Instinct vs Consciousness

[Itoero]

The amount of neurons in the brain might a nice guideline for the consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons#Whole_nervous_system

[tar]

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So far I am not seeing where you see my definition as outdated.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

 

 

[Gees]

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So far I am not seeing where you see my definition as outdated.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I am not saying that your definition is "outdated", I am saying that it is wrong.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

[TakenItSeriously]

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 July 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Evgenia]

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

[tar]

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 July 23, 2017 by tar

[tar]

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

[Ten oz]

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. 

 

[Ten oz]

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? 

[Evgenia]

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

[Ten oz]

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? 

[dimreepr]

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

[dimreepr]

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.

[Ten oz]

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. 

[Evgenia]

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?

[dimreepr]

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.

[Ten oz]

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. 

[dimreepr]

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 July 23, 2017 by dimreepr

[TakenItSeriously]

8 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

Cuteness isn't in the mind of the babies, it's in the mind of the ones who see them.

[TakenItSeriously]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

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. 

 

Well, the mind is a big place. I was just touching on one small aspect of the it.

Edited July 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[TakenItSeriously]

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Are you referencing the thread I created on the illusion of choice? 

 

I guess I should have clarified that I just wanted to speak on the thread topic in general. These long threads can be too long to reference anything apecific and too long to make much of a contribution that resonates but sometimes something strikes someone profoundly.

[TakenItSeriously]

6 hours 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? 

Iv'e always been curious about aspergers myself. The association of anti-social with aspergers which is an effect and not a cause which makes me think that the mechanism is not well understood yet.

I can only speak for myself but as someone who has a 2e condition with a gift for logic and a learning disability, I have worked out the mechanism of my disability which is a weak short term memory which effects how I read and listen and which can appear like reading comprehension disorder or dislexia thought the opposite is true.

Comprehension is my gift not my disorder. It really seems to come down to either insufficient short term memory and/or a weaker short term memory recall mechanism as the cause. It's like a buffer isnt large enough to allow for reading at subconscious speed. Therefore I can't read faster then I can consciously comprehend it and to retain anything in long term memory I must fully comprehend it which I can usually do very well if I could ask questions in real time. Any question I have in a lechture blocks my retention of the lecture after that point until that question is answered but by then it's really too late to help much.

I also believe that much of the stuff that I retain, is more difficult for me to recall consciously but it's far easier for me to recall subconsciously. so recalling information during a test is a struggle, but recalling information for problem solving is effortless. Another words I seem to have strong working memory recall and weak short term memory recall.

Since logic is the compliment of math and  the two thinking processes are pretty much opposite approaches to problemsolving., I started to wonder if Aspergers (often associated with a gift for math) may be the result of the symmetrically opposite condition.

Not so much short term vs long temr, but perhaps its short term recall vs working memory recall, where thier weaker half is recall in the subconscious processes.

To me that means a weaker intuitive sense or a weaker subconscious connection to our experiences, and a weaker sense of what makes sense. But intuition or making logical sense is!'t that important in the methodical thinking required in mathematics and seems pretty consistant with their strong bias against intuition, lack of faith in creative processes, and which could explain their bias against science fiction as all being nonsense.

It also could be consistent with the association of anti-social where this weakness would inhibit strong social behavior.

I've often worked with engineers and have known some scientists who are stronger in math than in intuitive logic, it seems to fit their consistency of biases that Iv'e noticed in general and also seems consistent  with the "anti-social" association.

It's just a thought that seems to make sense and produce consistent results, though I only have personal experience to base that on.

 

Edited July 23, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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).

Yes but is asking the question instinct vs consciousness does the value of the action produced matter or just the fact that an action was produced? I am thinking the later.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Iv'e always been curious about aspergers myself. The association of anti-social with aspergers which is an effect and not a cause which makes me think that the mechanism is not well understood yet.

I can only speak for myself but as someone who has a 2e condition with a gift for logic and a learning disability, I have worked out the mechanism of my disability which is a weak short term memory which effects how I read and listen and which can appear like reading comprehension disorder or dislexia thought the opposite is true.

