I you look at instinct you can go as far as to say that instinct is a sort of primal memories which are passed on for the survival of the species. We need to look less in to what instincts are but rather why they are. how are they passed on? genetically? is there a way to modify Genes to pass on frontal lobe memories and therefore pass on the self?
Instinct comes from what is naturally in your heart.If you have an evil heart you will not sacrifice your life for someone who has done a lot for you.If you have good instinct that which is pure than you will give your life willfully and happily knowing its good for all parties.
seems like most instincts would be animal-like instincts since they're usually coming from the more primitive part of our brain. but is that a bad thing? love doesn't need to be cognitively complex in order to be genuine or deep right? and does a faithful dog love u any less than your best friend?
What I'm saying is that for humans (or animals?) instinct is never just biological, it is psycho-somatic. Bodily insticts are engaged in a dialectic relation with intelligence through the mechanisms of the unconscious. As Freud terms it, "Where 'it' (trauma/repression/the unconscious) was, 'I' shall come into being." Combine instict and the emotion it generates, and you get a sentiment. The sentiment of sexual love for instance, is a conbination of sexual and parental instincts and emotions.
Instinct comes before the will, but the will comes before thinking! Instinct is a type of feeling perception that enables us to understand the environment we happen to find ourselves in, and is part of our DNA programming. We have to understand our environment before we can will anything, or even think about anything concerning it. Intelligence has a lot to do with how people use their brains, but apart from this it is mostly mysterious.
It seems to me that instinctive behavior is the consequence of an organism's adaptation to its environment. Penguins instinctively know not to swim when there is a predator cruising around. Human beings are in the process of making the environment adapt to them, which is a new thing in evolution: and that is making human instinct less and less relevant. We should be suspicious of instinct - even if it seems to be 'good'!
Human technology is certainly a new feature of evolution, but organisms altering their environment is hardly recent. The first prokaryotes created the atmosphere that has sustained life for 3.8 billion years. Without their massive alteration of the environment, none of us would exist.
No, you don't agree with Matt. James proposes that instinct is not equal to mind but is primary and Matt seemed to agree with this.
But who is it that proposes to neglect our nature, certainly not someone whose bladder is full?
And who wants to neglect intelligence and propose global stupidity in its place?
James' proposal for global stupidity was really from the 19th century's stifling sexual taboos. Nowadays it might be wiser, at times, to reverse priority: intelligence as primary.
Um, okay, I agree that maybe I don't agree with Matt, lol. I DON'T agree with James that instinct leads intelligent. Matt is young and still tends to go by the quotes of thinkers; nothing wrong with that, but after time, one mixes them together more with one's own refinements. I stand by my statement, that both instinct and intelligence are equally important. Thanks for your comment, plenipot!
Maybe your great age you have learnt to sit on the fence. In any case I would think that both are required but it depends on the historical and social context to say which might be better to prevail so perhaps Plato's Phaedrus might be a nice ideal.
Wtf with the wise crack about "great age... sit on a fence?" I only mention Matt's youth because it's true, but he is very intelligent and knows A LOT about some subjects that I don't. Plenip doesn't understand NUANCE if he's disparaging my saying that both instinct and intelligence are equally important. Of course context is relevant -- but I say they're equally important in ANY age. It's nuance, baby. I'll get back to you on Plato, I just woke up from my old guy's nap. ;)
I don't get what is nuanced in saying that there is an eternal truth stating that intelligence and instinct are equally important. But I'm familiar with nuance alright, that is what I tried to say about the importance of one or the other depending on the times and the situation neither equating them (you) nor putting instinct first (Matt & James)
Anyhow, I'm glad I put a thorn in your side and got you to leap off than fence, though it seems you now have one foot on each side!
I still say they are equally important, but again, I agree with your re context. For example, say in the Age of Reason science/intelligence may have been put ahead of instinct -- but to me it would still be important to give instinct equal time.
