SOUL - Who? What? Where?

Bad mood, baby?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually that's precisely what you don't posses Sam. Instinct is "inborn knowledge" everything that you know, you have learned, nothing is inborn. Your brain as a baby girl was a blank slate. This is the reason why I implied to LG in another thread: ( "religion" claims automatic knowledge ) There is no such thing as "just knowing" a hunch, a feeling, all of these are just subjective things, that you believe to be true, but in fact it may not be as you wish or believe.

BTW LG this morning when I posted, there was no poll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Godless

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everything I know I have learned?

Nope I don't believe that at all. We are all born with an instinct for hunger. We recognise and accept sweet tastes as babies, because we instinctively recognise them as a source of energy, we reject bitter tastes as they are not.

We have an instinctive desire for love as well as shown by the stunted growth and poor survival rate of children who are not "handled" after birth.

Do you consider these behaviours as learned?

We use instinctive behaviours in babies as milestones of development:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Concepts of innateness were at the heart of Darwin's approach to behavior and central to the ethological theorizing of Lorenz and, at least to start with, of Tinbergen. Then Tinbergen did an about face, and for some twenty years the term 'innate' became highly suspect. He attributed the change to Lehrman's famous 1953 critique in which he asserted that classifying behaviors as innate tells us nothing about how they develop. Although Lehrman made many valid points, I will argue that this exchange also led to profound misunderstandings that were ultimately damaging to progress in research on the development of behavior. The concept of 'instincts to learn', receiving renewed support from current theorizing among geneticists about phenotypic plasticity, provides a potential resolution of some of the controversies that Lehrman created. Bioacoustical studies, particularly on song learning in birds, serve both to confirm some of Lehrman's anxieties about the term 'innate', but also to make a case that he threw out the genetic baby with the bathwater. The breathtaking progress in molecular and developmental genetics has prepared the way for a fuller understanding of the complexities underlying even the simplest notions of innate behavior, necessary before we can begin to comprehend the ontogeny of behavior.

 

NATURAL PHENOMENA
Most people call natural phenomena such as various survival and mating behaviors "instinct". But "instinct" is a mystical term that does not exist in humans or in animals. The term "instinct" implies inborn or innate knowledge, which is a false notion. The use of "instinct" to explain behavior is to explain nothing. Moreover, the "instinct" explanation closes further investigation into that which is not yet understood or known. "Instinct" is a mystical, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific term. For, accepting that catchall term as an explanation precludes further intellectual and scientific efforts to discover the reasons for various behaviors. Accepting "instinct" as an explanation for any human behavior constitutes accepting the mystical concept that knowledge can be inborn or innately acquired without the self-efforts required for acquiring all knowledge. Likewise, all living species function through definable, understandable biological actions and reactions, not through undefinable, mystical "instincts". To explain anything as "instinct" is a default to the mystic's desire for automatic, inborn, effortless knowledge.
click

Instinct for hunger? LOL.. that's not instinct, that is natural stimuly, you feel pain in your tummy feeding yourself causes the pain to go away.

Reflexes are instincts? LOL... Yea right! and the sourse, some mythical based study, right, no. Reflexes are naturally caused by electrical stimuli in the brain, that's why the baby wigles it's toes. Instinct is just simply something that does not exist. It's a term used to give up, of how the knowledge was aquired, but easily explained. Your subconscious is like a computer, it records everything you have experienced since your little buns got slaped, and you awaken to this cruel world. With that your "computer-subcounsciousness" starts recording every single second of life experience. You actually learned everything you know from the get go, your tabula raza begins to fill.

Godless

 

We do indeed speak readily of bird songs as innate or learned. Songs of the North American flycatchers (family Tyrannidae) are clearly innate; the song of the Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe develops normally in a bird raised in social isolation (Kroodsma and Konishi 1991). On the other hand, songs of sparrows (family Emberizidae) are learned; in nature songs develop very differently from when male sparrows are raised out of hearing of their own kind. Because sparrows copy tutors in detail, we don't hesitate to classify these as learned songs and this classification may serve some value in preparing us for the likelihood that patterns of natural song variation will be very different in sparrows and flycatchers. But the more you think about it the less straightforward this labeling procedure really is, raising all the questions that Lehrman was so concerned about. If we conclude that flycatcher songs are innate, and sparrow songs are not innate, does it follow that concepts of innateness have no relevance at all to song development in sparrows? The answer is unclear. A Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia raised in isolation produces an isolate song that is clearly abnormal, but if we examine it closely, there are still quite a few Song Sparrow-like features (Marler and Sherman 1985). It has several parts, like normal song, with a pure tonal quality and a normal overall duration (Fig. 3). What do these normal features of isolate song represent? Are they innate? If so, how should we interpret the abnormal aspects of isolate song? Perhaps it would be useful to regard song as a kind of mosaic and to classify some features as innate, and others as not innate?

 

You did not address the issue of sweetness vs. bitterness.

Why do babies like sweet taste but not bitter?

