Mr.Samsa, w/r to the "quantity becoming quality", perhaps the most relevant point is not from astronomy, but brain science - correct me if I'm wrong, but habits appear to be the result of a high degree of reinforcement of a given path in the brain. The most reinforced ones are our habits, presumably. Repeated use of one particular path (especially early on in life) leads to its reinforcement in a way known as "learning", as I understand it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:There is currently no evidence for any kind of innate or biological self-preservation instinct or sex drive. This doesn't mean that we don't value life or that we don't have urges to have sex, just that these don't meet the criteria for being instincts. As direct disproof of the claim, keep in mind that instincts need to be universal across all individuals within a species: people who commit suicide, and asexuals, automatically disqualify them from being instincts.

I don't think it's possible to define any property to exist in every individual within a species. In that sense life is statistical, not absolute; exceptions can always be found. For instance, there exist two-headed animals (even humans); still we don't define that the number of animals' heads varies. If that kind of definition concerning instincts exist, then something is wrong. What it is, I don't know.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:True, we can break habits by thinking about it. But the problem is that the choice to think about it, and to change our habits, are formed by the same processes that generate our habits.

Sometimes, quantity becomes quality, as they say. The threshold for this to occur is clearly lower when we are young. Your argument could be used to claim that there is no difference between a star like the sun and a black hole, because they were formed by the same process of gravitational collapse of gas.

Except the difference is that free will and habits are the processes that underpin them, whereas stars and black holes are objects.

DavidMcC wrote:

... people who commit suicide, and asexuals, automatically disqualify them from being instincts.

I disagree that they are disproof of instinct.

They weren't intended to be disproof of the concept of instinct itself, but a disproof of a survival and sex instinct.

DavidMcC wrote:They merely show that (a) instincts are vague,

Instincts cannot be vague, by definition. Instincts are necessarily rigid, unchanging, and universal across all individuals within a species. If it doesn't meet those criteria (among others) then it's not an instinct.

DavidMcC wrote:and (b) these examples are more complex than just instinct, because they are profoundly influenced by hormones acting within the brain.

Indeed, I agree that they are more complex than instinct. So much so, that I don't think it's necessary to even consider instincts when discussing them.

DavidMcC wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

Take the page with a grain of salt. The page on instinct there is massively under-referenced, and is quite vague.

DavidMcC wrote:Mr.Samsa, w/r to the "quantity becoming quality", perhaps the most relevant point is not from astronomy, but brain science - correct me if I'm wrong, but habits appear to be the result of a high degree of reinforcement of a given path in the brain. The most reinforced ones are our habits, presumably. Repeated use of one particular path (especially early on in life) leads to its reinforcement in a way known as "learning", as I understand it.

And our choices come about through reinforcement of the pathways too. As such, the laws which underpin, describe, predict and explain the habits of Pavlov's dogs as they salivated to the sound of a bell, also underpin, describe, predict and explain complex human choice (e.g. choosing who to converse with at a dinner table).

Rilx wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:There is currently no evidence for any kind of innate or biological self-preservation instinct or sex drive. This doesn't mean that we don't value life or that we don't have urges to have sex, just that these don't meet the criteria for being instincts. As direct disproof of the claim, keep in mind that instincts need to be universal across all individuals within a species: people who commit suicide, and asexuals, automatically disqualify them from being instincts.

I don't think it's possible to define any property to exist in every individual within a species. In that sense life is statistical, not absolute; exceptions can always be found. For instance, there exist two-headed animals (even humans); still we don't define that the number of animals' heads varies. If that kind of definition concerning instincts exist, then something is wrong. What it is, I don't know.

Certainly - it does allow for genetic abnormalities and neural defects etc as obviously there will be malformed individuals who lack the brain architecture required to perform such actions. The description of it being "universal" is just a more general way of saying that is it universal in all healthy individuals.

DavidMcC wrote:Does that make the Hameroff-Penrose theory of quantum consciousness (supposedly linked to the quantization of space) correct as well, because Hameroff is a biologist?

