Mr.Samsa wrote:For something to be an instinct, it has to be a stereotyped behavior. If the eliciting stimulus is a red dot, then every time a red dot is present, the behavior must occur. The behavior should not occur with a red square, or green circle. And the behavior must be the same each time, for example, if the behavior is pecking at their mother's beak, then it must follow the same sequence each and every time the red dot is present. They can't choose not to peck, they can't peck lightly one time, and then harder or more vigorously another time, etc.

Instinct requires the exact same stimulus to always elicit the exact same behavior, in all individuals within a species. If it doesn't meet those requirements, then it cannot be an instinct.

I prefer the way wikipedia defines it

Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.

Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.

Mr.Samsa wrote:This is necessarily true. For something to be an instinct, it has to be a stereotyped behavior

Maybe it's time to refine your definition of instinct, then:

http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/blog/101520111

Parasitic Wasp Makes Spiders Build Them a Special Web, Then Eats Them

The wasp is only modifying the expression of instinct in the spider, it is not genetically engineering it. There are other examples I could have given.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:This is necessarily true. For something to be an instinct, it has to be a stereotyped behavior

Maybe it's time to refine your definition of instinct, then:

http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/blog/101520111

Parasitic Wasp Makes Spiders Build Them a Special Web, Then Eats Them

The wasp is only modifying the expression of instinct in the spider, it is not genetically engineering it. There are other examples I could have given.

In this case (fascinating, thanks for the link, which links to the paper) the lava provides a stimulus that serves a proxy for normal stimuli that produce this spider behaviour.

There doesn't seem to any learning involved so all the behaviours can be labelled instinctive.

Overwintering behaviours are presumably stimulated by some combination of temperatures and daylight that produce a biochemical change in the spider that results in overwintering behaviour. The larva 'presses the button', perhaps by producing an equivalent biochemical change.

It is consistent with:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Instinct requires the exact same stimulus to always elicit the exact same behaviour, in all individuals within a species. If it doesn't meet those requirements, then it cannot be an instinct.

Frederico wrote:This means that on top of what we consider as a brain level where decisions are made consciously, there is an unconscious, decision making level who's really responsible for some of our acts.

Isn't that just our habits being faster than our conscious thoughts, like I've already posted about in various theads here? When you're not thinking where you're going, for example, your subconscious may decide to follow your habitual route too far, for example (when you originally intended to branch off it at some point, but got distracted), but eventually, your cerebrum realises that it was not paying sufficient attention, and overrides the habit, if it isn't too late.

DavidMcC wrote:eventually, your cerebrum realises that it was not paying sufficient attention, and overrides the habit, if it isn't too late.

The homunculus awakes and takes the wheel!

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:eventually, your cerebrum realises that it was not paying sufficient attention, and overrides the habit, if it isn't too late.

The homunculus awakes and takes the wheel!

Not quite, but close! My homunculus is the awareness by the cerebrum, via sensory input resulting from unconscious actions, carried out by its unconscious "alter ego" (probably the cerebellum). When the cerebrum catches the cerebellum red-handed, it may take the wheel.

Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

Here's another:
http://blogs.livingroutes.org/costa-rica-spring-2012/2012/04/18/a-tangled-web-of-murder/

In the forests of Costa Rica a tangled web is being spun by a controlling wasp!!

BTW, contrary to the article linked above, I do not think the hapless spider would be "freaking out", because that would imply that it was conscious. In reality, I think, as far as the spider is concerned, it is merely carrying out it's daily routine. Whether it notices anything odd or wrong, I do not know.

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

Also, how do you think epigenetics plays a role in this example?

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

Also, how do you think epigenetics plays a role in this example?

The point is that the expression of an instinct is not a fixed as Mr.Samsa would have us believe. The epigentic process is the interaction of the injected neurotransmitter with the "normal" expression mechanism. It occurs without genetic modification of the prey.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:eventually, your cerebrum realises that it was not paying sufficient attention, and overrides the habit, if it isn't too late.

The homunculus awakes and takes the wheel!

Not quite, but close! My homunculus is the awareness by the cerebrum, via sensory input resulting from unconscious actions, carried out by its unconscious "alter ego" (probably the cerebellum). When the cerebrum catches the cerebellum red-handed, it may take the wheel.

I don't recall much support for the cerebellum as the locus of instinct or unconscious (a term I disagree with) action.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

Also, how do you think epigenetics plays a role in this example?

The point is that the expression of an instinct is not a fixed as Mr.Samsa would have us believe. The epigentic process is the interaction of the injected neurotransmitter with the "normal" expression mechanism. It occurs without genetic modification of the prey.

But Graham's offered definition of learning as being the discriminating factor still stands. An instinct is prewired and definite as opposed to plastic. Of course some outlier mechanisms will fuzz the thing up a bit.

Okay we figured out that instinct is a crappy term that we can't agree on.O figured that out ten years ago. What is it's pertinence to this overall discussion?

GrahamH wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:For something to be an instinct, it has to be a stereotyped behavior. If the eliciting stimulus is a red dot, then every time a red dot is present, the behavior must occur. The behavior should not occur with a red square, or green circle. And the behavior must be the same each time, for example, if the behavior is pecking at their mother's beak, then it must follow the same sequence each and every time the red dot is present. They can't choose not to peck, they can't peck lightly one time, and then harder or more vigorously another time, etc.

