Instincts As Imprinted Response Reactions

@Aedes,

Aedes,

This all sounds utterly reactional to me, how is it then differing from conscious reaction, or, even what most call action, which is indeed reaction still. Is the difference between voluntary conscious reaction as apposed to involuntary subconscious reaction, in the latter we are unaware of the mental processes taking place, is this the soul distinction. Where could it be said that action comes in? To run from something fearful is not an action, it is a reaction, conscious or subconscious it is reacting to a stimulus.:eek:

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Is the difference between voluntary conscious reaction as apposed to involuntary subconscious reaction, in the latter we are unaware of the mental processes taking place, is this the sole distinction.

That's a reasonable way of putting it, yes. Remember, it's a behavior that is subconscious or innate here (or at least the impulse to perform that behavior). But instincts are more than mere biological processes, because they entail complex behaviors. I take note of a lot of this with my son, who is 3 months old, who "knows" how to nurse. for example.

Quote:

To run from something fearful is not an action, it is a reaction

It's both. The reaction propagates an action, which can lead in turn to new reactions (by virtue of new conditions). If you get into this too metaphysically, though, we get to the worn out topic of ultimate cause, of course, which I've heard about enough of Very Happy

Ron C. de Weijze wrote:

I only add that the stimulus from the sensed environment travelling into the sensing organism, is picked up and returned by the knowing organism into the known environment, where the sensed environment picks it up again (if it is made knowledgeable through behavior). Then the cycle starts over. The posteriori part is instinct; the priori part is intellect; their coordination is intuition. Intuition of duration in Bergson's metaphysics.

Ok, I understand your point of view now. However from a biological point of view I don't think the metaphysical angle is informative. Instinct is a biological phenomenon, and the currency of biology is mechanism.

@Aedes,

Is instinct the same as intuition:confused:, biologically speaking?

And about ultimate cause:popcorn:... Go on. Smile

.

@Holiday20310401,

Intuition is the fringe of instinct, to use Bergson's own way of putting it. And I do believe him, not just because he was a biologist and a Nobel laureate but because he was a contemporary of Darwin's and Einstein's (even held radio debates with Einstein), sharing a cultural and historical drive and development that I believe none of us experienced in our time. Intellect, by the way, he did specifically not consider reducible to instinct, since it stemmed from the opposite source, time and not space. Also, he believed that 'sociobabble' was mistaken for intellect.

@Ron C de Weijze,

Ron C. de Weijze wrote:

Intuition is the fringe of instinct, to use Bergson's own way of putting it. And I do believe him, not just because he was a biologist and a Nobel laureate but because he was a contemporary of Darwin's and Einstein's (even held radio debates with Einstein), sharing a cultural and historical drive and development that I believe none of us experienced in our time. Intellect, by the way, he did specifically not consider reducible to instinct, since it stemmed from the opposite source, time and not space. Also, he believed that 'sociobabble' was mistaken for intellect.

Ron,

I think you need to clearify this Intuition the fringe of instinct, which is not of the nature of intellect but of time itself, assuming Bergson himself clearified it. I always did suspect that intutions were the process of the understanding just under the surface of the awareness of that process.

@boagie,

Boagie, by the fringe of instinct Bergson meant the specialization of instinct in humans. Some animals have sharp vision and hearing; humans have a brain with 100 billion neurons each connection to 10,000 other neurons. Intellect, in Bergson's vision, is the opposite of instinct, the analytical opposing the synthetical, energy opposing matter or time opposing space. However, as said before, we must beware not to confuse sociobabbling with intellect. It is what mystics can reach if their claims are true. 'Intuition of duration' (or 'sub specie durationis') connects space, matter, synthesis, instinct to time, energy, analysis, intellect (of the proper kind). This is not time as we are used to think about it, as a (spatial) line from t1 to t2 on a piece of paper. It is time as differentiation, immediacy, actuality, continuousness, change, equity, newness and simplicity. We need to relearn to perceive time properly, for improper intellect has stolen it from us.

@Ron C de Weijze,

Ron C. de Weijze; Smile

Thank you, but that will take considerable digestion, when it truely means something to me I'll get back to you.:brickwall: Smile

PS: I am going to read the dialogue between bergson and Einstein, perhaps with a little more time I shall comprehend more.

@boagie,

Perhaps here you find the same questions, plus my answers.

@Ron C de Weijze,

Who is this webster guy. Why take his word for it all the time:sarcastic:

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Who is this webster guy. Why take his word for it all the time:sarcastic:

Are you sure 'Merriam' is a he?

@Ron C de Weijze,

Lol, sorry:o. Webster sounded like a made up name actually :No-Way:

@Holiday20310401,

I suspect with instinctive response reaction, that there has been a inner pattern established which is inclusive of an element in the world, the element is the trigger if you like of a full pattern, and the full pattern is the appropriate reaction to the source of the pattern, an element which is part of the said pattern itself. This in no way could be said to be an action on the part of the animal in full flight, even if the animal stood to fight, it is but a variation on the pattern already spoken of and so would fall under the defination of a reaction.

"General Systems Theory, a related modern concept [to holism], says that each variable in any system interacts with the other variables so thoroughly that cause and effect cannot be separated. A simple variable can be both cause and effect. Reality will not be still. And it cannot be taken apart! You cannot understand a cell, a rat, a brain structure, a family, a culture if you isolate it from its context. Relationship is everything." - Marilyn Ferguson
The Aquarian Conspiracy

@boagie,

If cause and effect can't be separated then if something doesn't have a cause it won't have an effect, (or change in any way). That means that if something were to not be affected by causality then nothing could have an effect on its actuality, but not necessarily it's path that we perceive.

This applies to inertia or how an object will continue on its path until a new force is applied. (An object will continue motion if in motion; an object will not move if not in motion until a force is applied on it). The initial cause was for an object to move (based on the force applied given as information) and the effect is the path, the motion. The effect will not change unless there is a new cause.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday,

This idea of linear cause and effect is perhaps not wrong per se, but some how the general understanding of said concept is inadequate to explain the world around us. I believe all things are both cause and effect, that the essence of all reality is its relational nature the answers are not all to be found in the traditonal reductionist science of the past. Perhaps presence as its own constitution is cause in relation to all other things, and reality is truely NOT divisible.

Philosophy Forum

Instincts As Imprinted Response Reactions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know