Posted: Aug 23, 2010 2:58 pm
I can't seem to get this thread off my head. I thought of doing some research before I posted a reply but it is getting annoying so I'll have another dig. 
And you claim that the simpler behaviours are compiled together in exactly the same manner to give rise to complex behaviours of insects and higher cognitive functions in other 'higher' organisms? Sounds totally counter-intuitive to me.
Well, I don't know the exact definitions of the terms as used by pros in the field. What I find odd is that you mentioned 'reflexes' as being physiological in nature? What's the difference between the physiological and the psychological? Fixed neuronal circuits (immune to external modification) exist all over the body leading to what we call instincts/reflexes/FAPs.
Isn't it a good example of phylogenetic memory? It might be susceptible to future modification in the lifetime of the bird but it is surely inherited in its original unedited form across generations. Unless you propose some epigenetic mechanisms, conditioning has no effect in the way the circuit is transmitted through the genes.
I might have picked the wrong example. Maybe we could take the pupilary reflex which can be interpreted as 'fear of excess light'. But that's beside the point.
All I wanted to say was that majority of the neuronal wirings are not plastic enough so that we can modify them through external influence. This seems fairly obvious to me.
Really? I doubt that. In a species that has evolved from a jungle-life, catching a flying object without prior exposure to anything like it should come natural.
No way. How many catches do you think a child misses when he/she first goes out to play?
FIFY.
Are you serious? Catching a ball requires much more than a pair of eyes. Initial co-ordinates, estimated velocity, acceleration due to gravity, final position, percentage of fibers to contract in the respective muscles... You seriously believe that we learn each of these via a reinforcement mechanism by the age of 5?
Self-control? I doubt the term is even applicable to 99% of the species on the planet! To those whom it is applicable, it serves an evolutionary purpose and hence can be hijacked (although I am much skeptical about that) by behaviourists to do their research.
My apologies, I forgot that god created us to hold dominion over all animals..
We are animals! If we do it, then it is evidence that animals can do it since we are animals. We could train dogs or mice to be celibate if you like. And when I was a kid, my friend's hamster committed suicide. He had a massive cage for it and it climbed right up to the top tier, squeezed out of the top and jumped out. He found it dead on his floor after school. All the warning signs were there, but everyone thought the cuts on his wrist were just a cry for help...[/quote]
See above.
The whole of the human body is a plan FFS! How do you ditch that? Modifiable actions are so negligible that we might we might even consider them insignificant while looking at the broader picture from a Dobzhanskian perspective.
Name any behaviour and I'm sure I can show it to be more instinctual and less learned.
Mr.Samsa wrote:Because higher cognitive functions are the result of recursive simpler processes!
And you claim that the simpler behaviours are compiled together in exactly the same manner to give rise to complex behaviours of insects and higher cognitive functions in other 'higher' organisms? Sounds totally counter-intuitive to me.
I don't see where we're disagreeing here. What you've said is basically the same position as mine (except I'd quibble over the "slight modify" bit).
Instincts are an outdated concept that no longer have any place in science. This isn't to say that the concept underlying them is wrong, but the definition and typical understanding behind 'instinct' is misleading. The concept of instincts have been split into two areas: 1) reflexes and 2) fixed-action patterns. The former are basic cause and effect behaviors which are usually physiological in nature; for example, the knee jerk reaction. The latter are the more complex behaviors where there needs to be some kind of eliciting stimulus present in order to "trigger" the behavior ("trigger" is an inaccurate description of the process, but it's good enough for now); for example, the herring gulls pecking at the red spot. Don't believe me? Do a google scholar search for "instincts" in the last couple of decades and see how many articles you hit. Then do the same for "reflexes" and "fixed-action patterns". The advantage of the change in classification is that the "instinctual" processes now have more concrete definitions and they can be easily identified now, whereas with the term "instinct" the definition was so wibbly it was totally impractical.
Well, I don't know the exact definitions of the terms as used by pros in the field. What I find odd is that you mentioned 'reflexes' as being physiological in nature? What's the difference between the physiological and the psychological? Fixed neuronal circuits (immune to external modification) exist all over the body leading to what we call instincts/reflexes/FAPs.
