Sorry, guys but reflexes are not instincts, as defined above. Reflexes are simple reactions to outside stimuli, which we bring to the world from birth, like blinking when an object is moving towards one's eye. Love, as a complex emotion and more (a phenomenon not lightly absolved in a sentence! [see Erich Fromm's "The Art Of Loving" here: http://www.filecrop.com/the-art-of-loving-erich-fromm-Pdf.html ]) is not an instinct by any stretch of imagination. We have a lot to learn, when it comes to that. Therefore, it is possible that some "learn" a very wrong thing there... Instincts one does not have to learn, as we know... Self-preservation - the right to self-defence and so on - is common to all beings - however, how would you define it? To me, this is quite a different kettle of fish, more fundamental/basic than instincts, since they may change over time, for instance with changing climate and changing environment but this general fact of life is always there... Maybe I am wrong on this one but...
You see...that's the problem of the "modern" society: we <have to learn> what's love. We <have to learn> this and that. That's the wrong approach. WE don't have to learn anything. We just have to follow our <instinct> aka <the mind from the heart>. If I give a bunny to a 4 year old...what would the kid do? <Learn> how to use it or just love it <instinctively>? P.S. don't forget that the rulers of society defined what instincts are and now everybody follows their definition as a sheep. LOVE is FELT and EXPRESSED not learned.
Sorry, Socrate, a complete misunderstanding... So, just to avoid any further misunderstandings... and maybe get back to the theme of the thread... Reflexes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexes - not very controversial... Instincts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instincts - a complex subject, with diverse opinions, not just a "common sense" one, as it seems from some suggestions here, in this thread, without actually attempting to give any account as to what is actually meant by "instinct"...... To give but one example: Love: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love - just look at the many aspects of love and differing views, through ages and cultures etc. (also, the problems with people who do learn a thing or two wrongly about "love" and end up being incapable of it)... Btw, to give you an example that touches a bit on your example, Socrate: my son can "instinctively" be a little bit too much for cats... Be it a loud expression of his joy when he sees one or when he joyfully taps the kitty and she feels it's not quite what she would consider a cuddle... Fancy how would a rabbit react... Have you seen young kids handling animals, just following what they "feel"? They can be quite firm, trying things out, as they "feel" at the moment... Cats and so on sometimes retaliate to these "outbursts" of child's curiosity (and sometimes crudeness) while handling them and it isn't pretty... P.S. Socrate: it seems to me you have an issue with notions of "must/have to" and are implying I meant the content you seem to be attributing to these words/concepts. What I wrote has nothing to do with it. For instance, we must eat, drink, breath, we must learn to speak (we are not borne speakers of any language, you know, even though we have the capacity to learn)... And such complex objects of debate as "love" certainly are not as simple, straightforward and "innate", as you seem to suggest. In other words, we are not borne with a universal feeling/notion of love, i.e. we learn about it, as we are becoming socialised, growing up... So, we "must" learn how to love, in a serious, "adult" manner, as it were... Just consider the many aspects of "love" and you will see what I mean when I say that we have to learn about it, please...
“Already problematic - since, as I said, we do not have ANY "instincts" whatsoever... Therefore, shoving us amongst the animals just does not work...” This is a statement which I hardly have heard from anybody else. Well before we can elaborate this we need to know what instincts are (the meaning to each of us) Yes, reflexes are not instincts. Also the autonomic nervous system is not responsible for instincts. But they have one thing in common. They are not directly accessible by discursive thinking (mind). And the same is with the instincts. Some examples: Reflex: pupillary light reflex. Depending on the amount of light the diameter of the pupil changes. autonomic nervous system : peristalsis, digestion. Instincts: Mass panic, fear of heights (avoiding of heights or generally uncomfortable places / conditions), hording of goods. When arranging them in order of controllability: (influenceable by the mind). Reflexes--->autonomic nervous system assigned actions---->instincts--->discursive thinking (actually the mind itself). All these belong to different regions of the CNS also concerning evolution of the CNS. Example (reflex): Pupil constricts when somebody uses a torch, uncontrollable by the mind, no instinct, though. Example instinct: A house bursts into flames. Instinct: Escape!!! Mind: Think about which behaviour is right. Goal: Nobody will be