I think not. The Sam Harris theory of "no free will" plays on the combination of three factors:
1. an ancient Eastern philosophy;

2. a dubious experiment by Libet (in which the subjects are asked not to think before they act);

3. the association of the concept of "free will" with a bible story, instead of with mammalian evolution (mammals have to learn how to survive, rather than having it mainly pre-programmed in their genes)!

which eastern philosophy?

I'm no expert on oriental philosophies, but I'm guessing that Harris was influenced by Buddhism.

DavidMcC wrote:I'm no expert on oriental philosophies, but I'm guessing that Harris was influenced by Buddhism.

and it has no free will?.

and it has no free will?

I guess not, perhaps on the dubious basis that time only happens once, so that everything becomes somehow pre-ordained. A (presumed) Buddhist on the Dawkins site made this his main line of reasoning, but I do not accept it, because unpredictability remains even with time only happening once.

DavidMcC wrote:

and it has no free will?

I guess not, perhaps on the dubious basis that time only happens once, so that everything becomes somehow pre-ordained. A (presumed) Buddhist on the Dawkins site made this his main line of reasoning, but I do not accept it, because unpredictability remains even with time only happening once.

i dont think they thought seriously abt time, I would like sources if possible

Cavarka, as I'm not interested in ancient philosophies myself, don't expect that kind of reference! I only cited the issue of Buddhism because I suspect that it is a source of MISunderstanding of the issue of free will, not understanding! I am aware that Harris's wife was/is a Buddhist, so maybe she could be a source, I don't know. Perhaps someone on the other side of this debate could supply references.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Instincts cannot be vague, by definition. Instincts are necessarily rigid, unchanging, and universal across all individuals within a species. If it doesn't meet those criteria (among others) then it's not an instinct.

I don't care what you want to call it, what matters is that it relates to what you call "fixed pattern actions" (except that even that is inappropriate to the biological reality of hormone-influenced innate behaviour, which is only as fixed as the hormones, a fact that gets exploited by some parasitic wasps, which "judiciously" inject a bit of "alien" hormone to modify prey innate behaviour).

Back to the main issue, which is that reinforcement of behaviour (ie, learning by experience) was a big advantage to the mammal-like reptiles during the Permian-Triassic envrironmental crisis, one which (IMO) ultimately lead to mammalian psychology becoming dominant over reptilian "instinct".

... I left out that mammalian parental care (through milk, protection and "education") must also thave been part of the evolutionary package, as it enables an initial period of learning about the environment by the offspring, ie, appropriate neural paths are reinforced. Reptiles are born with mainly pre-formed paths, which are therefore inflexible to environmental crises. This is why it is so much harder to return captive-bred mammals to the wild compared with captive-bred reptiles (who "instinctively" know more-or-less what to do to survive, without being taught).

DavidMcC wrote:I don't care what you want to call it, what matters is that it relates to what you call "fixed pattern actions" (except that even that is inappropriate to the biological reality of hormone-influenced innate behaviour, which is only as fixed as the hormones, a fact that gets exploited by some parasitic wasps, which "judiciously" inject a bit of "alien" hormone to modify prey innate behaviour).

Sorry if I got too pedantic on it. I think what you're describing is usually just called an innate predisposition. The class of "instincts" (and their more modern processes) refer to things which are more specific than what you're describing - e.g. the knee-jerk reflex.

DavidMcC wrote:Back to the main issue, which is that reinforcement of behaviour (ie, learning by experience) was a big advantage to the mammal-like reptiles during the Permian-Triassic envrironmental crisis, one which (IMO) ultimately lead to mammalian psychology becoming dominant over reptilian "instinct".

I agree somewhat, but you need to go much further back than that. Learning by experience is fundamental to all animals (and, as some researchers argue, all living things - including plants), and so it necessarily had to pop up well before mammals. An organism that cannot learn simply would not survive very long. Even simple organisms like insects, or single-celled organisms, learn by experience. So it's a bit misleading to think of us having to 'overcome' instinct, in a near-Freudian sense where we're "battling" with unconscious desires, since behavior just doesn't work like that - both in our evolutionary history, and within our own lifetimes.

If your point was more that mammals are less "instinct-based" and more responsive to their environment, then that's still a difficult claim to make. Ignoring the obviously more intelligent non-mammalian possibilities (e.g. birds, fish, etc), even invertebrates like octopi and (as mentioned above) insects demonstrate massive amounts of learning within their own lives.

