Instinct vs Consciousness

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, tar said:

 

Ten Oz,

I think an ant is part of a colony.  The entity, the self, we are talking about, with ants, I think is the colony, not the ant.  Sort of like the ants are cells or organs within the entity, that are connected by chemical trails, not sinews and fibers, muscle and bone.

Perhaps people are a little like this as well.  We each are a separate ant, but attached to those we love into a greater being.  To this, and the thread title, you can not have this greater being, without the individuals that compose it, and you can not have either without instinct and consciousness, emotion and thought.

Regards, TAR

 

Yes, Ants problem solve as a collective but so do humans. Drop the average person off in a forrest naked and alone and they'd most likely die soon there after. Drop off a hundred naked humans and they mostly all probably would survive. Ten ants are smarter than 1 just as 10 humans are smarter than one.  Ultimately ants do have a brain and the ability to work together.  Equating consciousness to a flame for an analogy; both a small birthday candle and raging inferno qualify as containing a flame the inferno's size doesn't matter because a flame isn't a revelant term. Something is either a flame or not. Scale doesn't matter.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

Well with consciousness scale does matter, as is evident with the lists we saw earlier showing the number of neurons in various species.  The ones with more neurons were better candidates for having what we humans would call consciousness.

If simple awareness of the environment around qualifies an entity as alive, the fact does not immediately equate to consciousness.  Sentience but not consciousness.  Consciousness I think does vary in scale.  What a university is capable of, over a 2 or three hundred year period, far exceeds the consciousness of any one professor.

Regards, TAR

[tar]

(and those 100 people surviving...I am thinking of thousands that die as refugees, when their society breaks down)

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, tar said:

Ten Oz,

Well with consciousness scale does matter, as is evident with the lists we saw earlier showing the number of neurons in various species.  The ones with more neurons were better candidates for having what we humans would call consciousness.

If simple awareness of the environment around qualifies an entity as alive, the fact does not immediately equate to consciousness.  Sentience but not consciousness.  Consciousness I think does vary in scale.  What a university is capable of, over a 2 or three hundred year period, far exceeds the consciousness of any one professor.

Regards, TAR

a :  the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b :  the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c :  awareness; especially :  concern for some social or political cause The organization aims to raise the political consciousness of teenagers.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness

 

1. mass noun The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.

‘she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later’

2A person's awareness or perception of something.

‘her acute consciousness of Luke's presence’

2.1 The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.

‘consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consciousness

 

Above are Webster's and Oxford's dictionary definitions of consciousness. I don't see a meaningful separation between being conscious and being aware. Sentience requires consciousness and sentience does vary in scale but the two are equals.

 

[tar]

Ten Oz ,

In the definitionn the example suggested that a person's consciousness could be raised.  That implies there is something about consciousness that can grow in scale, after birth, after the innate, built in, instinctual components of awareness of ones surroundings are set,  Where the interaction between said species and the environment adds to the built in senses and responses.

Regards, TAR

 

[tar]

and where learning is required to have a particular complex behavior that thing being instinctual is proven  to be not very innate

Edited July 30, 2017 by tar

[tar]

the ability to learn and remember is certainly built in,  but the particular interaction with the environment is freshly experienced

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, tar said:

(and those 100 people surviving...I am thinking of thousands that die as refugees, when their society breaks down)

Comments like this are insulting and accomplish nothing another than provide you the momentary pleasure of demagoguing people you feel contempt for. Refugees are fleeing for their lives. They are force to make dangerous choice to cross deserts and oceans ill prepared and then those who make it out alive are herded into camps. Nothing about their plight relates to the hypothetical scenario I posted. You say "when their society breaks down", I assume, as a way to give them ownership of that breakdown which depending on which refugees we are discussing is potentially a disgusting perversion of history. All of us familar with your political views understand that you are extremely pro tribalism and feel the less fortunate amongst those you preceive as not your tribe can all go to hades. This isn't the place for it. This isn't a political thread.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

