> > 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...
Ok, then: How would you categorize the wolf's tendency to howl? Or a
person's tendency to bite it's nails?
> > > 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
Here I have a quote from a friend: "Just like the gravity, instinct is
unavoidable, although it can sometimes be masked, neutralized or
hidden. Or repressed." Say what?
> > 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
What you say is all ok with me, except the fact that your personal
prefferences are not the ones in question here. It's more about those
instincts you said you'd rather call prefferences, namely the ones
controling a person's behaviour.
> > 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?
But it was you who introduced the "preference" thing! My basic statement
was that there were behaviour-control instincts in humans that can be
repressed and that causes harm to the brain. Tell me again, where do you
see preference in this...
> > 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
I do have in fact, very much of an idea. My thinking model alows me to
know how things work without knowing every detail about them.
> > 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
Split the brain into 3 known systems: The neocortex, the limbic brain
and the r-brain. The capacity and behaviour of the R-brain can be nicely
observed with reptiles. The limbic system is obvious for what it is,
constructed out of diffirent modules preforming specific tasks, we all
know it handles emotion and stuff allike; the thing is also nicely
observable, for example, with mice (experiments confirm that their
behaviour doesn't change much if their neocortex is removed). This
leaves out very little to be suggested to belong to the neocortex. And
since nobody ever found anything magical in the neocortex, it is healthy
science to conclude that it is nothing more than a neural circut.
It is also known that computer simulations of the neocortex: Neural
Networks, successfully give the impression of "a person behind the
controls" in computer games.
> > 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?
Sigh... If you think that your TV is the author of the TV show, then
that might seem like a reasonable conclusion!
IRL, the information about the personality needs to be kept somewhere,
so unless your higher understanding of the brain icludes any magical
components, it should be pretty clear that the diffirent personalities
MUST form diffirent circuts.
> > 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.
You expect me to stick rods into my brains to measure the stress
signals... or is there another secret way to get that information? From
the information I have so far, without any particulary intrusive
methods, points out this result, there is no saying it is wrong, unless
you have any just as good or better evidence that it is wrong.
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)