Humans and natural instinct.

@lazer,

lazer;141163 wrote:

I think that we have plenty of natural instincts. I think sexual attraction and courtship, for example, involve various natural instincts, as does social interaction in general. We instinctively pick up on so many things about each other every day. I, as a woman, am instinctively attracted to men who are able to protect and care for me and my potential offspring. On the flip side, I don't actually want any offspring...which can mean that my maternal instinct is shoddy, but this is akin to other animals who abandon their young. Just because they don't have the sufficient maternal instinct doesn't mean that other instincts aren't there either.

:bigsmile:I think this was a wasted 5 minutes. Check his bankaccount first then. Assets and debt ...
I think we more complex than that. We still have traces of our ancesters. Mnemes do not just dis/appear !
We all long for ?good?? god to help US
Start doing good yourself and you feel better !

PSH:a-ok:

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;141383 wrote:

:bigsmile:I think this was a wasted 5 minutes. Check his bankaccount first then. Assets and debt ...
I think we more complex than that. We still have traces of our ancesters. Mnemes do not just dis/appear !
We all long for ?good?? god to help US
Start doing good yourself and you feel better !

PSH:a-ok:

I'm not sure why it's assumed that "able to care for me and my potential offspring" equates to what's in one's bank account. For some people it does, but different people obviously find different traits and assets valuable. I, for example, find physical strength and valuable indication that my potential mate can protect me and am instinctively attracted to tall, strong looking men. I'm tiny and not physically strong at all, so I like having a partner who is. If someone already has a job and makes what they consider to be enough money for them, why would they need a mate with lots of something they already have?

2 Replies

@lazer,

lazer;141446 wrote:

I'm not sure why it's assumed that "able to care for me and my potential offspring" equates to what's in one's bank account. For some people it does, but different people obviously find different traits and assets valuable. I, for example, find physical strength and valuable indication that my potential mate can protect me and am instinctively attracted to tall, strong looking men. I'm tiny and not physically strong at all, so I like having a partner who is. If someone already has a job and makes what they consider to be enough money for them, why would they need a mate with lots of something they already have?

So where do you need astrong macho for ? You seem pretty organized. You yust sounded so 19th century. I do not believe in calculated marriages any-more. Law will protect us; enforced by police or even militia's.

I am also Physicly attracted to a certain type of man. My Boy-friend is way past this superficiallity of me. So I do understand what you mean. Well; we can allways join Judo or Greek Wrestling to defend ourselves... Laughing

1 Reply

@lazer,

lazer;141446 wrote:

I'm tiny and not physically strong at all, so I like having a partner who is. If someone already has a job and makes what they consider to be enough money for them, why would they need a mate with lots of something they already have?

I think it should be seen as complimentary / equality need.

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

Ignorance and "natural instinct" is the most dangerous phenomenon to man. This natural instinct is what fuels wars and spreads disease.

on the other hand,

It has been shown that human's are wired with an emotional opposition to injustice. I think the concept of "natural instinct" can take-on many interpretations.

Modern man I believe has a new natural instinct (since this is a vage umbrella term). Man's ability to adapt is something which is his most prized ability - thus, natural instinct is what an innate adaptibility for the greater purpose of survival?

Herman Hesse's Steppenwolf address the psychological difficulties between mans striving to be rational and his "animal instincts".

I believe modern man's *new* natural instinct is in the form of intuition. If this intuition is a synonomous concept to your concept of "natural instinct" I think it is mans most powerful abilities.

Aldous Huxley once said, "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex".

0 Replies

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;141448 wrote:

So where do you need astrong macho for ? You seem pretty organized. You yust sounded so 19th century. I do not believe in calculated marriages any-more. Law will protect us; enforced by police or even militia's.

I am also Physicly attracted to a certain type of man. My Boy-friend is way past this superficiallity of me. So I do understand what you mean. Well; we can allways join Judo or Greek Wrestling to defend ourselves...

Sometimes I find it hard to analyze myself, can't help being biased Razz

. I don't believe in calculated marriages either, but I think that there are several reasons why I find physical strength valuable to me in terms of a partner's ability to protect and defend me. One could be because of my own lack of physical strength and inability to protect myself in the case of a confrontation. Sure, there's pepper spray or defence classes - but I trust my boyfriend a heck of a lot more to keep me safe. A cop won't magically show up at my doorstep just as my house is being broken into by a murderer or rapist, whereas my partner will most likely be there.