Comprehension is my gift not my disorder. It really seems to come down to either insufficient short term memory and/or a weaker short term memory recall mechanism as the cause. It's like a buffer isnt large enough to allow for reading at subconscious speed. Therefore I can't read faster then I can consciously comprehend it and to retain anything in long term memory I must fully comprehend it which I can usually do very well if I could ask questions in real time. Any question I have in a lechture blocks my retention of the lecture after that point until that question is answered but by then it's really too late to help much.

I also believe that much of the stuff that I retain, is more difficult for me to recall consciously but it's far easier for me to recall subconsciously. so recalling information during a test is a struggle, but recalling information for problem solving is effortless. Another words I seem to have strong working memory recall and weak short term memory recall.

Since logic is the compliment of math and  the two thinking processes are pretty much opposite approaches to problemsolving., I started to wonder if Aspergers (often associated with a gift for math) may be the result of the symmetrically opposite condition.

Not so much short term vs long temr, but perhaps its short term recall vs working memory recall, where thier weaker half is recall in the subconscious processes.

To me that means a weaker intuitive sense or a weaker subconscious connection to our experiences, and a weaker sense of what makes sense. But intuition or making logical sense is!'t that important in the methodical thinking required in mathematics and seems pretty consistant with their strong bias against intuition, lack of faith in creative processes, and which could explain their bias against science fiction as all being nonsense.

It also could be consistent with the association of anti-social where this weakness would inhibit strong social behavior.

I've often worked with engineers and have known some scientists who are stronger in math than in intuitive logic, it seems to fit their consistency of biases that Iv'e noticed in general and also seems consistent  with the "anti-social" association.

It's just a thought that seems to make sense and produce consistent results, though I only have personal experience to base that on.

 

Evolution works via variables. If we were all perfect clones we'd never evolve. If aspergers  provided a reproduction advantage than in the future it would eventually become the majority. I think it is a mistake to assume there is a specific way (mentally or physically) to be a normal or average human. From pigment pigment in our skin to the way we see color humans are all a bit. Which amongst us will be the Eve to some future common adaptation isn't something which can be appreciated in real time because society broadly views different( physiologically) as bad and that humans are some time of perfect and complete thing which won't continue to evolve.

[Tub]

On 15/07/2017 at 0:49 PM, Ten oz said:

If animals operate purely on instinct how does their behavior(s) evolve? If instinct is akin to a program what or who is responsible for the program?

 

Just for the purposes of my post, allow me to alter the original title from " Instinct vs Consciousness " to " Instinct vs Thought ", as i feel that consciousness can include both. I think that, for human beings, thought has gradually superseded instinct as a prime mover but we still need both. For instance,  some years ago, as a small boy, i clambered over a high and unfamiliar garden-wall to retrieve my football; just as i picked up the ball, a large dog came running down the garden towards me barking, and the next thing i knew i was standing on the safe side of the wall, without the ball and minus one shoe. When there had been no time for me to think, instinct took over and got me out of danger. So though we now depend more on thought, instinct is still important too: we need both, and both are part of human consciousness. I definitely think all animals  are conscious too, or else they wouldn't be able to respond to any stimuli or fend for themselves, but as String Junky suggested earlier, consciousness does not necessarily imply self-consciousness. Some animals such as pigs etc, at the higher end of dimreepr's intelligence spectrum, may indeed possess some level of self-awareness, but is it at all necessary or desirable for them?

All in all, we shouldn't (if we do) treat instinct as inferior to thought, and i think that animals, apart from humans, don't need any capacity other than instinct to survive; for any creature that doesn't aspire to much beyond pure survival,instinct alone is perfectly adequate for that survival: they can live " by bread alone ", perfectly attuned to Nature. ( Without free-will, maybe, but perhaps in some way that's not such a bad thing). If this is the case,i feel that animal behaviour doesn't really need to go through any great radical evolution.Natural mutation does occur, obviously, sometimes quite quickly, so animals can adapt to changing situations. A very recent book on evolution suggests that deers' antlers and elephants' tusks are getting smaller, so as to deter poachers. Fish are getting smaller as well, so they can slip through fishing-nets, though this may be caused by genetics.  Pavlov's experiments have shown, too, that instinctive behaviour is not immune to being irrevocably changed under certain circumstances.

As for the programme - is it self-preservation/survival?  As for the programmer - who knows?