Did anyone take the trouble in defining the notion 'instinct', as it is
stated to be valid in the discussed model for the mind?
Frans van der Walle
**************
mat <mats_trash at hotmail.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
43525ce3.0203241206.8b64896 at posting.google.com...
> CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure.sah at guest.arnes.si> wrote in message
news:<3C9DAF70.BD4AB0BE at guest.arnes.si>...
> > mat wrote:
> > > 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.
>> What?! err not at all. Just because I don't call every aspect of
> behaviour an instinct, doesn't mean I can't define or discuss those
> other aspects of behaviour...
>> >
> > > 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.
>> You said removing not me
>> >
> > > 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
> > low-level instinct.
>> What are you actually saying here? that such things as my prefered
> type of clothing or cullinary tastes are totally genetically
> determined? If that is what you are saying then its laughable
>> >
> > Humans have a "preference" of walking on two legs and wolves have a
> > "preference" to howl... LOL... =]
>> You're equating two things that are not equal. Behaviour to seek food
> is not the equivalent to someone preferring chinese to indian. Is
> that really so difficult to comprehend?
>> >
> > > > 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...
>> That might be becuase no-one, including you my friend, as any real
> idea about how the brain works
>> >
> > 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).
>> And you have evidence for this? Am not saying you are wrong, but I do
> thing you simply pulled it out of thin air. I'l bet my bottom dollar
> that you have absolutely no direct evidence for this 'neocortical
> circuit=self' statement
>> >
> > 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...
>>> lol. A psychological phenomenon extrapolated to the extreme of saying
> there are multiple 'self' circuits in the neocortex. Yeah and becuase
> I see different people on the TV, each one must have their special
> little circuit inside my TV right?
>> > Know how the neocortex works?
>> Oh let me guess you do.
>> > 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.
>> Show/direct me to some evidence.. this is just speculation based on
> very little data.