Our minds control us...

What happened to experience? It somehow disappeared from your equation. First you noted:

1. THINKING determines BEHAVIOR
2. EXPERIENCE + INTERPRETATIONS influence THINKING
___________________________
3. EXPERIENCE + INTERPRETATIONS partly determine BEHAVIOR


Then you noted:
4. INSTINCTS determine INTERPRETATIONS

So it should follow from (3) and (4) that

5. EXPERIENCE + INSTINCTS partly determine BEHAVIOR


but in your conclusion it is only INSTINCTS that determine BEHAVIOR. What happened to EXPERIENCE?

don't worry, I'll be back.

I believe your genes and/or how your brain chemistry is made up can influence how you behave. Idiot savants, bipolar, and schizophrenics are things that seem to influence the personality to some degree.

<reading along>

Whoever said we were "free thinkers" devoid of the effects of learning, experience, and instincts/drives?



If I try to diet in order to lose weight I sometimes feel hungry between meals. The instinctive reaction to hunger is to seek food and consume it. However, I logically understand that if I eat that piece of cake, the calories consumed may prevent me from losing weight. I, therefore, may choose to remain hungry, or I may choose to eat a relatively low calorie apple rather than the piece of cake.

In the above example, is my behavior, and my choice not to eat, determined by instinct?

A man looks at his attractive 14 year old niece. He has a sudden impulse to want to touch her breasts. As soon as he has this feeling he experiences some anxiety and feelings of guilt. He is aware that, even though he feels sexually aroused by the niece, his feelings toward her are wrong and that he cannot act on them.

In the above example, is the man's decision to inhibit his impulses, and not touch his niece, determined by instinct, or by learning and experience?

I don't think it's that logical; that's why there are so many bulimics. They "think" they're controlling what they do, but something in the brain goes haywire.

I wasn't suggesting that the examples I gave explained all of human behavior. I simply offered two instances in which, I believe, the behaviors in question were examples of learned responses to instinctual urges.
I do not believe that all behavior, or thought, or interpretation of events is based in pre-logical, pre-verbal instinct/drive, as suggested by existential potential.

I also do not believe that compulsive behaviors, such as bulimia, are necessarily due to "something in the brain going haywire". These behaviors can be sucessfully treated by non-chemical means, suggesting that no organic basis may underlie such disorders.

firefly, It was not my intent to negate your thesis, but to expand on it. Sorry, but my writing style doesn't have the necessary requisite for politeness. I jump in feet first without looking; my bad.

Agreed with all the above. A theory of human behavior that seeks to reduce everything to a single source is bound to run into difficulties somewhere. This particular model is further hampered by the looseness of the terminology: first we have "_____ is influenced by _____", then " _____ is determined by _____", then " _____ is the basis of _____". Influence, determination, and basis are not as interchangeable as that. Like many reductive arguments, this one conflates correlation with causation.

I'm also a little confused about the idea that being controlled by the mind disqualifies us from being free-thinkers. Doesn't thinking happen in the mind? If being controlled by the mind doesn't qualify as free-thinking, what does?

I agree with this Firefly

I can control my instincts. Experiences - though they may cause me to want to react a certain way, do not have to control me. I can control my will and overcome my reactions. I am not saying it's not hard, almost impossible at times. But I submit that in the end we can control our minds....if we want to.

I will always be a little sceptical at the idea that I am controlled by my mind. My ability to be logical (at times) and reason would circumvent learned behaviors that cause me to want to react in ways I do not want to.
if that makes sense.

Agree completely, mismi. That's what keeps me from buying every pair of great shoes I find at bargain prices and maxing out my credit card.

I think existential potential's initial statements are too vague, too overly simplified, and too undefined to allow for a meaningful discussion of the premises being made.

Hey all... some of this I am following, some of this “free thinking brain” is not able to correlate right now coz my thoughts are all squidged together into a no-mans land..