It was not political it was realistic.  If you strand a bunch of people on an island or on a continent, without food, water, shelter and medical assistance they are not going to do well.  Having one, or having 1000 is not going to make a difference.  They are only going to survive if somebody helps them, or they brought sufficient supplies(money) with them to live on or they turn into an invading army.  I am not sure you are allowed to make several leaps as to what my intentions are and my political beliefs.  My point was simply that we survive as a group, partially because of the investment in efforts of others.   I would not be able to go down to the store and buy food unless someone grew it and prepared it for me and put it on the shelves. 1

You suggested 100 naked and afraid, would survive, where one would not.   I was giving an example where 1000 people sent into the wilderness are still naked and afraid and dependent on society for their survival, not on their instincts.

Regards, TAR

 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by tar

[Gees]

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 3:56 AM, Ten oz said:

3 - Referring back to #1 do we have a clear definition for instrinct and a remote operator for action?

Ten oz;

Thank you for your patience and for the "up" vote. Up votes are hard to come by for a philosopher in this forum, although down votes seem to be generously dispensed, even when other members do not have a clue as to the topic. (chuckle)

A clear definition for instinct? I am not sure, but have my own ideas. A remote operator for action? Feeling/emotion is the operator, and I don't think there is any dispute in this regard.

We have to remember that instincts are behaviors, so the definition becomes whatever someone decides causes the behavior. I read in Wiki, under Instincts, that an eye blink is reflex, but a dog shaking it's wet fur is instinctive. Why? The thinking here is that the eye blinks in response to something in it, but the shaking of fur is something that is genetically part of being a dog. How do they know? Maybe wet fur tickles a dog's skin. I did not read the whole article, but think that there is too much that is yet unknown for us to be sure of the causes and effects regarding behavior. And I do not study behavioral psychology.

Quote

You are asking why can't instinct learn yet some in this thread are arguing that there is no such thing as instinct. I personnally am not sure if it exists.

Consider: You are standing on the side of a deep narrow canyon and are about to step onto a bridge. At your first step you feel the bridge start to give way and immediately jump back to solid ground. This was done before thought (You would have died if you had taken the time to think about it.) so most people would call this instinctive. Some might argue that even though you had no personal experience with bridges and canyons, you have seen movies and pictures, so this is not entirely without experience, so not instinctive. Others might argue that the fear of falling and dying complies with survival instincts and is innate. But is this true? Is fear of falling innate? I don't see how.

My Mother-in-law told me that her grandchildren were training her to pick things up. She was sitting in a chair beside my one-year-old daughter, who was in a high chair. My daughter took a piece of food, held it over the side of the tray, and dropped it on the floor. She would then watch it fall, and grin and laugh while her Grandma picked it up -- then do it all again. I have seen many one-year-olds do this, and I don't think it is Grandma training, I think they are studying gravity. At a time when they are learning to walk and falling off of assorted furniture, sofas, beds, etc., they are also studying what happens when they let go of something in the air. It looks like magic to them as it flies down. Later, they will learn that bubbles, balloons, and kites have their own "magic" and do not go down -- they will be delighted all over again.

So they have to learn about falling, it does not appear to be innate, yet stepping back to save your life most definitely appears to be a survival instinct. How does a chameleon change it's colors? Most agree that this is innate knowledge and instinctive as a survival instinct. But how did it know to change its colors when it first evolved to have this ability? There has to be learning somewhere. DNA is essentially just a map, it is not the thing that is mapped. Chemistry in a bottle does not know anything. It is only when these things are in life that things are known and learning happens, so I think that when we are talking about instincts, we have to be talking about consciousness also.

So my opinions are:

I read somewhere, and can't find it now, that the Ancients thought there were only a few things that were innate with regard to consciousness. One was "more and less", another was "same and difference", and there was one or two more that I don't remember. This "innate" knowledge was linked to logic and could also be applied to math. It was the foundation for all learning, so it was the beginning of knowledge

Regarding instincts, I believe that like knowledge, instincts grow, develop and change as species evolve. So what is the foundation? The initial concept that all instincts are based upon? That would be the law of a god or of the universe that states that all must continue. You could say that the first Commandment is, THOU SHALT CONTINUE.