The other reason might be my cultural background. I'm Ukrainian and have lived there for a little more than half my life. After visiting Ukraine a few years ago for the first time since leaving when I was 12, it struck me how much stronger and more dominant the men there were compared to what I've seen in the U.S.

I'm not saying a man has to be big and strong for me to be attracted to him period because there are other traits that people find valuable and important. There are other ways to be "strong" than physically, including intellectual, strength through social value, and as you mentioned before money, it just depends on what traits are the most valuable to an individual in their mate. Nor do I think that jerks or *******s you see picking on people weaker than them to show off to their friends are appealing (imo that's a show of lack of self confidence. A confident man wouldn't feel the need to prove it to anybody). I'm saying many women will feel an initial attraction and/or curiosity when they see a tall, well built man on the street but not when they see a man who looks weak.

1 Reply

@mister kitten,

All lifeforms have natural instinct. All wants to survive. That is the code. It may not survive in some cases but that do not invalidate the code.

Lifeforms means survive and grow even by killing others if necessary. EVerything and anything become food.

Why humans or other life forms do not kill same types?. Simple you do not kill things that give pleasure.

But there are situation where people likes to kill people for pleasure. Neurons rewired zig zag as a childhood.

You do things only if you know the way out and escape. If not you will never do things that hurt you.

Lifeform do not commit suicide that is against the code.

Again beliefs can make humans commit suicde. It is a parasite in all humans.

Give it up the beliefs. Be free.

0 Replies

@lazer,

lazer;141457 wrote:

Sometimes I find it hard to analyze myself, can't help being biased . I don't believe in calculated marriages either, but I think that there are several reasons why I find physical strength valuable to me in terms of a partner's ability to protect and defend me. One could be because of my own lack of physical strength and inability to protect myself in the case of a confrontation. Sure, there's pepper spray or defence classes - but I trust my boyfriend a heck of a lot more to keep me safe. A cop won't magically show up at my doorstep just as my house is being broken into by a murderer or rapist, whereas my partner will most likely be there.

The other reason might be my cultural background. I'm Ukrainian and have lived there for a little more than half my life. After visiting Ukraine a few years ago for the first time since leaving when I was 12, it struck me how much stronger and more dominant the men there were compared to what I've seen in the U.S.

I'm not saying a man has to be big and strong for me to be attracted to him period because there are other traits that people find valuable and important. There are other ways to be "strong" than physically, including intellectual, strength through social value, and as you mentioned before money, it just depends on what traits are the most valuable to an individual in their mate. Nor do I think that jerks or *******s you see picking on people weaker than them to show off to their friends are appealing (imo that's a show of lack of self confidence. A confident man wouldn't feel the need to prove it to anybody). I'm saying many women will feel an initial attraction and/or curiosity when they see a tall, well built man on the street but not when they see a man who looks weak.

:bigsmile:I have been to Russia in 1988. I felt very secure, more so than in the USA in 1985. Form of Government is important I think. I am in favour of a Strong state to provide security. Security is productivity and pleasure in living. I am no communist however; I believe in diversity.

In Holland we have immigrants from all over the world. Has been like that for centuries. Even Descartes lived here a while, publishing his works. Now immigrants fall for expensive brands and cheap copies. Any-x-brand addict can tell the difference. Don't fake it !

Hope you will do good; marry for love, there is no security anyway.

PSHER:shifty:

1 Reply

@lazer,

Pepijn Sweep ..why do u type with big blue types?

1 Reply

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;141462 wrote:

:bigsmile:I have been to Russia in 1988. I felt very secure, more so than in the USA in 1985. Form of Government is important I think. I am in favour of a Strong state to provide security. Security is productivity and pleasure in living. I am no communist however; I believe in diversity.

In Holland we have immigrants from all over the world. Has been like that for centuries. Even Descartes lived here a while, publishing his works. Now immigrants fall for expensive brands and cheap copies. Any-x-brand addict can tell the difference. Don't fake it !

Hope you will do good; marry for love, there is no security anyway.