injured or has to die. Example (autonomic nervous system): After meal digestion works without to think about. No instinct, though. I don't want to define it more accurately since the probability to get wrong would increase...and it doesn't matter. It doesn’t matter because there is no fixed differentiation. They are interweaved into each other. Example: Exam anxiety: The fear of loss (actually to fail) is the cause for an instinctive mechanism. The mechanism of this instinct creates a higher level of adrenaline. Adrenaline plays a major role as neurotransmitter. It is an ‘alert’ substance which increases responsiveness and alertness. But the side effect is that one cannot sleep and that one is very excited before exam. By using the mind one comes to the conclusion that to remain calm and to go to bed early would lead to a far better situation to get a good mark at the exam. It depends now on what own abilities the one has gained to control the instinctive mechanism. The mind can be used to control instinctive mechanisms. But discursive thinking usually isn’t the right measure to control it. But we know ‘mind calming’ techniques. What matters is.... Humans have the ability to think about instincts, animals can not. Humans are recognizing themselves in the mirror as individual, most animals can NOT!!!. (Some apes can...) A creature needs a mind (ability of discursive thinking) to think about instincts. And what is a major thing: Humans have a body / mind identification, animals have not! The animal's CNS is not able to assign an idea of what they are. One may think about what consequences this little difference has. Humans have an idea of what they are (body / mind)--->individual--->other individuals--->community--->society---->interactions---->peoples----->religions----->politics--->laws--->etc...etc... And all these relative to 'me', to my 'I' idea. To be able to think discursively I can ponder about 'my' position. And finally love. To me love is no instinct. LOVE is an attribute of that what I really AM. It is my inner Self. And LOVE is an expression of singularity / unity Instincts are there to preserve, but LOVE is nothing that can be preserved. LOVE is my real Self. The cause of any instinct is the fear of death / loss. Fear of death is the big brother of all fears. Fear of death is only existent when there is no wisdom, when there is no self awareness. Instincts are eliminated when one has 'found' what one really is. If I give a bunny to a 4 year old, the kid gets an affection, hugs it. It is an expression of the 'Self', I love you, because my inner self and you (bunny) is not different. 'We are sitting in the same boat'. If the kid can 'handle' the bunny or acts in a crude way doesn't matter. The kid needs to learn how to handle it properly, but not to love it. When one becomes a father the first time one needs to learn how to hold the baby properly, but not how to love it. When one says love is an instinct, then I don’t want to disagree with. We also could say it is our basic instinct. BUT then the definition: The cause for all instincts is the fear of death is not true. I myself prefer to say love is not an basic instinct. Love is an attribute of myself. Actually a power which is anti-individualising. It is a ‘real’ power, because that what we really are is no individual. The individualisation process at humans starts every time when a new human creature is born. A baby does not recognize itself as a own individual. It takes around 3 years until the kid has a own separate 'I' idea. We can remember stories of life until this year....going more backwards the memories blur. They blur because there was no idea of 'I' who could have OWN memories. “So, we "must" learn how to love, in a serious, "adult" manner…” No, that is not love what we have to learn. What we need to learn are the laws of a society / culture. What are respectful contact, social behaviour, adaptation, handling, responsibility.
oh, heck, gorski. with all due respect.. lets for the sake of the argument leave love out of it.. as for denying instincts, it is another matter. they do exist, of course, as your son and your cat know better than any philosopher, but that is beside the point, imho.. entering a long tedious discussion about how to define that, is unlikely to help us here.. yours is such a scientific approach to things in everyday life... it is far more important that we do a decent job, as human beings, to communicate, and tell each other where we get off the tram, imho.. just my two centavos, and i know that you disagree.. regards, nodnar
@gorski: the definitions are created by the mind for the mind. Instincts, reflexes...they are <tags> of the mind as well. When there's a fire, the first action a human takes is <to think> how to stop the fire. The society perverted this and said always: if there's fire...run! Unfortunately, people are like sheep: a lie is perpetuated until is seen as "truth". example: Galileo said that the Earth is not in the center of the universe and the Sun is not revolving around it and he was condemned about that idea. Now we laugh at that. In 2-300 years, scholars will laugh at the idea of instincts and reflexes.
