Perhaps it is not a question of which is more important, but one about which is more important in certain cases. If I am walking down a mountain trail, I would value instinct far more than reason if I stepped on a rattlesnake; if I am deciding on a new car, then reason would be more valuable. I would suppose there are instances when one would want to employ, as it were, both and both in various combinations would be valuable (begging the question of what is valued).

The question seems to ignore other differences between other animals and humans: the importance of memory, or the unique understanding of time (especially the future) by humans. Both of these are also important at different times.

But perhaps the most important difference is the ability of humans to create meaning.

I think that they're both important. Instict is the 'base' of our mentality, and it's something we revert to when we don't know what to think, but what makes us unique as a species is our thought processing ability. Without instinct we wouldn't be around to HAVE thoughts, so I guess even for us instict is more important, but it's the 'base of the building', more. It's there to support the upper stories.

Great thread Dunkler,



Instinct, without exception! We are only required to "think" when we are in a situation that is alien to us and we don't know what to do or afraid to do what external inertia is forcing us to do of which we are not "familiar with". It is what I call "complimentary sensory perception". Have you ever had one of those days when you just seemed to be "in tune" with everything surrounding you and everything was just "easy". For whatever reason you just said and did the right thing and the noise surrounding you just seemed to disappear and you were not "thinking" about anything, you just did what comes "natural"? Rationalization "requires" thought as then we must determine if we are going to "do" what that outside inertia is offering us or telling us "to do"; to do or not to do, that is the question, ha! Now in that case, in order not to think would require a great deal of "familiarity" with that which is offering and telling which would mean a trust would prevail such as that between a mentor/protegee. If only that existed between teacher/student or boss/employee? Oh well!



Exactly jg, "but" why did you step on that snake? You were not in tune with your surroundings and probably "thinking" about something else. Had you been in tune, as I am absolutely sure the snake was, you would have seen that snake and it you in plenty of time to prevent that unfortunate "collision" or encounter. Now if you step off that trail you venture into "unfamiliar" territory and your perception is a bit cloudy, as it were. Now that is the "snakes" domain in which it "hides" but it does "sense" your presence and I promise you it is trying to escape any encounter it might have with you. The snake only strikes when it's existence is threaten as do we.



Jg, I think essential is a better term than valuable for what is valuable is truly an individual perception though it does involve a great deal of rationalization to determine, IMO.



Right! The fact that you used the word "suppose", IMO, indicated doubt or "unfamiliarity" and of course what is valuable is questionable and also extreme subjective. Had you been familiar with the car and the one offering to sell it, you would not have to suppose anything except for maybe the price and if you trust the salesman, that would not be a issue if it was well within your ability to pay the price offered. Complimentary action.



If you would my friend, please elaborate a little more as to what you mean by "seems to ignore" and what those differences you think are between what you perceive that is memory in animals vs humans? Thanks. As far as time and the future.....................? That's truly unfamiliar, huh?



That is a puzzler and I think we must ask "create meaning for what reason"? Is it rationalistic (requiring thought) or serendipitous (complimentary) and coming naturally?

Now that's what I think, Ha!

William

The funny thing is that in answering the question we would be catering to rationality and though even if we thought that instinct was better...

Dunker, you are correct, except it's not very funny at all in that we do rationalize to an enormous fault as we venture into areas we are extremely unfamiliar with that is not at all natural to us. I think we must, above all, examine those "motivations" and why we "think" as we do?

William

You can't think if you're dead, and instincts are pretty useful to forestall one's premature demise.

It's humorous to me. Rationalization in a unknown area is perfectly normal, so that you can bring it into an understanding. I myself seek a balance of thought and instinct, so I cannot rely on one or the other too much.

Hi,

I see the two are related and a continuum.

Instincts are the some total of experience and knowledge accumulated.

Thinking is the processing of new experiences which ultimately is additive to Instincts. So the two work together.