All life is aware that it must continue, whether through the maintenance of it's own body or through it's progeny, it must continue. This is universal to all life and is the source of survival instincts. What many people do not consider is that it is ALL life. That means every cell in your body, every cell in every body, is working to ensure it's own survival, the survival of whatever system it is in, and the survival of the whole person. Just like every life form that maintains itself, is also working to protect it's specie, and to do it's part in whatever ecosystem that it lives in. All life is interconnected through this one commandment and instincts.

Quote

How many drives does a person have and do we all have the same ones: emotional drives, instinctive drives, unconscious drives, subconscious drives, conscious drives, and etc.I think it overly compartmentalizing the mind to imply instinct vs something else is learning x, y, or z. Considering the fact whole portions of the brain is devoted to things like eyesight and hearing; I thing we've isolating process too much.

That depends on how many you want to count. I suspect that a person could count them forever. Consider that when we say the word "drives", what we are talking about is motivations, so what we need are motivators. The motivators are feeling, awareness, and emotion. We have some in common and we have some that are personal. Babe Ruth probably did not have a compulsive need (drive) to fully understand consciousness, and I am sure that I never had a compulsive need (drive) to hit a ball with a bat.

Consider an expressway at rush hour. Many are going to or from work, and that is their motivation, but others can have a hundred different reasons for being on the road at that hour. So the drivers can have many motivations for the drives.

Gee

[Evgenia]

Dear all, i reread the conversations of this top again. And remember one aspect we didn't mention yet.

A game. The image of Gee's daughter playing with her grandmother reminded me that we have 1000 of types of different games. Some of them are logically constructed and are connected to consiousness, but some, as 1-year old kids with falling the food down,are not. Are these games an example of instinct? It's discussable.

In my mind, yes. It's an instinct not to be bored, to develop the mind and survive by not being dumb. It is one of the most important things leading us (and science) to the best future.

Even Elon Musk started one of his TED talks with the words he is bored. Thanks to his passion not to feel boring we have so many progressive projects he supports.

 

[robinpike]

On 27/07/2017 at 0:48 PM, tar said:

....  And the rational mind part of humans, the science and the math, and the technological advances and the Turing machines,  laws and religions, came only recently on this planet...in the last 10,000 years or so, and can rightly be thought of as consciousness, outside that that a Zebra is capable of.  And still, even with the advantages that the structure of the human brain brings humans, over Zebras, and the value of the institutions that humans have built using our natural brains and emotions,  we still are, more than 90 percent Zebra, probably. and the various pheromones and hormones and neurotransmitters and body parts and brain parts found in a human are also there in a Zebra.  The differences are slight, but important, and still we have the 90 percent of "instincts" that the Zebra has.  Yet we probably have our first 90 percent of consciousness in common with the Zebra, as well.

 

Regards, TAR

Our ability to be 'more conscious' than say a zebra, would seem to be a result of our ability to communicate using a complex language, rather than because we have a brain that is constructed 'with a greater consciousness'. Imagine a group of modern day people living on the African plains that happen to have never learnt a language. The communication and behaviour between those people would be basic - possibly even similar to the way a group of zebras behave. And yet for this to be so, the construction of their brains need not be changed from that of a modern day person.

[DrKrettin]

On 7/23/2017 at 2:34 PM, 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? 

Asperger's is generally not a disability. I seem to remember arguing about this before. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, DrKrettin said:

Asperger's is generally not a disability. I seem to remember arguing about this before. 

Not relevant in context to the point of the post. Whether we label it a disease, disorder, disability, or anything else those with it lack the social interaction skills posters were arguing come via instinct. My post wasn't seeking to classify it. 

[Area54]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Not relevant in context to the point of the post. Whether we label it a disease, disorder, disability, or anything else those with it lack the social interaction skills posters were arguing come via instinct. My post wasn't seeking to classify it. 

You may not have been seeking to classify it, but by describing it as a disability you did so classify it. That was unfortunate as it detracted from your more important point, to consider to what extent the behaviours that enable social interaction are instinctive.

