Do Humans Have Instincts??

[ingannilo]

Yeah, all humans have instincts but do we all share the same natural instincts? I was born and raised in the country, would I have the same instincts as some1 born and raised in the city? or vise versa?

 

If environment has anything to do with it then you're talking learned behavior, not instinct.

[MagnetMan]

 

 

Animals have instincts to be sure! But do humans?

We are animals first and foremost and last most. Our basic primate social instincts underly all subsequent behavioral developments. The mothering instinct, the territorial instinct, the heirachal instinct. All the instinctive reflexes in hand and eye cooridination that we apply in sport stem from ancestral monkey imprints .QUOTE]

[niin]

instincts....dont exist really.

Instinct is just a word for "I dont know why i did it" situations. My instinct just told me to do it.

 

If you walk down the road and sudenly jump to the side avoiding a car youd didn't know was coming. It is not your instict telling you to jump. the part of the brain handling hearing most likely just sent a danger signal and you jumped as a learned respons.

If you afterwards dont remember the sound you tell yourself...i did it becaurse my instinct told me to.

 

You can have Reflex responses....not instinctive repsonses.

[MagnetMan]

 

You can have Reflex responses....not instinctive repsonses.

 

How does that account for premonitions that take place long before they happen? Is instinct and intuition not linked or even the same? We know for scientific fact that we all have intuitive insights.

[niin]

Different areas of the brain can work independable (is this spelled right?) of each other.

Thats is....you dont know all that your brain do.

Premonitions is just a part of your brain that tell another part what "it" thinks is going to happend.

 

Instincts and premonitions is pretty much the same thing.

premonitions comes with a bit more information than instinct. Like...i knew that car was coming somehow.

You didnt remember getting the signal "sound of car comming"...but you got "image of a car comming"

The hearing part of brain sent signal to visualisation part of brain and then "you" got signal from that part of the brain.

[Eclogite]

Instincts and premonitions is pretty much the same thing.

premonitions comes with a bit more information than instinct.

In popular, unscientific usage this is true.

On a science forum, in the biology section, I suggest this is wholly untrue.

 

This is a passable definition of instinct, from wikipedia

 

Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli. In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence, which is creative and hence far more versatile.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

 

There have been no instances of premonition validated by scientific study other than the immediate subsconscious warnings you have mentioned.

[niin]

Eclogite

 

A "reflex" is the same as an "inherited patterns of reactions to certain kinds of stimuli".

If you remove the "no choice" part of the reactions....you have a intelligent respons.

One part of your brain sends a signal that your find best to react to...and so you do. You can call it instinctual but it is really an intelligent respons.

You may have been trained since childhood to do it like a reflex but it is a learned respons.

[Eclogite]

niin, your post contains so many inaccuracies and misperceptions that it is not worth my while to correct them all. You clearly have no proper idea of what constitutes a reflex or an instinct. I recommend you consult some of the better online resources on biology and educate yourself.

 

I do not intend this to be offensive, but I can think of no gentler way of saying you are wrong. [i could of course have remained silent. That would have been more polite, but would have eliminated the possibility that you might learn something.]

[niin]

Eclogite, Please be constuctive if you respond to my posts.

 

niin, your post contains so many inaccuracies and misperceptions that it is not worth my while to correct them all]

I don't expect you to correct anything. You are not my teacher.

 

You clearly have no proper idea of what constitutes a reflex or an instinct.]

I guess you dissagree with my definitions....that is why i gave examples.

 

I recommend you consult some of the better online resources on biology and educate yourself.]

You don't know if am educated or not.

 

I do not intend this to be offensive...]

But you are. You are attacking my character:

You say, that what i said was wrong, but you dont say why it is wrong.

You imply that you are worth so much more than me that you don't want to argue with me.

You imply that i am not educated and suggest studying better source material.

 

..., but I can think of no gentler way of saying you are wrong.]

Try aguing instead of just attacking my person.

[MagnetMan]

There have been no instances of premonition validated by scientific study other than the immediate subsconscious warnings you have mentioned.

 

Does this mean that we should emphatically discount premonitions, prophecies, déjà vu etc. as self-delusion? Or has science some other mentally unstable classification for this universal phenomenon?

[InfiniteNow]

Does this mean that we should emphatically discount premonitions, prophecies, déjà vu etc. as self-delusion? Or has science some other mentally unstable classification for this universal phenomenon?

Interesting question, indeed, MagnetMan... However, considering that these points were being used to support a position regarding instincts, it would be very beneficial to know if they are or are not pure speculation.

 

Got some science behind these other topics? Great. Let's see it. Then, and only then, should you use it to support another claim. :)

 

 

Cheers. 0.o

[Eclogite]

Eclogite, Please be constuctive if you respond to my posts.

I have been constructive. I have recommended you educate yourself as to the conventional definition of instinct as used in science.

I guess you dissagree with my definitions....that is why i gave examples.

As noted, your definitions are inconsistent with those of conventional science. If you intend to redefine such basics you will have to offer more justification than a few lines posted to a science forum.

You don't know if am educated or not.

It is evident that you are not educated in this particular matter. That is the only one on which I am critiquing you.

You are attacking my character:

You say, that what i said was wrong, but you dont say why it is wrong.

I am not attacking your character. Pointing out a mistaken definition is not an attack on your character. Moreover, by providing a proper definition from wikipedia, and providing a link so you could read further, I offered you the clear explanation of why you were wrong.

