those are processes controlled by the brain. Is there a difference between having a functional brain and having a functional mind? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,sure. Babies have functional brain with all these signals to synapses etc. So no problem with breathing or crying. By functional mind i meant they dont know yet the social rules,how to manipulate parents by theirs senses and fears, and love. But still they do it by instinct without knowing all this stuff

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

Yes,sure. Babies have functional brain with all these signals to synapses etc. So no problem with breathing or crying. By functional mind i meant they dont know yet the social rules,how to manipulate parents by theirs senses and fears, and love. But still they do it by instinct without knowing all this stuff

Children born with disabilities like the various ranges of Asperger's syndrome may never how to manipulate others. Are they born without this instinct your describing? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Evgenia said:

Yes,sure. Babies have functional brain with all these signals to synapses etc. So no problem with breathing or crying. By functional mind i meant they dont know yet the social rules,how to manipulate parents by theirs senses and fears, and love. But still they do it by instinct without knowing all this stuff

Good point +1

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

Children born with disabilities like the various ranges of Asperger's syndrome may never how to manipulate others. Are they born without this instinct your describing? 

1

They have a functional brain but not a functional mind, so yes, I think they would lack that particular instinct.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

They have a functional brain but not a functional mind, so yes, I think they would lack that particular instinct.

How do we define the difference between brain and mind? Per standard defines the mind is just a process of the brain. There are no degrees or minimum levels of a brains ability to process or inherent instincts used to define mind. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question i am really in is what if all we do is because of our instincts? What if its not rational me who decided to devote my time and profession to innovations but my instinct. Since i was a kid i knew am smart and teachers encouraged me to use it, people said what a clever child so i felt i am good if follow that path and am socially supported. But if i trained my sport career i could probably reach better results. Its just a theoretical point, i understand that. But ask yourself, was it always your ratio which leaded you or may it be some instinct of the same baby who raised up but still is trying to take care of others by being good?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

How do we define the difference between brain and mind? Per standard defines the mind is just a process of the brain.

 

I think Evgenia did a pretty good job as a definition between the two.

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

There are no degrees or minimum levels of a brains ability to process or inherent instincts used to define mind. 

In your example of someone with autism, the brain's ability to process information, sometimes, far exceeds its inherent skill of understanding/empathising with others.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I think Evgenia did a pretty good job as a definition between the two.

In your example of someone with autism, the brain's ability to process information, sometimes, far exceeds its inherent skill of understanding/empathising with others.

I think you are adding degrees. How well someone does something doesn't mean they have more or less of a mind being g that the word mind just describes the process and not the result. A terrible mind is still a mind. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think you are adding degrees. How well someone does something doesn't mean they have more or less of a mind being g that the word mind just describes the process and not the result. A terrible mind is still a mind. 

I don't think I am given the OP, a functional brain, still functions and will give results, but if we dumb down, a computer will give a result (the brain) but the correct algorithm will give the correct result, or at least an approximation of correct (the mind).

Edited by dimreepr
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now