Just a few quick notes, as I agree with some of the stuff written... This is not a good argument, though, is it? Imagine somebody mentioning it to Bruno or Galileo or Copernicus or Tesla or... Not that I am one of those but the principle stands... Indeed! Ermmm, not really... (Or at least "depending on how you define it - they might not... ) What one is using in everyday language as "my gut instinct" is indeed accessible by reasoning, since it means "socially learnt" so called 'instincts'. In other words, 'acting instinctively' then means acting without thinking, quickly reacting to a situation, based on previous experiences of many years and all that we have read and talked over with others, being formally educated etc. etc. So, we have already been prepared in a given society to expect certain things as "regular" and "normal" and hence we feel we do not need to think in some situations but listen to what our instincts (read: intuition) are telling us. But instincts in the sense I mentioned earlier - no! But if we do not define it well - what are we talking about? I mean, we could easily assume we are talking about the same thing but... Plus, there is no possibility of judging it, then... since anything goes... And in that case it (in this case "instinct") is a feeling - which is exclusive: either you feel like I do (about what an instinct is) or you do not. As opposed to Reason (and reasoning about it), which has the potential to bring us together by coming out into the open... And for that we must use language in a clear manner. Ergo, we must define phenomena, so there is no misunderstanding, in which case we may come together... Indeed. We could go further than this but for now... Maybe. It depends on what one finds out about one and the way one defines one. Imagine a Nazi "finding" what s/he is - but acting on "socially learnt instincts"... Actually, you might wanna have a look at Fromm's work, maybe... I warmly recommend it. It may open up a few doors...
Not meant to be an argument. Just a finding. I had waited until the word intuition will be posted. To me intuition and instincts are meanings which are far far apart. We know gut feeling. We know something is right or wrong or this or that way, without to have a rational explanation for it. It also cannot be a result of discursive thinking. It mostly 'happens' when the mind is calm and happens suddenly. This is intuition. Being a researcher in a lab I know what intuition means. A good researcher is talented to have intuition. Also good artists have it. It sometimes happens like a brainwave. I (one) suddenly knows how it works, what will happen, what is right. It is a special feeling. If I would have to put it in the order of evolution of consciousness I say it is situated above discursive thinking. (above pure linear thinking)....a masterpiece is made by intuition, not by instinct. A genius has intuition, not instincts. Intuition is beyond objects, beyond common causalities. Instincts are obviously different. They refer to 'old' mechanisms. An instinct cannot produce something new, no new knowledge, no art, no masterpiece. It always relies on already present behavior pattern. It is like a enforcement of which a human is a 'victim'. When my flat is burning and panic overcomes, I want to escape as soon as possible. (old mechanism, no new knowledge, not different to the instinct of the animals). Only when I try to become calm I can use my mind and ‘overrule’ the instinct by social behavior, reason. Driving force of instincts is always the blind fear of death. Driving force of intuition is pure creativeness. Albert Einstein had intuition but no instinct. In the aspect of arguing, yes it's true, to avoid misunderstandings. But it is not always possible to make a static definition. I referred to reflex / instinct differences. And I posted the mechanisms are interweaved. You need a model how to arrange those definitions and depending on which model / theory the definition / order / importance changes. You can use the model of the CNS (evolution) and elaborate the differences, or you can say I slowly turn off the CNS and have a look which mechanisms are lost at first. (Imagine a doctor coming to a heavily injured person, opens an eye and uses a torch to test one of our ‘last’ reflexes, besides of breathing) Oh yes. A most common trap of Self-realization is ego=god, no matter what ideology is behind.... That what one really IS cannot be defined. That what is the seer cannot be seen. I practice meditation, I use my mind (I am a scientist) when it comes to mind related matters. The findings and theories of classic western Philosophers / Psychologists mostly could not get along with my way of thinking...there are interesting persons though. I could ‘verify’ the ideas of the Buddhist ideology at myself. I have tried to explain what happens when one is absolutely Self aware (aware of the Self)…I have experienced it. It mostly doesn’t comply with western Philosophy……..and I have to say most Philosophers / Psychologists are talking about something that they haven’t understood by themselves. How can one determine the quality of a Philosopher / Psychologist when they even are not able to know who they really are? I wanted to study Psychology when I was 20….but I am glad I didn’t. It is a poor chapter in science, the western Psychology. When one needs to consult a Psychologist he’s lost. All he will get are expensive pills to suppress the symptoms. The cause never will be revealed. I think nothing of it.
Just for your knowledge.. when Descartes says 'I think therefore I exist' he doesn't mean what I think and how I think and whose thoughts I pondering on.. he doesn't mean to say 'i' the ego or the me, 'my style' or individuality.. He is saying that no matter what I am thinking, whose thoughts those are, maybe its not my idea, but 'I think' and that proves my existence.. it says that a thought cannot exist without a thinker.. to doubt, there has to be a doubter, to think there has to be a thinker.. now what he thinks, how he thinks is all secondary, what matters is that 'he thinks' and that is what signifies his existence.. I hope you understand the "cogito ergo sum" now..