DavidMcC wrote:... I left out that mammalian parental care (through milk, protection and "education") must also thave been part of the evolutionary package, as it enables an initial period of learning about the environment by the offspring, ie, appropriate neural paths are reinforced. Reptiles are born with mainly pre-formed paths, which are therefore inflexible to environmental crises. This is why it is so much harder to return captive-bred mammals to the wild compared with captive-bred reptiles (who "instinctively" know more-or-less what to do to survive, without being taught).

Certainly, some basic responses like walking and swimming appear to be (at least roughly) set in stone for creatures like reptiles. But of course, this is less relevant when it comes to the question of free will though, isn't it? Given that the choices and decisions made by these reptiles are not set in stone, and not instinctual.

But of course, this is less relevant when it comes to the question of free will though, isn't it? Given that the choices and decisions made by these reptiles are not set in stone, and not instinctual.

I was going to adfd this, Mr.Samsa:

The biggest problem young mammals face is to learn appropriate habits, because these bypass thinking, which takes time - time that could result in death in an urgent situation. These habits effectively reduce their "free will", but most mammals (especially social mammals) still retain some, for use when time isn't of the essence.

It is true that some reptiles learn (especially crocodilians), and this suggests that these species either split off during the same PT crisis (in a less strong response to the same environmental issues), or independently evolved a similar mental capacity to "think about problems" instead of a 100% "gut response" associated with most reptiles.

On "vagueness": what could be vaguer than no reference to biological development or evolution? That is the criticism I have of the "pure psychology" approach. (It is unfortunate that "evolutionary psychology" became mired in human politics, due to attempts to misuse it for political purposes, instead of being properly developed.)

Sorry for the slow reply, David.

DavidMcC wrote:

But of course, this is less relevant when it comes to the question of free will though, isn't it? Given that the choices and decisions made by these reptiles are not set in stone, and not instinctual.

I was going to adfd this, Mr.Samsa:

The biggest problem young mammals face is to learn appropriate habits, because these bypass thinking, which takes time - time that could result in death in an urgent situation. These habits effectively reduce their "free will", but most mammals (especially social mammals) still retain some, for use when time isn't of the essence.

I'm not quite sure how you're using "habit" here, as it seems to encompass anything we learn.

DavidMcC wrote:It is true that some reptiles learn (especially crocodilians), and this suggests that these species either split off during the same PT crisis (in a less strong response to the same environmental issues), or independently evolved a similar mental capacity to "think about problems" instead of a 100% "gut response" associated with most reptiles.

Well, again I'd point out that all living things learn, to a greater or lesser degree, and it's not really accurate to describe any animal as responding with a "100% gut response" - certainly not a class of animal like reptiles, which are capable of complex and advanced learning and cognitive processes.

DavidMcC wrote:On "vagueness": what could be vaguer than no reference to biological development or evolution? That is the criticism I have of the "pure psychology" approach.

I'm not sure what you mean by no reference to biological development or evolution? The concepts of reflex and FAPs (the modern understanding of "instinct") are grounded in evolution and biology. A necessary part of their definition is that they are inheritable, and that they are subject to evolutionary processes.

What do you mean by "pure" psychology?

Mr.Samsa" wrote:I'm not quite sure how you're using "habit" here, as it seems to encompass anything we learn.

That's more-or-less it, because a habit does not have to be an actual behaviour, it can be a thought as well, even if that thought does not lead to actual behaviour.

Well, again I'd point out that all living things learn, to a greater or lesser degree, and it's not really accurate to describe any animal as responding with a "100% gut response" - certainly not a class of animal like reptiles, which are capable of complex and advanced learning and cognitive processes.

True in a sense, and, strictly speaking, the extent to which animals learn is a matter of degree. However, there are significant differences between, say mammals and reptiles. Nobody, to my knowledge, has difficulty putting captive bred reptiles back to the wild, as long as they can find a suitable location. for it. There is no evidence that juvenile reptiles panic if dumped in the wild, the way many mammals would. The "100% gut response" may be an exaggeration, but not a major one, as reptilian learning seems to be only a matter of "fine-tuning" on instinct - they are not learning how to be whatever species they are, presumably because they hatch with enough neuronal patterning to manage. Web-spinning spiders, for example, do not need to be taught by their mothers how to spin a web. Even the "clever" portia is only going through a more complex version of an FAP when hunting, with conditional branches in it, IMO.

