Do humans have instincts? What is instinct?

[HaloNoble6]

From an evolutionary perspective, almost certainly. But then predispositions arent determining, and I've no desire to ever have children.

So we have a predisposition to want children? Unless you connect "desire to have children" to an inclination driven by purely the physical pleasure/pain mechanism, I can't see how wanting children, a desire that is highly conceptual at root, could exist in humans before they have the ability to conceptualize.

[JMeganSnow]

OK.  "Predisposition" rather than instinct.  But I don't see the harm in admitting that instincts exist.  Instincts aren't mystical visions, though they have been confused with spiritual impulses.  They certainly aren't compulsory, but anyone who says men in general don't want to have children has a lot of contrary evidence to explain away. 

This is an erroneous definition of the term instinct. Instincts ARE compulsory, they are (paraphrasing Ayn Rand) an "unerring and automatic form of knowledge". This is why you can get a cat to pounce into a paper bag multiple times in a row. Humans don't have instincts. NOTHING is automatic for us. (Note that a desire is NOT an instinct. A sensation of pain in your stomach, "hunger" does not tell you how to relieve it or even identify the cause of the pain.)

I have a cousin that was born with a malfunctioning liver and she had to be fed cornstarch through a catheter directly into her stomach for some time. She didn't like food. You could offer her anything, ANYTHING, and she wouldn't like it, because, to her, food was not in any way associated with the satisfaction of a physical need. Once they took the catheter out she rapidly learned to enjoy eating, but if even THAT isn't automatic, I challenge you to point to something that IS.

Saying that people have a predisposition to have children because so many of them do is like saying that people have a predisposition to be religious because so many of them are. It's meaningless. The only thing you can say is that many people have either a.) found children to be a value or b.) not given sufficient thought to the matter when they had sex.

[Bill Thebert]

Instincts ARE compulsory, they are (paraphrasing Ayn Rand) an "unerring and automatic form of knowledge".  . . . Humans don't have instincts.  NOTHING is automatic for us. 

Can I presume that most Objectivists accept the Darwinian theory of evolution as it applies to humans?

If so, early humanoids had to have had instincts that enabled them to perform life-sustaining behaviors, right?

If pre-humans had instincts, and if we their descendants do not, did we lose them all at once? Or only very gradually?

Have we merely "over-layered" the reptilian and mammalian brains with another higher-functioning and disctinctively-human brain component? (I'm not at all acquainted with neuro-physiology.)

Is there an instinct-driven reptilian brain at the core of our own? If so, are there *no* traces or manifestations of same?

I find this line of inquiry extremely interesting. Is there anyone among us who is (authoritatively) familiar with human brain structures?

[JMeganSnow]

Is there an instinct-driven reptilian brain at the core of our own?  If so, are there *no* traces or manifestations of same?

This is a non sequitur, btw. Humans have human brains, not various brain components belonging to other creatures. You may as well ask whether we have "jellyfish reflexes" because they have primitive nerves as well.

If you need demonstration of this fact, observe that you don't try to catch flies with your tongue.

[Bill Thebert]

This is a non sequitur, btw. Humans have human brains, not various brain components belonging to other creatures.  You may as well ask whether we have "jellyfish reflexes" because they have primitive nerves as well. 

If you need demonstration of this fact, observe that you don't try to catch flies with your tongue.

While certainly witty, this sort of response is a disappointment. I had hoped for a more thoughtful discussion based on fact, research and reflection.

Empirical observation reveals many structural similarities, and rational science demonstrates that certain functions are controlled by these specific structures.

By "reptilian brain" I am referring to the brain stem, composed primarily of the medulla (which controls breathing, heart rate, digestion, etc.) and the cerebellum (which coordinates sensory data and muscle movement).

Present (and essentially alike) in all mammals -- but absent in reptiles -- is the limbic system. Ten minutes of Internet research tells me that this set of structures lies atop the brain stem but below the cortex, and is responsible for hormones, drives, temperature control, certain emotions and some memory formation.

The cerebrum and the cortex are the components that seem to be responsible for the behaviors and abilities that most of us would consider distinctively human.

Despite your glib reply, Jennifer, it appears undeniable that the human brain *is indeed* a "superset" of components very similar to those found in other living creatures. Human breathing, for example, is controlled by analogous component(s) to those that likewise control breathing in reptiles and other mammals. Temperature control in the human body is managed by analogous component(s) to those found in all mammals and which are absent in reptiles.

Yes, humans and jellyfish are quite different -- just as hydrogen and oxygen are different. But deeper examination reveals that hydrogen and oxygen are made up of the same sub-atomic components, and that these components nevertheless exhibit similar properties and behaviors.