PSHER:shifty:

I don't know if I want to ever get married yet, but I'd certainly like to be in love Smile

But attraction is a part of love, and if feeling secure is a part of attraction then it's a part of love, too, right?

I wish I could remember more of what the Soviet Union was like, I was only about 3 years old when Ukraine became independent again. The photos and stories I read about it are fascinating.

I'm afraid I might be taking this thread off topic :S Sorry

1 Reply

@mister kitten,

Love is an illusion. Humans always wants security. Love is the mask!. Smile

1 Reply

@pondfish,

pondfish;141471 wrote:

Love is an illusion. Humans always wants security. Love is the mask!.

:bigsmile:So is Death. But since u do not exist u would not know how to die.
I love my Death-Mask. When u look at it ... well it makes me smile. At least one thing is certain 4 US mortals; we'll die.

Pepijn SH:lol:

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

If animals have instincts then humans have instincts. (survival, sex, sustenance and safety).

Humans have evolved from more primitive life forms and human brains contain many of the same structures as their reptilian and mammalian cousins.

It is true that human brains have developed a neo cortex which allows reason and experience to override emotional and reptilian instinctual responses but the neo-cortex works imperfectly and under severe stress behavior often is driven by emotion and instinct not by reason. Even in a less stressed state many behaviors are still emotively and instinctually driven despite our attempts to rationalize our behavior.

The reason why infants cannot survive in the forest is that when human infants are born they are not as mature biologically as other species. The typical explanation for that has to do with pelvic dimensions and head size: for that large brain after it matures does allow for significant survival advantages that the prolonged period of infant dependency makes worthwhile.

In any event I would say instincts and emotions account for the fact that what seems reasonable often is neither popular nor successful in society and politics.

0 Replies

@lazer,

Quote:

All lifeforms have natural instinct. All wants to survive. That is the code. It may not survive in some cases but that do not invalidate the code.

I don't think this is the case. It would seem that all lifeforms have the tendency to avoid discomfort and to procure comfort. They have done studies in which when a rat presses a button they are stimulated with extreme pleasure. The rats would prefer the button and its consequences over water and food, and would eventually die of exhaustion. This study suggests that rats don't have an instinct towards survival, only the drive to procure pleasure and avoid pain. This would seem to entail that the rats aren't self aware, and don't have a concept of non-existence, or death.

But since human drug addicts are prone to the same behavior, and we know that we are self-aware and have concepts of death and non-existence, this conclusion could be false.

Even with this consideration, this gives some insight into true instincts. The rats instinctual drive towards procuring pleasure and avoiding pain cannot be overridden. This is why the rat prefers pleasure even in the face of death.

Quote:

If animals have instincts then humans have instincts. (survival, sex, sustenance and safety).

Which brings me to the point that we no longer have instincts in the true animal sense. We can override all of the normal animal instincts. Certainly we still have drives that give us the inclination towards those behaviors, but we don't necessarily have to act on them. Survival can be overriden in the case of drug addicts who overdose, or by people who sacrifice themselves to save others. We all override the any instinct towards having sex every time we choose to not have sex with someone that we could have sex with. With sustenance, people have fasted for weeks, constantly overriding any drive to eat. The same argument against survival can be made against safety.

The only instinct I would accept as still present is the instinct of an infant to put anything it can touch into its mouth. That is an odd and (perhaps) irrational behavior that occurs naturally in all infants.

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

I am honored by your questions, king-from-the-sky.

Unfortunately, I can only expose my doubts and my disbelief in the conventional wisdom, I have no thorough explanation.

mister kitten;141378 wrote:

Instinct cannot be learned.
....
Instinct cannot be memorized.

That's the scientific orthodoxy. I should not contest that - but I'd like to.
It seems to me that this is a theoretical statement attempting to draw a line between what is innate, and therefore unlearned (because when and how could that have been learned?) and what is acquired (somehow, possibly through learning).