I appreciate your "putting a thorn in my side" -- or at least nudging me -- that's why I bother to comment here. ^_^
What about the instinct for Reason? Do the forms of reason that appear today, eg, the idolisation of computers, cars, etc., not appear as natural, is it instinctual to honour the machine, ie, the cling-filmed products of man's ingenuity and not mankind itself & its needs & instincts?
The division may no longer be instinct/intelligence but rather between two forms of reason, or a new form of reason versus a solidified or naturalised form of old reason, machines, production line mentality.
my bladder is full. should i urinate next to the community fire pit or take a leak somewhere else.? i just had a great idea. i'll dig a hole which everybody can piss in. let's pick a metaphor and use it to describe reality in a own way. it is not the only way to detox from the world. you noted on my channel "I'm just a poet. I describe/create reality. Want to help me?" yes, i do. so - instead of complicated thought videos, we should instead sing it as prose, as humans have always done.
A population equipped with strong rational faculties and an evolved ability to question seems to be the best defense against atrocities such as the holocaust, without these faculties we are more likely to be pray to any guru, salesman or charlatan who is adept at bypassing those faculties and appealing directly to our emotions or to our R-complex. It is the R-complex which is thought to be involved with our propensity to be xenophobic and our propensity to create hierarchies.
I wondered when you mentioned changing out the battery out how that was going to fix the fan... and I was not disappointed. I'm fairly sure I agree with you, but I'm easily confused. It seems to me there's a hierarchal stacking of inherited instinct; i.e. mammalian and reptilian running in our brains and we assigned moral value to each. Pattern recognition in itself is instinctual and perhaps is the essence of the intellect.
I agree with your view of instinct that it is not necessarily a negative aspect of humans and animals. But with a unnecessary comparison with intelligence, I think you are now demeaning intelligence in a way. It is better to keep them separated in different domains. I can't say that we can strictly separate one from another, but practically, it makes better sense to keep them separated.
I am not sure how. Consider the example of science and pseudoscience. I would say there is no theoretical demarcation criteria that can adequately separate the two. But in practical terms, scientists would not treat astrologist seriously.
Similarly, academic philosophers would not be able to theoretically distinguish what is product of intelligence and what is product of instinct. However in pratice, they would not treat mystical and spiritual illuminations that are commonly thought to be as instinctive with much adoration.
Astrology pretending to be an empirical science should not be treated seriously, but it needn't be misunderstood as such a science. It is a psychological or archetypal science (or systematization) that applies to the meaning a person finds in their life, not to the facts and measurable quantities of interest to the empirical scientist.
The two can be demarcated as I have tried to describe above. In practice, though, even empirical scientists are hard pressed to avoid psychological factors when
formulating there theories. Their measurements may be empirical, but their interpretations of underlying (unobservable) mechanisms require that said data be mixed with metaphor and culturally-supported meaning.
But do you think that psychological factors you mentioned affect scientists so much that they interpretation is entirely disconnected from the reality or do they still describe the world fairly accurately?
no, I would much rather look to science for descriptions than any other method. I'm just saying there is no form of knowledge available to human beings that can be entirely culture-free. To know anything at all about reality we must construct a background which provides the empirical data with a context. Otherwise we would not be able to make any sense whatsoever of our measurements.
"I'm just saying there is no form of knowledge available to human beings that can be entirely culture-free."
This is obvious, but at the same time, it is too much exagerated.
Now, I can even grant that you may be right that science is skewed by culture. But this still doesn't show why that necessarily stifles science's attempt to "get the world right."
I still think that it is difficult to explain the success of science without appealing to the reasoning that science does give fairly accurate picture of the world.
I don't think the notion that science is dependent on culture "skews" science. If facts have no meaning, they are useless but for technological inventions, which employed without consideration of their cultural effects are almost always destructive. Science is embedded in culture for good reason, and as long as we acknowledge this when we do science, we are in no danger of misinterpreting scientific findings. Doing science is being openly engaged a dialogue with nature, its no surprise...