Rich

Thank you Paul. If I might offer since we have no idea of what "dead" truly represents only that it is "the end", we must "not" think about it, IMO. You are so right if we "rely" on our instincts and "do" what comes natural to us, we will "think" much clearly and harmonically with all that surrounds us. That, in and of itself, "forestalls" any thought pertaining to ones demise premature or otherwise. If we "imagine" such a premature demise, we become afraid, and think "we" can "control" such an event from happening and in that process we stop doing what is natural, we start "thinking" of ways we can prevent it clogging the senses altering their perception and putting us in harm's way.



Right Dunker. Now what represents that "unknown"? Anything we don't know for sure, right! Only the senses and their relationship to what is present in your personal domain can truly establish that and represent what you truly can witness, physically touch, hear, smell and taste. We, I might offer, should not be forced to "control" that for it is natural for our (self)'s benefit. Only when we are "forced" to control it as we encounter others in that domain do we create conflict as they are efforting to control "it" also for "their" benefit". That, in and of itself, "creates" chaos, confusing altering what the senses would naturally receive as "input" as we are force to "rationalize/think" what to do. To understand something will come "easily" in such a way your will not "forget" it and will be permanently logged in memory for it is "complimentary" with all else that is held there in that memory. When we force something to memory, it creates confusion in that memory and is evident in the output of he that "has" those memories as they question what is on their mind, so to speak, as they interrogate others seeking answers that will harmonize those memories. If every one does that, imagine all the chaos it can create. (My list) for example.



Not necessarily, if you don't mind. (That very statement I just made is "complimentary" to the above quote you made as I would like to offer my thoughts to that matter and tacitly asking permission to "offer" my thoughts "on" that matter "you" expressed.)

In all "fairness" I should not continue unless you give me permission to do so, but I will anyway, Ha! Sorry, please forgive me. Ha, Referring to what you did say pertaining to that continuum, I disagree in that what the senses receive that "are" harmonic will enhance that continuum, but, not all knowledge held in memory we are force to retain to exist in this reality is harmonic, not only to us individually, but to others and what they have in memory. It can really get confusing if we don't know how to communicate using "complimentary" processes.



Thanks again Rich, please allow me to differ. Only if those "new" experiences are complimentary with what is "already" held in memory will they become a part of "natural instinct". IMO, you can't force them to "stay" there for your own benefit and "make" them fit. It's just not "natural", IMO.

Again, that's what I think; now I am open to what you think. Ha. I look forward as you express what is in your memory that would differ from what is in mine so we can complimentary communicate better. :bigsmile:

William

On the other hand, a different viewpoint is that instincts are prior to experience, at least if automatic responses to stimuli are concerned; these would differ, then, from habits that are the result of experience, knowledge, and memory. One could, I suppose, then say that thinking (or a part of it) might be the processing of experiences- - -both new and (as modifications)old---into habits and "outlooks."
*****
William, my general position is that to ask which is more important, instinct or intellect, seems to imply a dualism in the Self which isn't a dualism, and that perhaps a more interesting and more fundamental question is what separates (if anything, depending on your understanding of the problem) humans from other animals, and whether reason alone (nay, even primarily) accounts for it, putting aside for a moment what constitutes reason. I then suggested that there were some other meaningful criteria that one would want to include in one's thinking about it.

Yes, my idea is that instincts are learned habits from experience that are stored as memory in the Hun (the Daoist concept of the transcendental being, that would be similar to the concept of the soul). The Hun is constantly learning. What we call instincts is something that has been learned from experiences over many, many, many physical lifetimes.

Rich

In the case of humans, we wouldn't even make it to an age where we are mature, rational thinkers, if it were not first for our evolved instincts, which in large part allowed us to survive. Look at a newborn. No "rational" thought going on whatsoever that we can observe; the behaviors at that age are very much instinctual and necessary for survival.

Exactly. but understanding has not come easy and the reason we rationalize is an indication of our efforts to understand our "true" nature so we can instinctively do what is "right" to enhance that survival. When we do, then and only then, will we begin to understand the difference between "survival" and what living is all about.

As for as the animal is concerned, it is living the program it was designed for unless outside inertia causes it to react "differently" to that innate program. Due to the "outside inertia" that we, humans, are exposed to, causes us to "act" differently than what we were "programmed" for, creating the chaos so very evident in this reality we are efforting to survive in, as I have mentioned so many times, there is a big difference in surviving and living.

William