[Ten oz]

@ Area54, people with Aperger's can receive Soc Sec disability pay and parents of child with it can receive a disability tax credit. You seem to have a specific definition for disability you're using. I am not sure what that definition is and don't think it is relevant to this discussion. Aperger's syndrome is a recognized as a disability by various groups. Whether or not it should be is a separate discussion for another thread.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Ten oz
Misspell word

[tar]

So there still might be a little something in the brain of a modern human that does not exist in a Zebra.  Consider the defining ability humans have to use tools.  Now apes use tools, hit things with sticks, put blades of grass at the entrance of a termite hill to collect a spoonful of lunch, etc. but a Zebra doesn't use tools so much.  Opposable thumbs? Are they the innate part of tool use.  Perhaps.

Then how about language.  Is there a junction in the brain that allows for symbolization?  Maybe the same structure that allows for the theory of mind.  A certain thing says to me that whales might have this junction in common with us, as they talk to each other and teach each other the layout of the oceans.

These things that are innate, might not be innate as the thing itself, but innate as an ability to learn or remember, or compare or match or notice change and such, and thereby the ability is instinctual or innate, but the actual lesson is due to conscious involvement with the environment.  You still have to fit, either way, but some of your smarts as a species are passed down in ability and some is passed down by watching your parents survive.  And sometimes, like in the case of humans you can also live in the shelter your parents built.

 

[tar]

path finders are followed by path users but you don't even have to be the same species to use the same path through the brambles

I remember hiking through the woods as a boy and following paths made by deer.

 

So perhaps the ability to mimic or mirror neurons or something is the innate part of behavior, and what we assemble from these component abilities is the learned part.

Edited August 1, 2017 by tar

[tar]

give a man a fish and he eats for a day

teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime

[Manticore]

Give a man a fire and he is warm for a few hours.

Set a man on fire and he is warm for the rest of his life.

[Area54]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@ Area54, people with Aperger's can receive Soc Sec disability pay and parents of child with it can receive a disability tax credit. You seem to have a specific definition for disability you're using. I am not sure what that definition is and don't think it is relevant to this discussion. Aperger's syndrome is a recognized as a disability by various groups. Whether or not it should be is a separate discussion for another thread.

I have no opinion whatsoever as to whether or not Asperger's should be classified as a disability. I merely wished to point out that you had classified it as a disability, but claimed you had not set out to do so. That's sloppy writing. I'm enough of a pedant and an interfering bastard to call people out on such. Correcting people for flawed statement is very much relevant and on topic for any thread. Now let's move on.

[Ten oz]

On 8/1/2017 at 2:29 AM, Gees said:

Ten oz;

Thank you for your patience and for the "up" vote. Up votes are hard to come by for a philosopher in this forum, although down votes seem to be generously dispensed, even when other members do not have a clue as to the topic. (chuckle)

A clear definition for instinct? I am not sure, but have my own ideas. A remote operator for action? Feeling/emotion is the operator, and I don't think there is any dispute in this regard.

We have to remember that instincts are behaviors, so the definition becomes whatever someone decides causes the behavior. I read in Wiki, under Instincts, that an eye blink is reflex, but a dog shaking it's wet fur is instinctive. Why? The thinking here is that the eye blinks in response to something in it, but the shaking of fur is something that is genetically part of being a dog. How do they know? Maybe wet fur tickles a dog's skin. I did not read the whole article, but think that there is too much that is yet unknown for us to be sure of the causes and effects regarding behavior. And I do not study behavioral psychology.

Consider: You are standing on the side of a deep narrow canyon and are about to step onto a bridge. At your first step you feel the bridge start to give way and immediately jump back to solid ground. This was done before thought (You would have died if you had taken the time to think about it.) so most people would call this instinctive. Some might argue that even though you had no personal experience with bridges and canyons, you have seen movies and pictures, so this is not entirely without experience, so not instinctive. Others might argue that the fear of falling and dying complies with survival instincts and is innate. But is this true? Is fear of falling innate? I don't see how.

My Mother-in-law told me that her grandchildren were training her to pick things up. She was sitting in a chair beside my one-year-old daughter, who was in a high chair. My daughter took a piece of food, held it over the side of the tray, and dropped it on the floor. She would then watch it fall, and grin and laugh while her Grandma picked it up -- then do it all again. I have seen many one-year-olds do this, and I don't think it is Grandma training, I think they are studying gravity. At a time when they are learning to walk and falling off of assorted furniture, sofas, beds, etc., they are also studying what happens when they let go of something in the air. It looks like magic to them as it flies down. Later, they will learn that bubbles, balloons, and kites have their own "magic" and do not go down -- they will be delighted all over again.

So they have to learn about falling, it does not appear to be innate, yet stepping back to save your life most definitely appears to be a survival instinct. How does a chameleon change it's colors? Most agree that this is innate knowledge and instinctive as a survival instinct. But how did it know to change its colors when it first evolved to have this ability? There has to be learning somewhere. DNA is essentially just a map, it is not the thing that is mapped. Chemistry in a bottle does not know anything. It is only when these things are in life that things are known and learning happens, so I think that when we are talking about instincts, we have to be talking about consciousness also.

So my opinions are:

I read somewhere, and can't find it now, that the Ancients thought there were only a few things that were innate with regard to consciousness. One was "more and less", another was "same and difference", and there was one or two more that I don't remember. This "innate" knowledge was linked to logic and could also be applied to math. It was the foundation for all learning, so it was the beginning of knowledge

Regarding instincts, I believe that like knowledge, instincts grow, develop and change as species evolve. So what is the foundation? The initial concept that all instincts are based upon? That would be the law of a god or of the universe that states that all must continue. You could say that the first Commandment is, THOU SHALT CONTINUE.

All life is aware that it must continue, whether through the maintenance of it's own body or through it's progeny, it must continue. This is universal to all life and is the source of survival instincts. What many people do not consider is that it is ALL life. That means every cell in your body, every cell in every body, is working to ensure it's own survival, the survival of whatever system it is in, and the survival of the whole person. Just like every life form that maintains itself, is also working to protect it's specie, and to do it's part in whatever ecosystem that it lives in. All life is interconnected through this one commandment and instincts.

That depends on how many you want to count. I suspect that a person could count them forever. Consider that when we say the word "drives", what we are talking about is motivations, so what we need are motivators. The motivators are feeling, awareness, and emotion. We have some in common and we have some that are personal. Babe Ruth probably did not have a compulsive need (drive) to fully understand consciousness, and I am sure that I never had a compulsive need (drive) to hit a ball with a bat.

Consider an expressway at rush hour. Many are going to or from work, and that is their motivation, but others can have a hundred different reasons for being on the road at that hour. So the drivers can have many motivations for the drives.

Gee

You bridge analogy is better suited for the other consciousness thread I previously linked that deals with the conscious and unconscious mind I think. As the analogy relates to instinct, not everyone would step away. People fall to their deaths accidentally because they weren't paying attention all the time. Everything from falling down stairs to falling off hiking trails. People also commonly misjudge the load capacity of structures and collaspe roofs, balconies, and so on. I don't believe there is a instinctive ability or response humans have regarding this. 

 

Your wet dog example was interesting. I had a dog for nearly a decade. Her and I would regularly hike and she regularly would jump into ponds and creeks during our hikes. She knew better than to shake herself off near people. When she would come out of the water she would trot off several feet away from people and shake off. If there were a lot of people she wouldn't shake off at all and instead walk along side me and complain via whimpering. She clearly appeared to have conscious control over the choice. Whether something she did to please me other because she had some concept of empathy I do not know but if shaking off was instinctive she would have done it everytime reflexively.