...*Doing science is openly engaging in a dialogue with nature, so it's no surprise that it has given us so much knowledge. Prior to the scientific revolution, the book of nature was ignored in favor of the books of men (mostly the Bible, but also Aristotle). As far as accurately picturing the world goes, I am reluctant to use such terminology to talk about what science does. This is mostly because of the later Wittgenstein's view of language, which science must use in all its descriptions.
Science, rather than giving us an accurate picture of reality, allows us to interact with nature in such a way that we can construct new knowledge based on the feedback we get from our observations and experiments. Scientific descriptions are not a passive mirroring of nature, but an active exploration which is continually updated in light of new findings and methods of inquiry.
It seems to me that the aspect of the unconscious, which is "the kernel of one's being", cannot be left out in the discussion of instinct and intelligence. Freud's theory on the sexual (life) instict, the death instict, and the instict of self; McDongall's expounding of the instict of submission in a anthropo-sociological context, his distiction between instinct and sentiment, and even Jung's anima and persona might shed some significant light to this discussion.
Quite a bit of developments in science has really no social benefits. Many individuals working in highly theoretical area of science is disjoint with much of society. Even if it does in the future, most scientists cannot foresee how their science is going to be used in the future.
For example, Newton had obvious religious reasons "to know the mind of God" for his involvement in physics and mathematics. But despite this, his achievements were extremely fruitful and they have unimaginable consequences now. Newton could not have known possible benefits his work in physics and mathematics created now.
Instinct, intuition and inspiration are fundamental to intelligence. A look at the history of science shows that quite clear: Newton and the apple, Kekulé and his dream about the Ourobouros, Einstein and his travel on a photon, and so on, and so on...
This is an interesting view. I personally don't subscribe to it at face value, but it has a certain validity. I think that we (humans) were "instinctual" long before we were "intelligent" and at this point in time we have some mixture of both. While I see these "methods" in opposition at times I see no reason why they couldn't work together. I suspect that most of the time they do.
Yeah, I think when intelligence wrongly supposes it has transcended instinct, we run into trouble. Usually, it has not at all transcended instinct but just taken one or another instinctual desire and made it the only "intelligent" one.
the overheating problem with your computer is likely being caused by Internal dust creating poor heat exchange... it probably needs to be opened up and blown clean.... you might get away with using a can of "canned air" and just shoot it through the fan vents.
how could intelligence ever be used for enlightened purposes ?
intelligence is efficient differentiation and recombination, mostly done to attribute to existing frameworks, all of which has to be unlearned to get aware of the presence.
the power of intelligence is the constructing of the virtual and thus indirectly creating the real.
instinct works directly and comes closer but not into awakening which shortcuts both.
I agree that instinct would come first for the most part. Unless people had time to think through their decisions first depending on the situation, they might be able to use intelligence, but if it's one of the split second decisions people have to make, people tend to do the first thing that comes to mind.
I you look at instinct you can go as far as to say that instinct is a sort of primal memories which are passed on for the survival of the species. We need to look less in to what instincts are but rather why they are. how are they passed on? genetically? is there a way to modify Genes to pass on frontal lobe memories and therefore pass on the self?
orionomega 1 year ago
intelligence is the articulation of instinct.
begily 2 years ago
Instinct comes from what is naturally in your heart.If you have an evil heart you will not sacrifice your life for someone who has done a lot for you.If you have good instinct that which is pure than you will give your life willfully and happily knowing its good for all parties.