I respect the thoughtful participation and contribution that I've seen from you in other threads/discussions, Jennifer. If you don't wish to participate constructively in this one, that's fine. But I believe you can do better than the above. We both know that the absence of "fly-catching" behavior in humans doesn't rationally prove that there aren't *other* structural and functional similarities between different types of animal brains that are demonstrably related by evolution.

[BurgessLau]

I had hoped for a more thoughtful discussion based on fact, research and reflection.

Empirical observation reveals many structural similarities, and rational science demonstrates that certain functions are controlled by these specific structures. 

First, are you making a scientific point or a philosophical one? If scientific, then perhaps you should start a thread in a science forum on OO.net. If you will look at the top of the topic thread for this topic, the one we are now in, you will see that this particular forum is a philosophical discussion forum, not a scientific one.

Second, what do you mean when you say "instinct"? (That concept is, after all, the stated topic of this thread). Is your definition a philosophical one or a scientific one?

[Hal]

This is a non sequitur, btw.  Humans have human brains, not various brain components belonging to other creatures.  You may as well ask whether we have "jellyfish reflexes" because they have primitive nerves as well.

What is your basis for this? The theory that the human brain is made up of many different semi-independent but interacting 'modules', some older than others, is fairly popular within cogsci/evopsych just now; are you claiming that it is false? If brain modularity is correct, then its fairly likely that we share some 'components' with more primitive species. Our specifically human cognitive features are probably 'built on top' of the work done by evolution over the last few million years, rather than replacing it all by magic. Edited August 14, 2005 by Hal

[JMeganSnow]

Uh huh. I challenge you to take the brain out of a reptile and slap a cerebrum on it and get it to work; that's what this claim amounts to.

Human brains are integrated organs, just like every other part of our body, (even the vestigial parts that don't do very much are still integrated into the system).

Sure, we share structures with reptiles. This means you can, say, learn about how nerve tissue works and what sort of processes the lower brain carries out by studying reptiles. It does not mean that you can then extrapolate human behavior from reptile behavior, which is what we're talking about here, right, BEHAVIOR? Instincts result in behavior. If you don't try to catch flies with your tongue (or whatever else reptiles do), then what is the basis for insisting that we must have instincts because we have similar brain structures?

The similar brain structures do similar jobs, sure . . . they control muscle flexation, but they don't dictate the TYPE of actions you will take. After all, the cerebellum controls walking, which is a completely different process for humans than for reptiles.

[DavidOdden]

If brain modularity is correct, then its fairly likely that we share some 'components' with more primitive species.

There is no question that humans share certain physical characteristics with animals. We can see, they can see, and (to some extent) we process impulses from the optic nerve like monkeys and dogs do. The brain consequences of poking a person with a needle are like the consequences of poking a cat with a needle. None of that demonstrates the existence of instincts in humans. The fact is that cats don't have language ability, nor do dogs, zebras, pigs, cows, sheep, chickens, snakes, squirrels, baboons, horses or weasels. The "fairly likely" argument then says that it is "fairly likely" that humans have no language ability either. It's fairly likely that the human brain contains anatomical structures that also exist in animals, but not fairly likely that they are used the same way. The fact of remote reptilian historical connections to human brains provides not one iota of evidence for instinct in humans. Volition is evidence against instinct in humans.

[Myself]

In this discussion what is the difference between instincts and certain reflexes? For instance if I put my hand on a hot stove I will automatically recoil as my brain stem supersedes higher functions. Wouldn't this be a form of unerring intrinsic knowledge?

Edited August 14, 2005 by Myself

[JMeganSnow]

In this discussion what is the difference between instincts and certain reflexes? For instance if I put my hand on a hot stove I will automatically recoil as my brain stem supersedes higher functions. Wouldn't this be a form of unerring intrinsic knowledge?

No, it's a reflex. If I remember correctly your brain stem doesn't supersede higher brain function, the information never even gets as far as your "higher" brain. (It does eventually . . . AFTER you've reacted.) It's an instant stimulus--response mechanism, there's no real thought process involved.

Note that you can override this response and intentionally hold something very hot, as I can attest, because when I was 16 I worked in a fast food restaurant, and part of my job involved taking baked potatoes out of the oven with my bare hands. If the potato creeps up on you by surprise*, though, it's too late, because by the time the part of your brain that is responsible for the override gets the info you've already moved.

Instinctual behavior includes stuff like wolf social groups, horse pecking order, that kind of thing. Animal trainers I've talked to (and I admit there haven't been a WHOLE lot of those, but still) indicated that there's really nothing you can do to circumvent that kind of behavior. In philosophy-speak; it's part of the identity of the animal, and in training and working those animals you have to take it into account, otherwise they will start going neurotic and uncontrollable on you.