Instinct requires the exact same stimulus to always elicit the exact same behavior, in all individuals within a species. If it doesn't meet those requirements, then it cannot be an instinct.

I prefer the way wikipedia defines it

Instinct or innate behavior is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior.

Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience, that is, in the absence of learning and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors.

"Instinctive" is a bit of a vague term with a troubled history, as I think Wikipedia touches on. I think the above is a better description of something like an innate predisposition, whereas "instinct" tends to contain behaviors like reflexes and fixed-action patterns. Essentially, this is why scientists don't use the term "instinct", it has too many interpretations and connotations.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:This is necessarily true. For something to be an instinct, it has to be a stereotyped behavior

Maybe it's time to refine your definition of instinct, then:

http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/blog/101520111

Parasitic Wasp Makes Spiders Build Them a Special Web, Then Eats Them

The wasp is only modifying the expression of instinct in the spider, it is not genetically engineering it. There are other examples I could have given.

It's not "my" definition, it's how the related concepts are used in biology and all behavioral-related sciences.

As Graham points out, you example doesn't contradict my point.

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

I think you have misunderstood what epigenetic means. The wasp doesn't change the genetics of the cockroach, it changes the chemistry in its brain. More importantly, damaging the part of the brain that elicits the instinctive escape reflex in the cockroach doesn't contradict the point that instincts are stereotyped responses, in the same way that removing someone's kneecaps and finding they no longer have the knee-jerk reflex when you hit their leg with a hammer doesn't invalidate the concept of a reflex.

Of course disrupting the brain structure, chemistry and signals can affect instinctive behavior, because instinctive behavior comes from the brain. It does nothing to change the definition of instinct though.

DavidMcC wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:Graham, I guess I found a bad example of what I meant. Here's a better one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerald_cockroach_wasp#Reproductive_behavior_and_life_cycle
This is definitely an example of epigentic modification of instinctive behaviour.

I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

Also, how do you think epigenetics plays a role in this example?

The point is that the expression of an instinct is not a fixed as Mr.Samsa would have us believe. The epigentic process is the interaction of the injected neurotransmitter with the "normal" expression mechanism. It occurs without genetic modification of the prey.

The injection of neurotransmitter (or some other event) is a stimulus triggering instinctive behaviours (web spinning), or disrupting instinctive behaviours (suppression of escape response).

Mr.Samsa claimed that stimulus A always produces response B. This remains the case in your examples. If you disagree please spell out the issue.)

Mr.Samsa did not say that only A could produce response B. Some other event that produces the same 'signal' as A will also produce response B.

I'm not sure you are using 'epigenetic' correctly.
You seem to be talking about non-heritable biological effects.

wikipedia wrote:In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence

[Edit] Ah, Mr.Samsa beat me to it.

No problem, you explained it much more articulately than I did.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I would have agreed with him on the two kinds of imagers being a reporting difference. I was wrong. I am anxious to see what kinds of increased activity is seen and in which areas. When arguing in the philosophy section I have had suspicions that some people imagine more like they sense. I do not. My imagined visuals are insipid while my visual sense is incredibly lurid. Particularly colors.

My own experience of bringing past visual experience into working memory is that it is a trick that can be learned, with effort. I might not be typical, but I find that I can recall "vivid impressions", IF I try hard enough. So, sometimes I have a "lurid"memory, sometimes not. Said "vivid" impressions still lack the minutiae that would enable me to count the visible cornflakes, however, so it can be "lurid" without being detailed. Some people can recall such detail, and I would describe them as "having a true photographic memory". The term "photographic memory" has been much misused, and it is now common to dismiss it as "folklore". However, one particular woman has been found to have a very powerful visual memory:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-04/ff_perfectmemory
Her memory for dates probably arises from being able to read the text she has in her visual memory.
BTW, the important role of the hippocampus in memory does not necesarily mean that it IS the memory. I think its function may be to write/read the memory from the store to the working memory. The only structure with enough synapses to act as the actual memory is surely the cerebellum, which has the great majority of the neurons ibn the brain , in the form of granule cells, contacted by Purkinje cells.
It would be intersting to know whether there was anything unusual about Price's retinae. Eg, the size of her yellow spots, and the size of the cone cells within them.

I agree that lurid recall is probably learned.

The cerebellum is primarily a prediction and correction device. Kind of like a gyroscope. You will not find much support for episodic memory there. The HC is implicated very seriously in episodic memory. Together with it's 'wrappings' PHC, Ec, it seems to be a data indexing and compression system. But it codes time and space place maps most surely.

On the IS memory, remember that I am not much a fan of the IS.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Okay we figured out that instinct is a crappy term that we can't agree on.O figured that out ten years ago. What is it's pertinence to this overall discussion?

It is only "crappy" because it historically includes several different processes, such as reflex reactions, and various "folk" uses, which includes learned habits (and which actually replace reptilian-style instincts, but are not of genetic origin).
The pertinence of true "genetic"instincts to the OP topic is that the mammalian replacement of reptilian instincts with learned habits requires conscious study by the infant to acquire good habits, so that it might survive without the instincts that might anyhow have become inappropriate, due to changes in the locakl environment that may occur faster than evolution can keep up with. Thus my version of mammalian C is a product of that evolution. It's what I've been saying all along in these threads.