However, i am thinking " perhaps that is not such a good thing right now... so I will debate the points I can, possibly contradicting myself as I go along



I believe that our thinking does determine how we behave in the world and CAN be based on our experiences and our interpretation of those experiences at THAT time... however, the experiences can remain the same/similar and one has to change the way they think in order to react differently next time around, each time. The same for interpreting experiences, once you have been in a situation and then learn that you cannot alter experiences for others, you have to change your reactions no matter what your instinct is telling you. Ones instincts change as quickly as your experiences change and your reactions change " I don’t think when emotions come into the equation it is necessarily to do with reasoning and logic " until you are able to change either ones own behaviour or the behaviour of another.

We would all be free thinkers if our thoughts and actions affected no-one else. However, they do. In the example of the uncle and neice " the uncle can think whatever he wants, he can even act, this would then cause damage to his neice and many others " so he either does or does not do it depending on his WILL POWER, or his conscience.... or whatever it is that stops him.

If one were to see a child getting hurt. Your instinct, gut feeling is... it should stop. It should not happen.

If you were in the room where the uncle and niece were and he touched her " your instinct could be to run over and punch his lights out.... or whatever.... therefore your instinct would determine your behaviour and your actions. However, if the Uncle turned around and started then mashing you to a pulp because his instincts at being punched told him to pound you back..... if the same situation arose again..... would your instinct to intervene the first time round change what your actions would be the second time around.

To me, this is an upsetting (and out of my league example) so I will think no more about that if I can.

So... another example. You see a child with a knife in his hand. He is a self harmer. Instinct is to STOP the child hurting himself. Instinct is to take the knife off him. When one does that, interrupting the self managed self harming, that could cause the child to do further damage when the control is taken away from him. Therefore, ones instincts which seem reasonable and logical can be completely WRONG. Instinct CANNOT be the basis for ones actions at all times. When one discovers that reason and logic for NOT ACTING to stop the child hurting himself, that throws instinct and gut feeling out the window. Then this “detachment” of emotions as dicussed previously would be great if it were possible.... to see everything as a work of art or affirming life as it is. But I’m afraid that is not that easy to do when emotion comes into the equations " unless of course you rip your “mind heart” out and feel nothing for anyone, anywhere.



Yep... I think that’s what I said up there... as experiences change or stay similar, your instinct to react and behaviour also have to change. After you experience an event, based on your previous reaction, you may or may not react in an entirely different way " using reason and logic as to why you act differently. Early learning instinct cannot be the basis for our every action. It can’t. That would limit the ability to think freely and act appropriately to situations.


Absolutely... as would someone with a brain tumour whose varying parts of the brain are affected (eg. Urge control etc) I also believe that as individuals who do not have mental health disorders behave in ways that are borne from their experiences.... the possible nature and nurture, their experiences may influence their personality and how they act and behave.




Me either.


I think neurotypically we are “free thinkers” " tho with mental health disorders, the brain in my opinion, is wired differently and some behaviour cannot be controlled until the person is taught to control it by altering their behaviour. Again... choices, but their “free thinking” may have NO logic and NO reasoning and their experiences may not alter the way they behave for a long time " I believe it takes longer to learn by experience than many who are neurotypical. It just is. This is only my opinion of course.


Yep...that makes sense, but again... for those who are neurotypical.... a majority of people.

Even with neurotypes tho " “normal every day folk” as the world perceives, it is hard at times to put logic and reason at the fore, when we allow our hearts and minds to work overtime. However, the ability we have to learn by our mistakes and experiences gives us a good basis for moving forward and to react a different way. Our instincts change, our gut feelings allow us not to act as we once would have, our minds remind us what happened last time, and our behaviour can alter to make life a little easier. Not always, but for the most part.

Therefore, I think we are mostly “free thinkers”, but in as much as we can think freely, our thoughts and actions are also determined by the thoughts, actions and reactions of others " so I don’t believe that our minds controls us by what our instincts tell us to do.

I

<one wonders how many times one has contradicted oneself here>
<mushed brain>

<firefly... love a bargain!!!!! >

I m not worried,
but u have failed to prove that man has
(nor is governed by) INSTINCTS.