* The idea of a surprise potato assault amuses me.

[Hal]

None of that demonstrates the existence of instincts in humans.

I never said that it did - I was pointing out that Jennifers comment about humans 'not having reptilian brains' was misleading, since a human brain isnt one unified entity that appeared overnight.

The question of whether humans have instincts (including the precise definition of that term) is scientific, not philosophical.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Hal

[Bill Thebert]

First, are you making a scientific point or a philosophical one?

I believe that this discussion includes elements of both science and philosophy. How humans think and the nature of human knowledge (epistemology), and whether or not humans have instincts, are likely a function of how we're constructed (a scientific question).

Let's take a specific example -- namely, that of a suckling human infant.

Within hours of birth you can place just about anything in the vicinity of the infant's mouth (a finger, a breast, etc.) and a specific behavior ensues. The behavior is NOT biting, chewing/gumming, vocalizing -- it is consistently *suckling*. Is this an example of "intrinsic, unerring knowledge"? Knowledge of a life-supporting behavior?

It is certainly pre-cognitive, since the infant is pre-verbal, and no one has "explained" or "reasoned" with the child about what sorts of behaviors are in its enlightened self-interest.

If we dare call this an "instinct", I then wonder if the male fascination with female breasts is not a vestige of same -- an instrinsic knowledge that these are "good for us", life-sustaining, essential to our thriving at a young age. Is this knowledge (if that's what it is) somehow chemically coded in some portion of our human brains? A portion that has an analogous structure in other, differently-evolved mammalian brains?

Is the desire to protect/defend our young a vestigal instinct? I grant that infanticide and child neglect exist, and that this "desire" is by no means universal. I further grant that even where it exists it can be overcome by volition. *How* we defend our young is a product of cognition and volition. But what about the desire or the urge in the first place?

Just brainstorming here. I don't presume to be arguing for any particular position yet.

[Hal]

Within hours of birth you can place just about anything in the vicinity of the infant's mouth (a finger, a breast, etc.) and a specific behavior ensues. The behavior is NOT biting, chewing/gumming, vocalizing -- it is consistently *suckling*. Is this an example of "intrinsic, unerring knowledge"? Knowledge of a life-supporting behavior?

I dont like the use of the word 'knowledge' here. I dont think it's correct to class skills and abilities as being items of knowledge, and I'd rather reserve that word for knowledge of propositions/facts. I think its pretty clear that things like breathing and 'being able to move your arm' are innate capacities, but saying that "knowing how to breathe is an item of innate knowledge" just causes arguments which could be avoided by a more sensitive choice of terminology.

This is really just the knowing-how vs knowing-that distinction, but I would argue that using the word 'knowledge' in the first case is fairly misleading in several contexts, especially when discussing innate abilities.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Hal

[Bill Thebert]

I dont like the use of the word 'knowledge' here.

Fair enough.

I think I latched onto the term "knowledge" as a result of reading this from Jennifer:

Instincts ARE compulsory, they are (paraphrasing Ayn Rand) an "unerring and automatic form of knowledge".  . . . Humans don't have instincts.  NOTHING is automatic for us. 

Suckling seems to be automatic. It may well be compulsory. I don't know if an infant can resist responding in that way.

I'm pretty sure that a deer doesn't "know" that eating alfalfa is the way to sustain its life (i.e., it *understands* nothing of calories & carbohydrates); rather, it simply *does* it. Automatically and irresistibly. Much like a suckling infant?

[Hal]

I'm pretty sure that a deer doesn't "know" that eating alfalfa is the way to sustain its life (i.e., it *understands* nothing of calories & carbohydrates);  rather, it simply *does* it.  Automatically and irresistibly.  Much like a suckling infant?

I dont know if this is true - would the deer still eat alfalfa if it hadnt been taught to do so by its parents? The same applies to other 'instinctual' animal behavior like birds building nests and so on.

I wonder if there's any research involving feral children that would count as evidence for or against humans having instincts.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Hal

[jrs]

Instincts ARE compulsory, they are (paraphrasing Ayn Rand) an "unerring and automatic form of knowledge".

.......

Humans don't have instincts.

This is the Objectivist position, but I disagree with it.

Instincts are NOT unerring.

Instincts are NOT knowledge according to the Objectivist definition of knowledge as "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation".

In this discussion what is the difference between instincts and certain reflexes?

I think that "instinct" and "reflex" mean the same thing as used by Objectivists. The difference is that non-human animals have instincts; and humans have reflexes.

[DavidOdden]

I think that "instinct" and "reflex" mean the same thing as used by Objectivists.  The difference is that non-human animals have instincts; and humans have reflexes.

