> But thats not an instinct (as I take the meaning of the word anyway).
The way you take the meaning of the word, you leave a couple billion
things about an animal without a definition.
> I don't have an instinct to want to wear particular clothes (thats
> just my preference), but I have an instinct to be warm. Show me this
> evidence for this 'removing of instincts'?
Removing isn't the word... Ignoring is.
> lower-level instincts are the only instincts. I don't have an
> instinct to go to a restaurant and have chinese food, thats my
> preference. My instinct is the need to eat becuase I'm hungry. The
> higher-level phenomena that you are talking about are not really best
> talked about as instinct
Huh? Then what are they? Genetically inherited preferences to the last
detail?! I fail to see the functional difference between this and the
Humans have a "preference" of walking on two legs and wolves have a
"preference" to howl... LOL... =]
> > I think you might have misunderstood the mater a little, atho I am
> > otherwise suprized of the level of understanding you show.
>> Why surprised?
Don't take this to scholastically or personally. It's just that I'm not
used to humans understanding how the brain really works...
> So which of these 'selves' are you? Surely if there were more than
> one then when you weren't in control you would know about it? There
> are different parts to a car, but there is still the singular 'car'.
> Similarly, there are areas in the brain that control different aspects
> of behaviour but there is a singular 'self'. This statement you make
> is highly specualtive.
Ahhh, human logic! Sigh...
The self is in no way related to one object and, personally, I don't get
it how in the world did you manage to link up those two anyway... The
mind (self) is a neural circuit in the neocortex, yes, a circuit,
nothing more nothing less. Well unless you can prove me wrong that is
(and, no, I don't care what the Bible says).
The You of your brain is only a small segment, not even the only self.
It isn't particularly impossible to detect the other "selves", be it
however that I did not see many humans being able to do so. <evil> We
could say they simply aren't self-aware, eh? </evil>
Anyway, the neocortex is a dynamic organ, it is not necessary that it
contains a fixed number of "selves".
> > This is nicely observable with abused individuals, who's inter-brain
> > connections suffer highly (from instinct denial) and form various
> > separate personalities all over the neocortex that flip into control and
> > out at times and have diffirent access to various instincts.
>> Show me the evidence for this.
Huh, well you can guess that I have not been slicing their brains, but
otherwise all the information is there. Known as the Multiple
Personality syndrome. A web search should do...
> > Good for you. And lucky you that others didn't force you to deny your
> > instincts.
>> You are again confusing instincts with preferences.
You have weird definitions indeed.
> > > Most instincts aren't things you do, they are 'you'.
> > So true. Then just tell me why can't you write that down in an official
> > scientific statement, so that the people around me stop torturing me?
>> eh? torturing?
Know how the neocortex works? Stress defines what connections should go
away, while others improve. Then there is instinct. Attempt to prevent
the instinct's activity and the neocortex will try to avoid your
blockade, trying out various possibilities and eventually abnormally
filling up with stress, killing off all the connections in the
neocortex. This process is also known as torturing.
So here it is, I am a person with a couple extra instincts or - as you
call them - genetically inherited preferences that don't go away (no, I
do not intend drowning my point in your semantic game), which are being
blocked out by the people around me. Guess what happens...
Don't feel bad about asking/telling me anything, I will always gladly
Digging for info? Try AI Meta Search:
MesonAI -- If nobody else wants to do it, why shouldn't we?(TM)