[Gees]

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 9:03 AM, Manticore said:

Ravens perform better than 4 year old children.

https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/07/ravens-smart-future-planning/

Manticore;

Thank you for sharing the above link; it was fascinating. I was not very impressed with the idea of the raven's problem solving, as I think that all life will problem solve to the extent that it is able. Before someone calls me on that last statement, consider: Plants have the ability to grow and change their natural shape when it suits their purposes, so a seedling that is not given quite enough light will grow tall and spindly trying to reach more light. Sometimes the new plant will get so tall that it will fall over and die, but the attempt is to problem solve the lack of sunshine. Trees that live on the side of a river where the ground has eroded, will grow their roots and branches in the direction of solid ground in order to try to maintain their hold and their balance. This is problem solving.

What fascinated me was the idea that they plan. In order to plan, one has to take into account cause and effect, but also must set this cause and effect into time. This is a strong indication of a rational mind. In order to be rational, one must order their thoughts and actions in a linear representation that considers time. Example: Walking to the store a mile away on a 90 degree day to buy ice cream for a birthday party is not very rational, as it would melt before you got home -- take the car.

Cause and effect, but especially time, is attributed to the conscious rational mind. The unconscious mind does not give two hoots about time and does not even acknowledge it. For a long time it was assumed that there was no logic in the unconscious mind, but Dr. Blanco found a sort of logic. The unconscious mind "thinks" in terms of relationships, bonds, and "same and difference", so in the unconscious mind, if Ruth is Mary's mother, then Mary is Ruth's mother. Of course, that is impossible; time would not allow it, but the unconscious mind sees only the relationship, "mother".

I strongly suspect that raven's have rational aspects of mind -- fascinating.

 

 

On ‎7‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 3:38 AM, Ten oz said:

"the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein persons of low ability suffer from illusory superioty, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority derives from the metacognitive inability of low-ability persons to recognize their own ineptitude. Without the self- awarenessof metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Ten oz;

I have been having a good time going over the thread again. I gave it four stars and gave a lot of people "up" votes, while I was rereading all of the posts up to page six. I have a few more responses that I would like to make, and I owe you a few posts, but had to pull your above post out for recognition.

My cat, Billy Sitch, would like me to thank you for the above post. Although cats have long known that humans suffer from illusory superiority, it is a relief for her to find out that we are now aware of it. She doesn't have to pretend anymore. So, thank you. (chuckle chuckle)

Gee

[tar]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 3:53 AM, Evgenia said:

Dear all, i reread the conversations of this top again. And remember one aspect we didn't mention yet.

A game. The image of Gee's daughter playing with her grandmother reminded me that we have 1000 of types of different games. Some of them are logically constructed and are connected to consiousness, but some, as 1-year old kids with falling the food down,are not. Are these games an example of instinct? It's discussable.

In my mind, yes. It's an instinct not to be bored, to develop the mind and survive by not being dumb. It is one of the most important things leading us (and science) to the best future.

Even Elon Musk started one of his TED talks with the words he is bored. Thanks to his passion not to feel boring we have so many progressive projects he supports.

 

Evgenia,

Games are an interesting part of this.  Are games practice, where you are learning how to fight an adversary by tussling with your littler mate, or an instinctual bonding behavior made to associate yourself with your littermates and thereby survive as a group, or are games something else?

It seems games would be an indicator of a certain consciousness, because you have to know the difference between the effects on your littermate of having your claws retracted rather than out, as you would have them with an actual adversary.

But perhaps games show an innate ability to "pretend" and this in turn would require an ability to tell when something was actual or not.  And this would require some ability to remember the place and build an internal model of it.  That is, be able to recognize a littermate as "not to claw" and something not a littermate, a potential enemy requiring a fight or flight response...that "same or different" ability talked about earlier.

Also interesting about games in regards to instinct and consciousness is how, in a study I read years ago, female humans on the playground tended to play cooperative games where there is no winner or loser and males played team sports where a leader was chosen, teams picked and there was going to be a winning team and a losing one.  I wonder if a recent study, after the last 30, 40 years in America have redefined learned gender roles, and different types of games are played by an even mix of girls and boys, or whether there is still certain innate tendencies governed by hormones (emotion).

Regards, TAR 

[EdEarl]

I'm pretty sure there are real differences between men and women; they are more civilized.