IMO instincts are a tricky customer to process with this approach. I have no discomfort in accepting as unlearned all human character relating to forms, such as combining each eye's image into stereoscopic imaging, the way we combine waves into sounds. The evolution theory provides comfortable explanations.
But instincts are dynamic, they prompt patterns of actions. How come this ?inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior? (the definition available in Wikipedia) is there?
If I want to stick with the evolution theory and stick with the assumptions that instincts are unlearned (and I don't exactly mean to contend that), either I assume that humans (and all living beings) have an inner database of all possible instincts and some of them are developed through evolution, or instincts are related to mutations. (The latter seems better). In both cases instincts would be rooted in physiology (genetics).
And I can live with that, maybe you too.
(Btw, I am no dualist and no realist either, so I am more playing with this than asserting it.)

Where do we go from here?
Well, I have no moral background leading me to see animal as the evil part of myself and human as the heavenly part (William, if you read this, absit iniuria verbis meis).
So I have no problem whatsoever in seeing no sharp line between instinct and thought - I believe they are the same thing only in different degrees.
To corroborate that let's use your bicycle.

mister kitten;141378 wrote:

...
Bike riding is learned-if I don't practice for a long time I can still go back to the bike and ride it.

Does instinct require no thought(s)?

When I ride my bike, or I drive my car, I don't think to what I am doing.
I learned that, and I learned it so well, that I need not to think about it while I'm doing it. Or, well, probably I think, but I am not aware of it.
Now, are those actions performed through unconscious thoughts different from an action prompted by instincts? I think that they are not so different, maybe only a (slight) difference in degree.

Hence I move to a more universal question: would some unconscious/inner/innate/physiological/genetical component influence or indeed determine all my thoughts?
(and I mean the intentional, meaningful content of a thought, not some biochemical process).
If yes, then the answer to your question is that humans are capable only of natural instincts - somehow...
(But I don't mean that ?we are only science?).

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

If you leave any new born organism with an evolved brain out in the woods, it'll die. It's a natural instinct for a baby to do anything. It's also a natural instinct for a newborn to learn skills that enable it to survive.

1 Reply

@Rwa001,

It's an instinct to make the noise, idiot.

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

Humans are only born with two natural instincts. 1. The instinct to seek pleasure and satisfaction. 2. The instinct to avoid pain and discomfort. Everything else is learned. Our two natural instincts are what compells us to be hunters and gatherers, inventers and explorers, builders and designers. Every moment of every day of our lives is driven by these two instincts.

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

We all have a strong set of instincts. We will all have the urge to mimmic eachother, but these instincts can be overwritten by social norms.
Our instincts may variate in stregth, and some has instincts that the other might not have.

0 Replies

@mister kitten,

First off you should start be re-analyzing(I'm not saying you haven't already) your use of the words 'humans', 'instinct' and 'natural'.

Regardless of the words we use, there is always a give-and-take process regarding definition for the sake of communicating. Having said that, it really isn't possible for anyone else to actually know what you mean when using these words, no matter how much two parties have agreed to agree.

Having said all that(and a little more) it is of no significance how you choose to describe your witnessing of previous events.(you'll notice that all speaking is a describing of previous event(s)

The only way it could matter to you is if you're trying to justify the way in which you have described these events through other people. The sooner you drop this 'turd' of your fore-mentioned scenario the better.

Now, as for the words you have used.

1. Humans

This is a word which is very indirect and we really don't know what is meant by it. The word 'humans' indicates that there would have to be a certain finite number of whichever/whomever this word is referencing. Therefore the word 'human' could arise, showing a singular count of the word. It could also be argued that this was the original form. I suggest that even you do not know what is meant by the word 'human', where are your exact perameters for making the distinction 'human' as is separate from anything else on the planet? In other words, what is your fundamental basis for definition?

2. Natural

This is an easy one, clearly a fallacy created for the promotion of itself, claiming to be 'superior' to the 'artificial'. It's a classic self-game-playing routine and I don't think I need to analyze it further.(although I will if you still feel the need)

3. Instinct

Within this word lies the hidden excuses for many things which you do. The only problem here is to realize that you don't really need any excuses, nor is there anyone who could excuse you. What I'm trying to get at with this post is that your original question is an attempt at word-play with yourself and are now including your 'playtime' to involve all those who are bored enough to entertain you.

One more thought on 'instinct', anything that anyone has ever done could just as easily be labled 'instictual' as distinct from any other type of behavior. That should be all the information you need to get past the 'turd', 'instincts'.

0 Replies

Humans and natural instinct.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know