6gording6 3 years ago
seems like most instincts would be animal-like instincts since they're usually coming from the more primitive part of our brain. but is that a bad thing? love doesn't need to be cognitively complex in order to be genuine or deep right? and does a faithful dog love u any less than your best friend?
regemo 3 years ago
What I'm saying is that for humans (or animals?) instinct is never just biological, it is psycho-somatic. Bodily insticts are engaged in a dialectic relation with intelligence through the mechanisms of the unconscious. As Freud terms it, "Where 'it' (trauma/repression/the unconscious) was, 'I' shall come into being." Combine instict and the emotion it generates, and you get a sentiment. The sentiment of sexual love for instance, is a conbination of sexual and parental instincts and emotions.
henryintelligence 3 years ago
Excuse my spelling. Didn't check it before submitting. :P
henryintelligence 3 years ago
Instinct comes before the will, but the will comes before thinking! Instinct is a type of feeling perception that enables us to understand the environment we happen to find ourselves in, and is part of our DNA programming. We have to understand our environment before we can will anything, or even think about anything concerning it. Intelligence has a lot to do with how people use their brains, but apart from this it is mostly mysterious.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
It seems to me that instinctive behavior is the consequence of an organism's adaptation to its environment. Penguins instinctively know not to swim when there is a predator cruising around. Human beings are in the process of making the environment adapt to them, which is a new thing in evolution: and that is making human instinct less and less relevant. We should be suspicious of instinct - even if it seems to be 'good'!
2yng2di 3 years ago
Human technology is certainly a new feature of evolution, but organisms altering their environment is hardly recent. The first prokaryotes created the atmosphere that has sustained life for 3.8 billion years. Without their massive alteration of the environment, none of us would exist.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I agree, Matt. We need BOTH instinct and intelligence, neither one is primary. Humans couldn't function well with only one.
It takes a level of intelligence to know to listen to your instinct -- and instinct to pay attention to your intelligence.
I think the two combined equal intuition.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
No, you don't agree with Matt. James proposes that instinct is not equal to mind but is primary and Matt seemed to agree with this.
But who is it that proposes to neglect our nature, certainly not someone whose bladder is full?
And who wants to neglect intelligence and propose global stupidity in its place?
James' proposal for global stupidity was really from the 19th century's stifling sexual taboos. Nowadays it might be wiser, at times, to reverse priority: intelligence as primary.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Um, okay, I agree that maybe I don't agree with Matt, lol. I DON'T agree with James that instinct leads intelligent. Matt is young and still tends to go by the quotes of thinkers; nothing wrong with that, but after time, one mixes them together more with one's own refinements. I stand by my statement, that both instinct and intelligence are equally important. Thanks for your comment, plenipot!
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Maybe your great age you have learnt to sit on the fence. In any case I would think that both are required but it depends on the historical and social context to say which might be better to prevail so perhaps Plato's Phaedrus might be a nice ideal.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Wtf with the wise crack about "great age... sit on a fence?" I only mention Matt's youth because it's true, but he is very intelligent and knows A LOT about some subjects that I don't. Plenip doesn't understand NUANCE if he's disparaging my saying that both instinct and intelligence are equally important. Of course context is relevant -- but I say they're equally important in ANY age. It's nuance, baby. I'll get back to you on Plato, I just woke up from my old guy's nap. ;)
StevenErnest 3 years ago
I don't get what is nuanced in saying that there is an eternal truth stating that intelligence and instinct are equally important. But I'm familiar with nuance alright, that is what I tried to say about the importance of one or the other depending on the times and the situation neither equating them (you) nor putting instinct first (Matt & James)
Anyhow, I'm glad I put a thorn in your side and got you to leap off than fence, though it seems you now have one foot on each side!
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Okay, I think we agree more than disagree. ;)
I still say they are equally important, but again, I agree with your re context. For example, say in the Age of Reason science/intelligence may have been put ahead of instinct -- but to me it would still be important to give instinct equal time.
I appreciate your "putting a thorn in my side" -- or at least nudging me -- that's why I bother to comment here. ^_^
StevenErnest 3 years ago
What about the instinct for Reason? Do the forms of reason that appear today, eg, the idolisation of computers, cars, etc., not appear as natural, is it instinctual to honour the machine, ie, the cling-filmed products of man's ingenuity and not mankind itself & its needs & instincts?