The concepts of reflex and FAPs (the modern understanding of "instinct") are grounded in evolution and biology.

Indeed, they are, but you have only referred to them as more precise terminology, no more than that. I am happy to use them as appropriate, but this does not change my perception of free will being something that is not falsified by the Libet experiments, or any other. All Libet showed is that, if asked, we can act unthinkingly, allowing the subconscious to take control, in addition to doing so by habit.
In short, I am claiming that certain evolutionary periods on Earth (such as the PT and KT crises) lead to selection for learning in mammals more than for other groups, basically because of "mother's milk", which allows for more extensive learning - while various non-mammals exhibit parental protection to some extent or other, it is in the social mammals that this reaches its height. I am merely claiming that there is a relationship between learning (particularly when there is uncertainty about it) and the ability to over-ride instinct (and even learned habit). I included the PT crisis, because it is likely that the mammal-like reptiles that were arojund at that time, would also have begun to replace instinct with habit, because habits are not automatically inherited from parents, and are therefore more flexible than instinct in a changing environment. (I use the word instinct above as a short-hand for what would mainly be FAPs, I guess.)
My use of the term "pure psychology" was aimed at the "no free will"-ers, who try to use Libet's experiment to show that we have no way to consciously over-ride our FAPs, because they think that that concept "leads to an infinite regress". I refute that, on the basis of the slight tiome delay between the "instinctive/habitual" action and the "free won't" over-ride.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I'm not quite sure how you're using "habit" here, as it seems to encompass anything we learn.

That's more-or-less it, because a habit does not have to be an actual behaviour, it can be a thought as well, even if that thought does not lead to actual behaviour.

But that would also necessarily include "freely willed" choices, because they are learnt too (necessarily, since our choices are reliant on environmental factors, otherwise we aren't choosing anything at all but rather just behaving at random).

DavidMcC wrote:

Well, again I'd point out that all living things learn, to a greater or lesser degree, and it's not really accurate to describe any animal as responding with a "100% gut response" - certainly not a class of animal like reptiles, which are capable of complex and advanced learning and cognitive processes.

True in a sense, and, strictly speaking, the extent to which animals learn is a matter of degree. However, there are significant differences between, say mammals and reptiles. Nobody, to my knowledge, has difficulty putting captive bred reptiles back to the wild, as long as they can find a suitable location. for it. There is no evidence that juvenile reptiles panic if dumped in the wild, the way many mammals would. The "100% gut response" may be an exaggeration, but not a major one, as reptilian learning seems to be only a matter of "fine-tuning" on instinct - they are not learning how to be whatever species they are, presumably because they hatch with enough neuronal patterning to manage.

Reptiles are just as problematic when being returned to the wild as mammals. Without being trained how to survive in the wild, and how to hunt etc, most captive-raised reptiles die - this is why exotic pet owners are warned to be extra careful that their pets don't escape, because they quickly perish. Reptiles simply aren't as instinctual as you seem to be imagining, and there is certainly not a clear divide between reptiles and mammals.

DavidMcC wrote:Web-spinning spiders, for example, do not need to be taught by their mothers how to spin a web. Even the "clever" portia is only going through a more complex version of an FAP when hunting, with conditional branches in it, IMO.

Certainly, not all behaviors are learnt, and for some animals very important behaviors are innate rather than learnt. But I don't think this really causes us to question their choices, as obviously their behaviors are not limited to these "instinctual" behaviors.

DavidMcC wrote:

The concepts of reflex and FAPs (the modern understanding of "instinct") are grounded in evolution and biology.

Indeed, they are, but you have only referred to them as more precise terminology, no more than that. I am happy to use them as appropriate, but this does not change my perception of free will being something that is not falsified by the Libet experiments, or any other. All Libet showed is that, if asked, we can act unthinkingly, allowing the subconscious to take control, in addition to doing so by habit.