After all, adults drink black coffee which is bitter, so why do babies reject a bitter taste?

 

Ayn Rand believed that human nature is fixed. What separates men from animals is their rationality. Although man is a physical entity, his mind cannot be reduced entirely to his brain or body.

Based on a review of her mature philosophy as expressed in Atlas Shrugged and her essays, Rand rejects the idea that man has innate instincts or drives.[3] In “Galt Speaks,” Rand defines “instinct” as “an unerring and automatic form of knowledge.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, pp. 121-22.) Needless to say, she repeatedly rejected any automatic form of knowledge. She concedes that there is a “desire to live,” but asserts that it is not “automatic.” (p. 122.) She explicitly denies that man has a tendency to evil. (p. 137; see also p. 21.)[4] On the other hand, she likely rejected the concept that man has a tendency to good. And, it is important to realize, in spite of Rand’s optimistic view of human nature, her judgment on history was for the most part negative.Click

 

Sam we are moving kind of fast here. Give me a break!

Kids reaction to bitter taste to sweet is not "insnitntual" it's experimention, his brain rejects the bitter taste compared to the sweet, but not all kids were alike, I for one as a child loved coffee.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Beer and Champane. As an adult however I don't like the taste of beer, Champane, and do drink coffee with plenty of sugar. lol..

 

Newborn reflexes:

(I'm guessing you don't have children)
These reflexes are a standard in the medical profession; ask any pediatrician.

http://wo-pub2.med.cornell.edu/cgi-...s&contentID=2630&wosid=tbVOT3562bonWLEArJTk7M

The following are some of the normal reflexes seen in newborn babies:

* root reflex
This reflex begins when the corner of the baby's mouth is stroked or touched. The baby will turn his/her head and open his/her mouth to follow and "root" in the direction of the stroking. This helps the baby find the breast or bottle to begin feeding.

* suck reflex
Rooting helps the baby become ready to suck. When the roof of the baby's mouth is touched, the baby will begin to suck. This reflex does not begin until about the 32nd week of pregnancy and is not fully developed until about 36 weeks. Premature babies may have a weak or immature sucking ability because of this. Babies also have a hand-to-mouth reflex that goes with rooting and sucking and may suck on fingers or hands.

* Moro reflex
The Moro reflex is often called a startle reflex because it usually occurs when a baby is startled by a loud sound or movement. In response to the sound, the baby throws back his/her head, extends out the arms and legs, cries, then pulls the arms and legs back in. A baby's own cry can startle him/her and begin this reflex. This reflex lasts about five to six months.

* tonic neck reflex
When a baby's head is turned to one side, the arm on that side stretches out and the opposite arm bends up at the elbow. This is often called the "fencing" position. The tonic neck reflex lasts about six to seven months.

* grasp reflex
Stroking the palm of a baby's hand causes the baby to close his/her fingers in a grasp. The grasp reflex lasts only a couple of months and is stronger in premature babies.

* Babinski reflex
When the sole of the foot is firmly stroked, the big toe bends back toward the top of the foot and the other toes fan out. This is a normal reflex up to about 2 years of age.

* step reflex
This reflex is also called the walking or dance reflex because a baby appears to take steps or dance when held upright with his/her feet touching a solid surface.

 

I'm not talking about kids, I'm talking about newborn babies.

Try this experiment if you can get hold of a baby- let the baby taste honey or bitter chocolate.

 

You take the word of a philosopher (who was an objectivist and had no concept of the importance of the society to the normal development of the individual) to that of medical doctors?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

All without even reading it all, is natural stimuli. NOT imbread knowledge. To explain somethiing as "imbread knowledge" is nothing more then a rejection for further research in stimuly behavior. All puppies learn to fight for their chance at the bitch's tits, the puppy does not "automatically" know were the tit is located, this is a learned behavior.. Same as the kid. Don't understemate the power of your computer-subconcsciousness recording everysecond of your life.

 

Medical doctors make assumptions as well. That can't be proven.

 

Ignoring the fact that there may be innate causes of behaviour will hamper research, not help it.

Looks like athiests are going to have their own version of science in a few years, based on their views of what is "fact".

 

Explain the song birds.

 

You might check David Buss's text "Evolutionary Psychology". In the field of human evolutionary psychology you will often come accross terms like evolved psychological mechanisms in place of instincts. Terms like this may better characterize the species and individual variation and flexibility of brain/mental/behavioral events better. There is still the assumption that genes can to some degree influence brain structure and activity, which can influence thought and behavior. How important the environment is may vary considerably with the particular type of activity (and the particular individual). Psychologist's are often particularly interested in the part of the environment that makes up psychological experiences and learning.

Click

At least I'm not alone in this! LOL..

 

They heard songs when they were chicks!! LOL... Learned.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Calling Ayn Rand a philosopher is perhaps giving her too much credit.

 

Another idiot who thinks he knows Ayn Rand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
See there "American Philosopher" non other than Sam's favorite Ref. Site too. Wiki.