@ sid_16: cogito ergo sum represents Descartes' statement which he meant: I am my thoughts. I am my mind. To me, this is dead wrong. I AM. That's it. The mind is MY TOOL to work my way around 3D, but in higher planes I don't need it. In higher planes I create, I don't think of creating something.
You could not have gotten the present without a past. Your existence is a long chain of cause and effect. I replied to this thread for a reason and it will have repercussions. I can change the future responses based on what I say now. I was, I am, I will be .You can't have one without the other.
Now it's getting interesting! "..'he thinks' and that is what signifies his existence.." That is the point why some people try to ridicule it! Since when is thinking a significance of existence? Since when proves thinking existence? This proof he owes us until today!!! It is nothing but an assertion. I fart therefore I am is as valuable... I bash my head using a hammer, since I feel pain I am!.....I am sorry. Yes this is common sense. But IMO it is flawed. I do not want to convince you otherwise, I just post what I think about. This all applies to your idea who you are. But not to that what is presently existent. One can neither act / live in the past nor in the future. One cannot change the past and cannot change the future. It is an idea. You can think about both, yes. But actively to have an influence one can only have at the present. A calm mind reveals this deceit. The only 'time' that is real is the present. Living presently is pure existence 'Iamness', thinking about it means to dwell in the past or in the future. As soon as one starts to think, the present becomes either the idea of the past because one cannot think presently about the present or...it becomes the idea of the future. But anytime one thinks about the past or the future the ideas of them change. The future or the past are ideas, because you cannot actively live in them...it is actually the awake dream one needs to wake up one more time. When waken up one lives where he can live at all, and that is the present.
Okeeeeeeeeeyyyyy... What Sid posted is ABC... which I didn't wanna do outta fear it might be misconstrued, as "patronising" or summat But it isn't 'patronising' - clearly, it is NECESSARY, since many people do not understand the ABC - for different reasons, of course... It's simple, even if it is a bit uncomfortable but - with all due respect to some of our good colleagues on this site, whom we appreciate for various reasons!!! - it takes some (at least self-)educating in order to "get it" and that has to be done with an open mind... Yen, no offence, but you are approaching it clearly prejudiced, from a very specific point of view and it ain't necessarily productive... I am sorry but you guys must first inform yourselves properly and then come to some kind of critical angle - not the other way around... it just doesn't work like that... Imagine me being (overly and rigidly) "critically minded", say, towards Debian - and I have never carefully informed myself of IT and coding etc. It's a NO GO!!! I mean what would you do if I was gonna do that and you clearly saw that what I write is completely uninformed? What kind of landslide of epithets would follow, starting from "lamer" onwards, laced with loadsa LOLs and whatnot...?!? But when it comes to Philosophy, everybody feels they can do this sort of thing and no one has the right to tell them otherwise - i.e. the truth... Philosophical questions are everybody's questions, sure! But this doesn't make everybody an expert. And for that one must spend a lot of time studying these complex matters. Like anything else. One must get acquainted with the jargon, many a thinker, various schools of thought and so forth... And then, when you get a bit of a better picture, one tends to be a wee bit more cautious (when ones knows little one tends to think/feel one knows a lot but as the knowledge expands one tends to see more and then one knows that there is a lot more that one does not yet know, so...). Unlike some in this thread, with strong opinions but without any firm basis for it... Let's call it its real name: prejudice! Again, to think philosophically, as in "in an abstract manner", sufficiently to have a proper conversation on that level, one must study a lot and hard and then maybe... All else would be kinda disingenuous of me, so I have to tell the truth, sorry... even though it may make me a little bit worse off, in the eyes of some whom I have grown to like, over the last few months... I am really sorry but I had to say what had to be said on the topic...