The division may no longer be instinct/intelligence but rather between two forms of reason, or a new form of reason versus a solidified or naturalised form of old reason, machines, production line mentality.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
e.g.
my bladder is full. should i urinate next to the community fire pit or take a leak somewhere else.? i just had a great idea. i'll dig a hole which everybody can piss in. let's pick a metaphor and use it to describe reality in a own way. it is not the only way to detox from the world. you noted on my channel "I'm just a poet. I describe/create reality. Want to help me?" yes, i do. so - instead of complicated thought videos, we should instead sing it as prose, as humans have always done.
matrixcmitech 3 years ago
A population equipped with strong rational faculties and an evolved ability to question seems to be the best defense against atrocities such as the holocaust, without these faculties we are more likely to be pray to any guru, salesman or charlatan who is adept at bypassing those faculties and appealing directly to our emotions or to our R-complex. It is the R-complex which is thought to be involved with our propensity to be xenophobic and our propensity to create hierarchies.
cloudmonkeys 3 years ago
I wondered when you mentioned changing out the battery out how that was going to fix the fan... and I was not disappointed. I'm fairly sure I agree with you, but I'm easily confused. It seems to me there's a hierarchal stacking of inherited instinct; i.e. mammalian and reptilian running in our brains and we assigned moral value to each. Pattern recognition in itself is instinctual and perhaps is the essence of the intellect.
RoadRrunner 3 years ago
HAIR
oh yeah I forgot to mention yer dual identification as redlite along w 0Thou0.
-Sharp Hair thou, fan=no bother :)
f417h 3 years ago
I agree with your view of instinct that it is not necessarily a negative aspect of humans and animals. But with a unnecessary comparison with intelligence, I think you are now demeaning intelligence in a way. It is better to keep them separated in different domains. I can't say that we can strictly separate one from another, but practically, it makes better sense to keep them separated.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
Well, theoretically we could separate them. But practically, that is in actual practice, they are never separated.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Agreed-Nothing is seperate
-1 Persception
f417h 3 years ago
I am not sure how. Consider the example of science and pseudoscience. I would say there is no theoretical demarcation criteria that can adequately separate the two. But in practical terms, scientists would not treat astrologist seriously.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
Similarly, academic philosophers would not be able to theoretically distinguish what is product of intelligence and what is product of instinct. However in pratice, they would not treat mystical and spiritual illuminations that are commonly thought to be as instinctive with much adoration.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
Astrology pretending to be an empirical science should not be treated seriously, but it needn't be misunderstood as such a science. It is a psychological or archetypal science (or systematization) that applies to the meaning a person finds in their life, not to the facts and measurable quantities of interest to the empirical scientist.
The two can be demarcated as I have tried to describe above. In practice, though, even empirical scientists are hard pressed to avoid psychological factors when
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
formulating there theories. Their measurements may be empirical, but their interpretations of underlying (unobservable) mechanisms require that said data be mixed with metaphor and culturally-supported meaning.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
But do you think that psychological factors you mentioned affect scientists so much that they interpretation is entirely disconnected from the reality or do they still describe the world fairly accurately?
ContraWagner 3 years ago
no, I would much rather look to science for descriptions than any other method. I'm just saying there is no form of knowledge available to human beings that can be entirely culture-free. To know anything at all about reality we must construct a background which provides the empirical data with a context. Otherwise we would not be able to make any sense whatsoever of our measurements.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
"I'm just saying there is no form of knowledge available to human beings that can be entirely culture-free."
This is obvious, but at the same time, it is too much exagerated.
Now, I can even grant that you may be right that science is skewed by culture. But this still doesn't show why that necessarily stifles science's attempt to "get the world right."
ContraWagner 3 years ago
I still think that it is difficult to explain the success of science without appealing to the reasoning that science does give fairly accurate picture of the world.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
I don't think the notion that science is dependent on culture "skews" science. If facts have no meaning, they are useless but for technological inventions, which employed without consideration of their cultural effects are almost always destructive. Science is embedded in culture for good reason, and as long as we acknowledge this when we do science, we are in no danger of misinterpreting scientific findings. Doing science is being openly engaged a dialogue with nature, its no surprise...
