mats_trash at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 23 15:05:46 EST 2002
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure.sah at guest.arnes.si> wrote in message news:<3C9B1288.4020DC07 at guest.arnes.si>...
> mat wrote:
> > Why are you so sure that all instinct is conscious and that we have
> > any power over it at all?
> I am not talking about a direct connection, but about an effect.
> 'Removing' an instinct does in fact result in loss of thinking capacity.
> Atho instincts are generally something we cannot control, it is
> obviously possible to ignore, for example, the instinct to bite one's
But thats not an instinct (as I take the meaning of the word anyway).
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'?
> > Surely instincts as genetically embedded
> > behaviour would just happen and we wouldn't feel of them as abnormal
> > or normal, just the way we are. Walking on two legs is instinctive,
> > you don't consciously decide to do it every time and you don't try and
> > counter it. It just is.
> Atho, you're trying to mix lower-level instincts (direct muscle control)
> with higher-level ones (require to have something in some way), it is
> still true that the instinct to walk on two legs is in fact consciously
> controllable and not exactly "just is". There are even different types
> of it (ranging from best stability, to best speed) and the different
> types are only consciously selectable, tho there always is a 'default'.
lower-level instincts are the only instincts. I don't have an
instinct to go to a restaurant and have chinese food, thats my
preference. My instinct is the need to eat becuase I'm hungry. The
higher-level phenomena that you are talking about are not really best
talked about as instinct
> > Most instincts aren't things you do, they are 'you'.
> So true. Then just tell me why can't you write that down in an official
> scientific statement, so that the people around me stop torturing me?
> > Taking hold of instincts requires you to be
> > totally self-conscious and able to see what you do for what it really
> > is. While humans undoubtedly have this ability of self-consciousness
> > to a greater extent than any other animal, I'm not convinced we are
> > completely self-aware.
> I think you might have misunderstood the mater a little, atho I am
> otherwise suprized of the level of understanding you show.
> The brain
> does not necessarily contain only one conscious "self", there are a few
> others, but they have other tasks, such as monitoring instinct,
> supporting general behavior and handling motoric coordination. This has
> been described in scientific papers, as I remember, as the Limbic and
> R-brain systems "hijacking" the neocortex's upper functions.
So which of these 'selves' are you? Surely if there were more than
one then when you weren't in control you would know about it? There
are different parts to a car, but there is still the singular 'car'.
Similarly, there are areas in the brain that control different aspects
of behaviour but there is a singular 'self'. This statement you make
is highly specualtive.
> This is nicely observable with abused individuals, who's inter-brain
> connections suffer highly (from instinct denial) and form various
> separate personalities all over the neocortex that flip into control and
> out at times and have diffirent access to various instincts.
Show me the evidence for this.
> Good for you. And lucky you that others didn't force you to deny your
You are again confusing instincts with preferences.
More information about the Neur-sci