No, that would mean that we have a "reflex" to drive to work in the morning, or to seek a particular kind of mate, or to invent computers, or to plant certain crops in certain locations.

[BurgessLau]

I think that "instinct" and "reflex" mean the same thing as used by Objectivists.  The difference is that non-human animals have instincts; and humans have reflexes.

Anyone interested in the Objectivist position -- that is, Ayn Rand's position -- on the idea of instinct can check the "Instinct" entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

My understanding is that Ayn Rand offered a philosophical definition of "instinct" as "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge." Note that she is defining a purported concept as others say it applies to humans. However, she holds that the concept of "instinct" does not apply to humans. The reason is that humans have no automatic form of knowledge.

Yes, nonhuman animals have instincts -- that is, automatic forms of "knowledge," appropriate to each animal (but not knowledge in the human sense). And, yes, humans have reflexes but no instincts, while animals have both instincts and, I assume, reflexes. Perhaps David can tell us about a dog's reflexes. If one taps a dog's knee, does the knee jerk in reflex? Or does one only get bitten?

[BurgessLau]

Instincts are NOT unerring.

What would be an example of an erring instinct?

A programmer can design an algorithm in a program for a certain purpose and in a certain environment -- for example, to rotate solar panels on a satellite. The algorithm can operate perfectly -- that is, error free -- but produce a disaster if the inputs to the program are not what the programmer expected. The algorithm itself works without error here but not in the situation it was designed for.

Likewise, an animal may have evolved an instinct for nest-building because of certain light conditions, say. Its instinct operates error-free even though it might end in disaster because of, for example, abnormally bright conditions very early in the year due to light reflected from a stray cloud of dust passing outside of but close to the Earth's orbit.

(As you can tell I am neither an astronomer nor a biologist.)

[DavidOdden]

And, yes, humans have reflexes but no instincts, while animals have both instincts and, I assume, reflexes. Perhaps David can tell us about a dog's reflexes. If one taps a dog's knee, does the knee jerk in reflex? Or does one only get bitten?

Good dogs don't bite. Dogs do have the patellar reflex, but it's easier to demonstrate the kick-spot, located somewhere on the lower ribs. I had a dog that had two independent kick-spots that you could work simultaneously. All living animals have reflexes, even planaria. Reflexes are essentially instantaneous and crystal-clear, unlike instincts, which often require some practice to get right. The extent to which instinctive animal behavior is rigorously predetermined vs. loosely predetermined is a fascinating matter for research. Bee-dance is so tightly connected to genetics that hybrid honeybees (mixed Italian and Austrian races) perform and interpret the dance according to which lineage is dominant. OTOH, some birds (sorry, don't remember which species) with an instinctive song still have to hear it from others and practice it to get the details right.

[DavidOdden]

What would be an example of an erring instinct?

African herd animals (zebra, wildebeeste etc) have an instinctual knowledge of when to bolt because of a cheetah. For an individual, the instinct can be in "error", in underestimating the risk in totally normal circumstances, and the consequence is being eaten. The error of premature running is less serious since it just results in wasted effort, but still wasted effort is a significant threat to life, if you're just barely surviving off of stubble. The instinct involves both facts about the predator, and facts about the herd -- sort of a fail-safe system. Basically, if the predator is too close, you better run. And if the herd starts to run, you better run. Otherwise, don't waste energy running.

I think the question that should be asked is what an "error" is. Eliminating those individuals with bad instincts is a good thing from the perspective of the herd -- it cuts down on the waste of false alarms.

[colin]

Does it make sense to discuss "error" when discussing instinct? I have always looked at the issue on the basis that error is only really possible when the entity has a volitional consciousness. If there is not choice to be made (ie. instinct) then no error can occur.

Is this in line with the Objectivist position on the matter?

[DavidOdden]

If there is not choice to be made (ie. instinct) then no error can occur.

Is this in line with the Objectivist position on the matter?

That is certainly how I understand it, looking at how she uses "error" and "instinct". Volition is a prerequisite to error.

[JMeganSnow]

I think colin is correct, also: an "error" in this context is a divergence from reality, whereas animals can't react to things that don't exist in reality, they can only react to real stimuli, even if those stimuli aren't part of "normal" conditions.

I'd wouldn't call baby sucking a reflex. It could be several reflexive motions combined into a learned automatization: IIRC babies "gulp" amniotic fluid even inside the womb, so it's quite possible they just picked up the skill before they were born. I seem to recall that extremely premature babies don't suck. Some of them don't even breathe, and (depending on how premature they are, and whether they have other health problems) it can take quite a while before they can be fed normally.