I'm not trying to convince anyone either. But I don't agree with you that you can't change the past and future. Everything you do "in the now" determines the past and future. Based on your thinking it would be interesting to see if you can prove "living presently" even exists ? To awake or to awaken one more time are all either past or future processes so at the end you won't be able to prove if you are alive now, In fact we could all be dead now since nothing being done is present. This will have us leaving Descartes and going right back to the "If a tree falls in a forest" argument where nothing exists et al. I wil lleave with a quote from Mr Krabs (Sponge Bob): " What is today but yesterday's tomorrow"
@ gorski no offense here too, but direct words. I never wanted to diminish your knowledge or what you have studied. I also don't want to argue what and how much one needs to know about something to be able to argue. You have studied your stuff and I have studied my stuff--professionally. One can be an expert in something without to study it professionally. Your arguments concerning this are not convincing. "Unlike some in this thread, with strong opinions but without any firm basis for it... Let's call it its real name: prejudice!" This is a bit surprising to me. sid_16 posted ABC because he has the same opinion. And anything else you call prejudice. I cannot see here prejudice only different opinions. "when it comes to Philosophy, everybody feels they can do this sort of thing and no one has the right to tell them otherwise - i.e. the truth..." That what can be told is always a relative truth as valid as another truth. To be conform with somebody who has studied a lot (as a profession) doesn't mean it is truer. This is academic arrogance. I don't have that arrogance. You have found in my previous posts something you have quoted even agreed partly with it, so don't illustrate me as somebody who needs to learn basics to have an opinion about the topic "Cogito ergo sum". I have a strange sense of humor but I take this topic seriously... I think therefore I am is not conclusive to me. sid_16's post is not conclusive to me. I have respect for that what Descartes has achieved when he has lived. You were the one who has opened my mind and yes I've read his Biography then. You may reread what I have posted after I have got what you have meant. I am disappointed that you point on prejudice, prejudice from where? It is always a different relation one has, nothing else. Also the so called lack of self education on this matter is no argument. Descartes conclusion has no evidence and contradicts with my wisdom, experience and knowledge. I cannot change this fact. And nobody needs to study professionally to have a own understanding of it. Most of the people who lived there haven't studied and had their opinion about Descartes. OK, I guess we are mature enough to clarify the point: And I simply ask: Why does thinking prove ones existence? Or why can one conclude that thinking makes one existent? I have posted he's meant: I think therefore I am an individual, and that is true (to me). So what is now with it?
Errmmm, nope, this is both a judgement and an argument at the same time, sorry but... Why not both, in your "definition" - they are not mutually exclusive...?!? Well, I just waited 'till someone substituted intuition for creativity... Sorry, Yen, you can't have it both ways: either you define what is an "instinct" clearly and unequivocally and then you say what is "intuition" clearly and unequivocally (not only and/or primarily via examples or what they are not) and hence a debate is possible - or there is no way you can sit on both chairs and stray from one grey area to another, allowing yourself to do that, but not allowing others to push you into a corner with clear definitions and no grey areas... Not really the way to go into a serious debate, sorry but... Yeah but you also ducked out of any serious, unequivocal definition of an instinct. So, you see, you can not have it both ways. Either you do it all the way or not at all. Or at least you must allow others to do the same wriggly thing - but then there is no real debate... I gave you a perfectly good definition of instincts and you failed both to either acknowledge it or give yours, equally clear and unequivocal one. So... sorry, you lost me there... I mean, I can see how it can be nice and groovy for you but not so nice and groovy for your interlocutor... Ahem... I beg your pardon? On the contrary: you seem to be doing quite a bit of thinking about it! Or at least a lot of judging it. And from what grounds? Knowing it well? I don't think so. You yourself acknowledge it (that you have not studied it in any great depth). So, again, I think you're being a bit... slippery here... Disingenuous, I suppose, is the word... Much as I agree with you about going to a psychologist! (Frankly, I have still to meet a sane one...
No arrogance but the truth. You have approached the subject, by your own words, not knowing/not having studied the subject matter seriously - but rather approaching it from an "Indian" perspective. Sorry but these things do not go together. Either you know it and criticise it immanently or it doesn't really work. It's simple, if a bit uncomfortable. You are prejudiced in how you approach the subject matter of which you are not sufficiently informed to hold firm views on. By your own admission. I am not inventing anything here, just drawing conclusions from what you wrote, quite candidly (for which I applaud you!)... Again, not to pull any punches - but in a friendly and respectful manner, since I do appreciate your humour/wit, insights and your spirit!!! - I have seen you pass judgement umpteen times in this thread alone but you are now a little bit queasy about me passing judgement on how you do it... Ahem... Not really the thing to do, sorry...
One more thing: I do have to defend a bit of professional pride here, you know... Who else, if not me? (C'mon, lasses & lads, step out of shadows, don't be shy... 'Need some help here... ) I mean, it's not like scientists are allowing anyone into a debate easily, is it?!?