I agree with your criticisms of Libet. What I struggle to line up with free will, however, is the finding that we can predict the behavior of subjects well-beforehand (i.e. days, weeks, months, whatever) even if we give them the chance to concentrate and 'freely' choose their option. This is because their behaviors are governed by the same basic laws as our habits are, and are just as predictable. If free will can be argued to be consistent with being predicted beforehand using determining external variables as predictors, then that becomes a more complicated discussion and one that probably can't be solved by science.

DavidMcC wrote:In short, I am claiming that certain evolutionary periods on Earth (such as the PT and KT crises) lead to selection for learning in mammals more than for other groups, basically because of "mother's milk", which allows for more extensive learning - while various non-mammals exhibit parental protection to some extent or other, it is in the social mammals that this reaches its height. I am merely claiming that there is a relationship between learning (particularly when there is uncertainty about it) and the ability to over-ride instinct (and even learned habit). I included the PT crisis, because it is likely that the mammal-like reptiles that were arojund at that time, would also have begun to replace instinct with habit, because habits are not automatically inherited from parents, and are therefore more flexible than instinct in a changing environment. (I use the word instinct above as a short-hand for what would mainly be FAPs, I guess.)

I just can't agree with this. Given all the experiments I've seen or read on various animals (from insects to reptiles to mammals and humans), I just don't think an argument can be made to justify the idea that there is any significant difference in the learning between them all. At least not an evolutionary argument that a greater emphasis on learning popped up in fairly recent (relatively speaking) evolutionary history. If these learning mechanisms popped up separately, then why would they all be explained by the exact same laws of learning? Surely there would be some variation.

DavidMcC wrote:My use of the term "pure psychology" was aimed at the "no free will"-ers, who try to use Libet's experiment to show that we have no way to consciously over-ride our FAPs, because they think that that concept "leads to an infinite regress". I refute that, on the basis of the slight tiome delay between the "instinctive/habitual" action and the "free won't" over-ride.

I think most psychologists reject free will because free will would make the study of psychology practically impossible (at least the libertarian form would). If subjects could behave however they wanted, at their own discretion and choice, and respond differently to the same stimuli according to their own wishes and wills, then the behavior of these subjects would be incredibly difficult to predict. But what we actually find is that our subjects are really easy to predict. So to accept free will, we have to argue for a form of free will which is consistent with choice being a direct function of external variables.

Mr.Samsa wrote:"But that would also necessarily include "freely willed" choices, because they are learnt too...

Habits are indeed learned, not inherited - that is part of my point. They effectively replace the detailed FAPs that many other species have, but we apparently don't. However, they are not as fixed as FAPs - we can willfully change our habits, unlike our genes.

I agree with your criticisms of Libet. What I struggle to line up with free will, however, is the finding that we can predict the behavior of subjects well-beforehand ...

Eh? My point, was always exactly that we cannot predict beforehand, which is part of the problem with instinct, especially when it comes to the behaviour of others with a free will! The usefulness of learned habits to most mammals does not extend to making precise predictions, although it is useful to have learnt what a particular predator or prey animal is likely to do in the given circumstances, by watching them while under mother/family's protection.

I just can't agree with this.

Have you seen the work on saving endangered mammals, in which it has been found necesary not only to feed orphaned mammals (be they cheetahs, orangutans, or whatever), but also to teach them how to survive in the wild, if they are to be sucessfully returned to the wild. Check the work of Lone Nielsen (orangutans), Eugene Cussens (chimpanzees), and various others, who have dedicated themselves to saving specific endangered mammals. Compared to that work, saving reptiles is a doddle, provided the environment they need is there, and there aren't too many poachers.

I think most psychologists reject free will because free will would make the study of psychology practically impossible...

Firstly, that is not a reason for rejecting the idea, and secondly, the reduction in "net free will" due to the role of habits should make it less of an issue - "free" does not mean "completely random", just "not completely constrained by genes/hormones/habits" when time permits emotion-backed thinking to take place.

In case you missed them, TV series such as "Escape to Chimp Eden" and "Orangutan Island" illustrate nicely how important it is to teach young mammals what to do in the wild. One of many amazing moments is Eugene teaching a young chimp how to climb a tree!

... Or, for that matter, teaching him that he really ought to climb trees in the first place!