And as for the example of the hatchlings, is that the one with the condor shadow? That was an interesting study where they flew the condor "puppet" over the birds to watch their behaviors. I can't remember the exact details of the study.. But the hatchlings didn't react when they flew the puppet backwards did they? And that's how they discovered that the response was a result of the specific shape, and not the shadow exactly. (Or something along those lines.. I read about it years ago).
Isn't it a good example of phylogenetic memory? It might be susceptible to future modification in the lifetime of the bird but it is surely inherited in its original unedited form across generations. Unless you propose some epigenetic mechanisms, conditioning has no effect in the way the circuit is transmitted through the genes.
Seriously, Nats? Give me something harder! Teaching a monkey not to be scared of a snake is like taking candy from a baby - or perhaps more accurately, training a baby to be afraid of cute white fluffy animals. That wasn't a serious request was it? Even if it wasn't the case that monkeys aren't innately afraid of snakes (Hinde (1991) discusses how monkeys raised in a lab don't have an aversion to snakes), changing fears and preferences toward things is one thing that we have perfected in behavioral science.
I might have picked the wrong example. Maybe we could take the pupilary reflex which can be interpreted as 'fear of excess light'. But that's beside the point.
All I wanted to say was that majority of the neuronal wirings are not plastic enough so that we can modify them through external influence. This seems fairly obvious to me.
Without any experience with flying basketballs or catching? The ball would hit me in the face.
Really? I doubt that. In a species that has evolved from a jungle-life, catching a flying object without prior exposure to anything like it should come natural.
The only exception is if I had experience with flying things in general, and at best I might be able to flap the ball away.
No way. How many catches do you think a child misses when he/she first goes out to play?
Judging the trajectory, assuming the final position, gauging the dimensions of the ball and moving your hands to catch them are all a result of learning how to catch a ball an inherited characteristic .
FIFY.
This isn't to say that we don't need the biological systems underpinning it all to make it possible - if we don't have eyes then we wouldn't be able to see it, without a decent memory no learning could take place, etc etc.
Are you serious? Catching a ball requires much more than a pair of eyes. Initial co-ordinates, estimated velocity, acceleration due to gravity, final position, percentage of fibers to contract in the respective muscles... You seriously believe that we learn each of these via a reinforcement mechanism by the age of 5?
natselrox wrote:Forgoing of immediate food for something later is often an evolutionary feature.
Oh no, my friend. Without training and experience, all animals are piss poor at self control.
Self-control? I doubt the term is even applicable to 99% of the species on the planet! To those whom it is applicable, it serves an evolutionary purpose and hence can be hijacked (although I am much skeptical about that) by behaviourists to do their research.
Preservation of life? Suicide.
Show me one example where an animal commits suicide before attaining the reproductive age.
My apologies, I forgot that god created us to hold dominion over all animals..
We are animals! If we do it, then it is evidence that animals can do it since we are animals. We could train dogs or mice to be celibate if you like. And when I was a kid, my friend's hamster committed suicide. He had a massive cage for it and it climbed right up to the top tier, squeezed out of the top and jumped out. He found it dead on his floor after school. All the warning signs were there, but everyone thought the cuts on his wrist were just a cry for help...[/quote]
See above.
Lorenz you mean? Yeah, but I'm not only referring to behaviors that only serve a purpose for infants. FAPs continue on into adulthood for a large number of species, and these are just as plastic as other behaviors. It's like we're given a basic template for how to behave in a standard environment, however, if the environment we find ourselves in is radically different in any way, we ditch the base plans and learn new things.
The whole of the human body is a plan FFS! How do you ditch that? Modifiable actions are so negligible that we might we might even consider them insignificant while looking at the broader picture from a Dobzhanskian perspective.
Incidentally, humans don't have any "instincts" or FAPs past the age of about 6 months. The only instinctual behaviors we have are a few reflexes and, arguably, yawning.
Name any behaviour and I'm sure I can show it to be more instinctual and less learned.
natselrox wrote:Of course, Darwin is outdated. His role may be valued in History books but Science is a cold and heartless bitch without any place for sentimental attachment or historical relevance.
Indeed. Just in case I was unclear above, my comment wasn't meant to be an attack on "your hero" - I was basically trying to say what you've just said with Darwin as an example.