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
...*Doing science is openly engaging in a dialogue with nature, so it's no surprise that it has given us so much knowledge. Prior to the scientific revolution, the book of nature was ignored in favor of the books of men (mostly the Bible, but also Aristotle). As far as accurately picturing the world goes, I am reluctant to use such terminology to talk about what science does. This is mostly because of the later Wittgenstein's view of language, which science must use in all its descriptions.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Science, rather than giving us an accurate picture of reality, allows us to interact with nature in such a way that we can construct new knowledge based on the feedback we get from our observations and experiments. Scientific descriptions are not a passive mirroring of nature, but an active exploration which is continually updated in light of new findings and methods of inquiry.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
It seems to me that the aspect of the unconscious, which is "the kernel of one's being", cannot be left out in the discussion of instinct and intelligence. Freud's theory on the sexual (life) instict, the death instict, and the instict of self; McDongall's expounding of the instict of submission in a anthropo-sociological context, his distiction between instinct and sentiment, and even Jung's anima and persona might shed some significant light to this discussion.
henryintelligence 3 years ago
Quite a bit of developments in science has really no social benefits. Many individuals working in highly theoretical area of science is disjoint with much of society. Even if it does in the future, most scientists cannot foresee how their science is going to be used in the future.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
For example, Newton had obvious religious reasons "to know the mind of God" for his involvement in physics and mathematics. But despite this, his achievements were extremely fruitful and they have unimaginable consequences now. Newton could not have known possible benefits his work in physics and mathematics created now.
ContraWagner 3 years ago
whats your fan doing?
elstonieo 3 years ago
Instinct, intuition and inspiration are fundamental to intelligence. A look at the history of science shows that quite clear: Newton and the apple, Kekulé and his dream about the Ourobouros, Einstein and his travel on a photon, and so on, and so on...
tmafkap 3 years ago
instilligence... nayyea.
jogayot 3 years ago
This is an interesting view. I personally don't subscribe to it at face value, but it has a certain validity. I think that we (humans) were "instinctual" long before we were "intelligent" and at this point in time we have some mixture of both. While I see these "methods" in opposition at times I see no reason why they couldn't work together. I suspect that most of the time they do.
VeritasEtLibertas82 3 years ago
Yeah, I think when intelligence wrongly supposes it has transcended instinct, we run into trouble. Usually, it has not at all transcended instinct but just taken one or another instinctual desire and made it the only "intelligent" one.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
the overheating problem with your computer is likely being caused by Internal dust creating poor heat exchange... it probably needs to be opened up and blown clean.... you might get away with using a can of "canned air" and just shoot it through the fan vents.
inmendham 3 years ago
yeah, when i get some time ill sit down and remove the 50 screws and look inside. thanks for the tip.
redliterocket4 3 years ago
i have the same white macbook and i use to put it on two pens or whatever so that the bottom never touches the surface of the desk directly.
when recording in quicktime 360x240 quality the fan does not start.
Mork5 3 years ago
Hmmm, it almost seems like instinct would be born out of intelligence. But, of course I've never actually thought about this..
AOEGuy 3 years ago
"if you are a worshiper of intelligence" nice one.
radiofriendly 3 years ago
how could intelligence ever be used for enlightened purposes ?
intelligence is efficient differentiation and recombination, mostly done to attribute to existing frameworks, all of which has to be unlearned to get aware of the presence.
the power of intelligence is the constructing of the virtual and thus indirectly creating the real.
instinct works directly and comes closer but not into awakening which shortcuts both.
Mork5 3 years ago
AAAND TAKEOFFFF
Jihunn 3 years ago
Actually, I believe the word instinct is most often used in a positive light when referring to "motherly instinct."
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
I guess I was thinking mostly of inmendham.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I agree that instinct would come first for the most part. Unless people had time to think through their decisions first depending on the situation, they might be able to use intelligence, but if it's one of the split second decisions people have to make, people tend to do the first thing that comes to mind.
HaleyMary 3 years ago