David

I deliberately gave the example of an uncle wanting to touch his niece's breasts because I think it clearly illustrates the difference between instinct/drive and learned behavior, although not quite in the way you see it, Izzie.

The sexual impulse, or urge, on the part of the uncle is the unlearned instinct. Sexual arrousal is an unlearned primary drive/instinct. However, the uncle then experiences anxiety and guilt about his sexual impulses because he has learned, through cultural conditioning, that incestuous behavior, and sexual behavior toward children, is taboo. The anxiety and guilt stops him from acting on his impulses/instincts--it helps him to exercise control over his instincts by realizing that what he wants to do is wrong. Logical thought, based on learning, helps the uncle to stop himself from acting on instinct.

Similarly, if you were in the room, and saw the uncle touch his niece, your desire to punch him out would not be instinct, it would also be learned behavior--you have also learned that such behavior is wrong, and you have learned to stop it and to be angry at the person who does such things. None of these things are instinctive--it is all learned behavior.

We are not "free thinkers" in the sense that our thoughts are not affected by our past learning and experience--those things very much shape how we think about and interpret things. But we are "free thinkers" because we are not totally at the mercy of instincts/drives/impulses/emotions--we can gain considerable rational control over such things.

But I still think this topic is too vague and poorly defined. That's why some of us are talking about apples, and others are talking about oranges and bananas. Existential potential has not given us a common frame of reference.

You go, firefly! So far I can't disagree with anything you've said. And very well articulated.

yep - I hear what you're saying... and thank you...

and yep, different interpretation of the "instinct" - yours makes sense. I was thinking along different lines there.

There is a big difference between learned instinctive behaviour and unlearned instinctive behaviour

you've outlined the learned behaviour above well...

but there are times where no matter how much rational control we have over an event, we can be at the mercy of our instincts e.g. seeing someone in need of help, life threatening, like someone unable to swim and drowning - some would not think about whether it is a rational move to jump in and try and save them, the instinctive/emotional/impulsive behaviour is "just do it".... they do not think, they just react, even if there is no hope or that the rescuer may die. Does that make sense?

Maybe I'm onto pineapples and plums now.

Yep - a common frame of reference would be better to debate. This could end up being all over the place.

I am a Nichiren Buddhist. Buddhism states "you be the master of your mind, do not let your mind master you".

Sure, Izzie, what you are saying makes perfect sense.

But I don't think we are at the mercy of our instincts in the situation you describe, in fact I think it's quite the opposite. I think we rationally interpret the situation, i.e. "He's drowning. If I don't do something he will die", and then we may decide to act and save the other person--even if we risk our own survival in doing on. The desire to save the person overrides our concerns about our own safety--we decide to act against our own self interest. But society correctly views such actions, not as instincts, but as choices--that is why we honor heroes, they have made these types of exceptional choices. Choice is the result of a logical rational process, and not the result of base instinct. All of this may go on in our brains so quickly we may, or may not, be aware of making the choice, but we are making it none-the-less. A mother who runs into a burning building to save her child knows she might die in doing so, but her own welfare is less important to her than her motivation to save her child--she has made a very rapid choice about what she wants to do, but she has made a choice.

This is actually the same sort of logic that would be used to decide if a person accused of a crime is not guilty by reason of insanity--did the person have the mental capacity to realize their behavior was wrong, and were they able to make a rational choice about controlling such behavior. In other words, did the person have choices, or were they driven by instinctual forces beyond their control?



Now I think we are getting into nectarines and grapes.

Our interpretations of experiences determine how we think, which, in turn determines how we behave; our interpretations are determined by early instinctive reactions to experiences, which then have a major influence on all subsequent thought, and therefore behaviour.

To retort to the first reply by “Shapeless”, it is not experience itself which determines anything, rather it is our interpretative and fundamentally our instinctive reactions to experience which determine our thought and therefore behaviour.

I just did not convey “experience” in the right manner.