You imply that i am not educated and suggest studying better source material.

No, I am stating very clearly that in this matter of instincts you are not educated. That is evident from your position on the matter. I have no idea of the extent of your education in other fields. You may well hold advanced degrees in several subjects and speak seventeen languages. That would not alter the fact that on the topic under discussion you are uneducated.

I don't expect you to correct anything. You are not my teacher.

Try aguing instead of just attacking my person.

I repeat, nowhere in my post have I attacked you. I have merely pointed out that on one point you are wrong. Do you wish me to pretend you are correct? Do you wish me to allow casual readers to think your position accurately reflects the view of biologists in this regard? That does not seem proper to me.

 

You ask me to argue, not attack. There is nothing to argue about. The facts are clear; you have chosen to reject them; and you do not wish me to educate you in the matter. That leaves little or nothing more to be said.

[Eclogite]

Does this mean that we should emphatically discount premonitions, prophecies, déjà vu etc. as self-delusion? Or has science some other mentally unstable classification for this universal phenomenon?

As noted above, I am unaware of any scientifically validated instances of premonition or prophecy. If you are aware of any I should be delighted to have you provide references to the research. As a keen follower of the now discredited investigations by J.B.Rhine into the paranormal several decades ago I am always open to new and more rigorously conducted research.

 

The phenomenom of déjà vu is adequately explained by conventional means, although the exact mechanism(s) remain debatable.

[MagnetMan]

Interesting question, indeed, MagnetMan... However, considering that these points were being used to support a position regarding instincts, it would be very beneficial to know if they are or are not pure speculation.

 

Got some science behind these other topics? Great. Let's see it. Then, and only then, should you use it to support another claim. :)

 

 

Cheers. 0.o

 

If I claim suckling is an instinct, one can counter claim that it is simply a response from the olfactory system. This approach boils this whole discussion down to a matter of semantics.

 

I have stated several times that I studied Bushmen in the Kalahari 40 years ago. It took me three days of churning through sixty foot deep sand ridges in a 4WD to get to them. I know that they had never seen a white person before. Certainly no preacher had got to them before me. The whole family was animist. If not instinct (intuition, insight) what made them believe that Nature is endowed with spirit? If not instinct, what made the mothers in the group care for their infants?

 

One can get no empirical data to support our unseen urges and feelings and emotions - yet we all know that they exist and constitute life itself. This type of discusion can only be labeled as pseudo-intellectual. It may be just as enjoyable as a game of golf perhaps, and just as meaningless, and can in fcat, spell the end of human beings as we know them.

 

Sure the Book of Rules is necessisary - but we cannot live by it dogmatically.

 

Here is an example why not.

In 1966 in that same area and time where I was studying the San, a light aircraft carrying four young university students crashed-landed in the Central desert. Five days later all four were found dead within ten miles of the plane.

The Kalahari is a semi-desert, there is no surface water for most of the year, but a wealth of flora and fauna exist there, including large troops of chakma baboons. If there had been just a single page on desert survival in the craft's manifest, none of those young mnen would have died. Without it they were helpless. They panicked and died of exposure and dehydration. They were unable to access the instincts of the underlying primate that lies in all of us. All they had to do was pull up a root and suck on it. Common sense, not scientific proof is what makes the world go round and makes humans dynamic.

 

I have had my fortune told several times and have experienced the exact events that were predicted, years later - yet I cannot share the wonder and the great mysery of it with you - for I have no proof to offer except my word of honor. Nor can I give you proof of how those psychics instinctively/sensed/intuited events in my future.

 

Much as I respect all that science has done to develope our intellect and our technology, I will continue to trust my instincts first, and check the book of proof second.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Niin:

A "reflex" is the same as an "inherited patterns of reactions to certain kinds of stimuli".

Breathing, I would think, is not a learned behavior. It's automatic. So is dreaming. So are most of the internal bodily functions. I would consider this category of action to be 'instinctual', meaning, we have little if any control over them and most will continue even though we are in a coma.

 

If you remove the "no choice" part of the reactions....you have a intelligent respons.

Meaning, if a reaction involves a choice, then it is an intelligent response - or at least I was given the opportunity to take the left road or the right road. Whether or not the choice was intelligent remains to be seen. I will agree if by 'intelligent response' you mean we are given the opportunity to attempt an informed response.

One part of your brain sends a signal that your find best to react to...and so you do. You can call it instinctual but it is really an intelligent respons.

Okay, if it isn't an automated response, like an eye blink.

You may have been trained since childhood to do it like a reflex but it is a learned respons.

By definition, if you are trained to do it, it isn't an instinct.

[chamilton333]

humans most definatly have instincts. this is backed up by adreniline rushes. you cannot control these rushes, so they are instincts. it is instinctive to have a rush of adreniline in life threatining/surprising situations. i think that adreniline is just granting your brain full use of all muscles and thinking. if we always had full use of muscles/thinking, we would were ourselves out fast.

[Tormod]

Eclogite, Please be constuctive if you respond to my posts....

Try aguing instead of just attacking my person.

 

In my opinion, Eclogite is very constructive - he is trying to help you see that your definition of instinct does not hold water. There is no personal attack, and your response is needless.

 

I advise you to not jump the guns until you get more used to how things are done here at Hypography (as stated in our rules, lurking is advised before posting). :eek_big: