Do humans have instincts? What is instinct?

[hunterrose]

The fact of human volition dispenses with any suggestings about humans having instincts.

My understanding is that Ayn Rand offered a philosophical definition of "instinct" as "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge."

Why would being volitional dispense with having any minute amount of automatic knowledge? (...And what is meant by "unerring?")

the "sucking reflex"

If you had to wait for full cognitive processing of the initial injury-info, that would add some seconds to moving your hand.

If it suckling is a reflex, wouldn't babies begin suckling before their brains process the fact that their stomach is full? And why don't adults seemingly possess this reflex??

[Rand] holds that the concept of "instinct" does not apply to humans. The reason is that humans have no automatic form of knowledge.

It's not so much that I particularly disagree with this, but my concern is that this seems to be a philosophical "island."

What philosophical premises is "humans have no automatic form of knowledge" derived from? For what philosophical argument does "humans have no automatic form of knowledge" act as an premise?

It might be true that humans have no automatic form of knowledge, but if this is not derived from any prior philosophical premises, and isn't necessary to come to any subsequent philosophical conclusions, it doesn't matter from the philosophical perspective, does it?

[DavidOdden]

Why would being volitional dispense with having any minute amount of automatic knowledge?

To be explicit, I mean "fully volitional", as opposed to being a creature that is not fully volitional. If some knowledge is automatic, then you do not have volition with respect to that knowledge. Automatic = mandatory = no choice. If you want to argue that man is only partly volitional, that's another argument: but the burden of proof lies on the person who wants to make that claim.

If it suckling is a reflex, wouldn't babies begin suckling before their brains process the fact that their stomach is full? And why don't adults seemingly possess this reflex??

As for the first point, I don't see the connection between the two parts of the question, but the answer is that they do. Why infantile reflexes die as we grow up, I can't say. Some change in the brain, no doubt.

What philosophical premises is "humans have no automatic form of knowledge" derived from? For what philosophical argument does "humans have no automatic form of knowledge" act as an premise?

It is an inductively-reached generalization. I should point out that the full validation of the conclusion is scientific and not purely philosophical. From it follows the conclusion that each man must discover his proper means of survival qua man (because he is not born knowing that). On the other hand, if man were non-volitional in some respect, then an ethical consequence would be that he could not be held responsible for his actions in that respect, since he was operating as a mindless automaton.

As for "unerring", I admit that I find that a shade confusing. I would focus on the concept of "error", which means "makes the wrong choice". If you don't make a choice at all, then of course you don't make errors in choice. I don't think Rand meant "always acting in a way that results in the greatest long-term benefit", rather, I think she meant that whereas animals do not make errors (they "unerring") because they aren't volitional and don't choose, humans must choose, thus can make errors.

[Ifat Glassman]

RationalBiker:

I'm not going to quote your whole post, just to answer it:

I am not a biologist (though I am a student of biomedical engineering, so I do have some knowledge in biology), I have not been experimenting in this field. I am no more qualified than Miss Rand to determine the nature of cognition of animals, as of today.

My point was, that she, as a philosopher and nothing more, is not qualified.

If she was not relying on researches done in this field with actual results, or present facts to support her assumptions about how animals' cognition works, then her theory on this subject, is just a theory, her opinion, and not necessarily a statement of truth.

Since none of us know how an animal perceives the world, there should be an organizes study of what animals can or cannot perceive, what is automatic in them and what is not, before any conclusions are reached.

The same thing is true about my hypothesis about humans having drives. And I stated that it is a hypothesis of mine and not a truth.

To verify if something is true or not one has to compare it to reality. Which is why I gave examples about animals' behavior, and provided facts about brain development and it's implications on the adult animal.

I stated a few times that the facts that I did provide are not proofs that humans have drives, but that it is merely a hypothesis that needs further study. A hypothesis that I will hopefully get to do a research on, in the future (since I want to be a brain researcher, and am currently on my path to get there).

As for the definition of an "instinct". I stated that in my opinion the definition describes something that does not exist in mammals. The definition remains what it is even if what it describes isn't actually true. Theories remain theories with all of their definitions and terms even after a theory has been proven wrong.

So I really have no idea what you mean by "the definition is wrong".

I agree with you though that I cannot refute an idea that someone is making if we are not using the same set of definitions. This is why I was talking about "drives" in my next posts. You can see that in the post where I summed up my position I never used the word "instincts" even once, but instead described exactly what I mean by using lower level concepts.

[Inspector]

Ifat,

Despite the fact that you mean to qualify your claims by calling them "hypothesis," the fact is that David has fully shown why your hypothesis should be discarded as faulty.

In other words, hypothesis or not, you're still wrong.

[DavidOdden]

I am no more qualified than Miss Rand to determine the nature of cognition of animals, as of today.

My point was, that she, as a philosopher and nothing more, is not qualified.

You should note that Rand's statements are about the nature of human consciousness. Objectivism is not founded on a theory about animal cognition. Knowledge of animals is irrelevant to understanding the nature of man.

[Felix]

You should note that Rand's statements are about the nature of human consciousness. Objectivism is not founded on a theory about animal cognition. Knowledge of animals is irrelevant to understanding the nature of man.

This one puzzles me a bit. Rand makes very clear statements about animal consciousness. Namely that they operate on built-in knowledge and instinct. Also, the fact that man is an animal (and therefore a living being) is of crucial importance to Objectivist Ethics. Man is defined as a rational animal. So you have to know what an animal is and what rational means to define man. Knowledge of animals would then be the first half of the definition of man. Hence knowledge of animals is relevant to understanding the nature of man.

[DavidOdden]

You're right that the use of "animal" is potentially confusing. I was speaking in the sense "animal, as opposed to man" -- in the other sense, "man" is implied by "animal". I'm curious, does "Tier" include man? I'm actually not persuaded that it's important to identity what an "animal" is for Objectivist ethics -- the ethics would have something to say about a rational plant, were there such a thing.

[Felix]

You're right that the use of "animal" is potentially confusing. I was speaking in the sense "animal, as opposed to man" -- in the other sense, "man" is implied by "animal". I'm curious, does "Tier" include man? I'm actually not persuaded that it's important to identity what an "animal" is for Objectivist ethics -- the ethics would have something to say about a rational plant, were there such a thing.

"Tier" is used in the same way "animal" is used in English. So you can say that man is an animal in German, too. And you can also use the word to seperate man from (other) animals.

What I meant by the Ethics reference was more that the fact that man is a living being is relevant. This does also refer to plants, of course.

[hunterrose]

As for the first point, I don't see the connection between the two parts of the question...

If babies do not begin suckling when they are already full, then suckling could not be a reflex (as knowing that one was full requires a brain response - which is too slow to occur before a reflex occurs.)

...but the answer is that they do.

Hmm. You may be right (I don't know if you have seen evidence to back that.) If you are right (that suckling is proven to be too fast to be initiated by "brain processing") my only other criticism of "suckling is a reflex" is that every other reflex(?) refers to an transitory response, whereas suckling is a continuous action. If suckling were like every other reflex, an infant would take one suckle (and then stop) when something was put in his mouth?

Why infantile reflexes die as we grow up, I can't say. Some change in the brain, no doubt.

"No doubt"... or this could be another suggestion that suckling is not a reflex. This change would be a change in one's neurological pathways (reflexes not being initiated by brain-processing), the proof of which would again be your burden (in saying that suckling is a reflex.) As before, you may have seen such evidence, but I haven't, nor have I ever heard of any case in which a person's defective change in their neurological pathways left them with an adult case of "reflexive" suckling.

If some knowledge is automatic, then you do not have volition with respect to that knowledge. Automatic = mandatory = no choice.

I have to disagree with that. Possessing knowledge doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether one acts on that knowledge. This might merely be my misunderstanding of what is meant by "automatic", but I took the term to (in the context of instinct) mean "present at birth", not that it was (as something that requires brain-processing time) initiated even if a volitional being didn't want to do it.

If my ("present at birth") understanding of "automatic" is correct, there's no reason why such knowledge must be enacted by a volitional being, nor that a being with instincts couldn't be fully volitional.

OTOH if the other use ("superceding/overriding any volitional capacity") is correct, then I suppose I would agree that humans have no instincts - but this becomes a bizarrely different definition of instinct than the one scientists use...

From ["man doesn't have instincts"] follows the conclusion that each man must discover his proper means of survival qua man (because he is not born knowing that).

On the other hand, if man were non-volitional [instinctive??] in some respect, then an ethical consequence would be that he could not be held responsible for his actions in that respect, since he was operating as a mindless automaton.

Yes, if 1) instincts couldn't be volitionally controlled and 2) there were instincts by which man could survive without thinking (i.e. suckling, if it were the only instinct, wouldn't negate the need to discover the means of survival - "man doesn't have instincts" would be sufficient, but not necessary.)

[Ifat Glassman]

If babies do not begin suckling when they are already full, then suckling could not be a reflex (as knowing that one was full requires a brain response - which is too slow to occur before a reflex occurs.)

No, that would be wrong, though your line of though does seem logical. The fact that reflexes can be controlled or changed does not mean they are not reflexes:

Most Reflexes are mediated by polysynaptic circuits that allow reflexes to be modified

Spinal reflexes provide the nervous system with elementary and automatic motor patterns that can be activated either by sensory stimuli or by descending signals from the brain stem and cerebral cortex. The stretch reflex, as we have seen, is mediated by a simple monosynaptic circuit. Most reflex pathways, however, are poly-synaptic - one or more inter-neurons are interposed between sensory and motor neurons. These inter-neurons typically receive convergent input from more than one source. This feature allows signals from higher centers in the brain as well as other afferent inputs to modify the expression of the reflex. In the absence of supra-spinal intervention, reflexes are stereotyped and automatic.

Most spinal reflexes are mediated by complex circuits that coordinate the actions of groups of muscles, sometimes spanning several joints...

From "Essentials of Neural science and behavior" - Eric R. Kendal, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell

[DavidOdden]

If babies do not begin suckling when they are already full, then suckling could not be a reflex (as knowing that one was full requires a brain response - which is too slow to occur before a reflex occurs.)

Okay, now I understand what you are saying. The sucking reflex is not the same as nursing / breastfeeding, and it is a rapid spinal chord impulse response (poking the lips out when the cheek is brushed). It is also known as the rooting reflex (and apparently there is a separate reflex also know as the sucking reflex that involves putting something in the infant's mouth). The complex behavior of breastfeeding does have to be learned, though it is facilitated by various reflexes. So in fact we are talking about two different things. But I still don't know the mechanism whereby infantile reflexes are extinguished: that's what pediatricians are for.

Possessing knowledge doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether one acts on that knowledge.

True, but that isn't the point. The question is whether man is an instinctual being or a volitional being. The evidence indicates that man is a volitional being and not an instinctual animal. Furthermore, that evidence is available to ordinary men and is not a complex scientific question. As I said, if you want to make the argument that man is only a partially volitional being, you can go ahead and make your case, by showing examples of knowledge that men have which is not learned. If man has knowledge of X and that knowledge is present at birth, then man does not have the choice of not knowing X. The Objectivist position is that all of man's knowledge is arrived at through volitional acts.

[konerko14]

I want to point out one reaction by humans that I'm curious to know if it can be called an instinct, or just a reflex. When humans sneeze, the eyes automatically close and you have no control over this. Logically, it would make sense that the eyes are shut to keep germs and mucus that explode out of the nose from coming in contact with the eyes. This is knowledge, however, and the body must know this innately if it is the reason the eyes stay shut during a sneeze. Instinct or reflex?

[hunterrose]

The fact that reflexes can be controlled or changed does not mean they are not reflexes...

I largely agree, but I should note that my comment was in reply to David's comment (that during suckling, qua reflex, "the spinal cord responds, not the brain".) If reflexes were distinguished from instincts by the fact that reflexes were acted out faster than the sending and returning of brain feedback, then showing that suckling, in the presense of the necessary physical initiators, is sometimes controlled by brain feedback such that suckling isn't even started, would mean that it wasn't a reflex. 'Course, I don't agree with the "if" clause in the first place, so...

But I still don't know the mechanism whereby infantile reflexes are extinguished...

Then is it safe to assume that it is extinguished in adults? If it is indeed extinguished, that would explain why this "reflex" doesn't manifest itself except with babies, but there seems to be little reason to believe that it is extinguished in the first place, other than that it conveniently fills in the blanks, so to speak.

The question is whether man is an instinctual being or a volitional being... As I said, if you want to make the argument that man is only a partially volitional being, you can go ahead and make your case...

You're making the case that there are two exclusionary options: either man is instinctual or man is volitional, and then taking me to mean that there is a third option: man is potentially instinctual and thus only "partially" volitional.

That's not what I'm saying. My thought is that man, if he possesses instincts, is still fully volitional. I agree with and understand that this would mean that man didn't arrive at all of his knowledge ( if instincts are to be called that) through volitional acts, but I don't see how instincts would invalidate volition itself.

Supposing suckling were an instinct that some volitional being possessed, he would still choose when and where to act on this instinct. If doing the backstroke were an instinct of man, there is nothing to inherently say that a man would automatically start swimming when dropped in the water, or that he couldn't develop superior methods of swimming.

[sneezing] Instinct or reflex?

I would think it'd be considered a reflex. Your post makes me realize that it is odd that instincts are to be considered knowledge and reflexes aren't. If instincts are "knowledge" in the sense that one "knows" how to do something without having learned it, this usage of "knowledge" also seems to apply to reflexes (and would mean that having reflexes is contrary to man qua volitional/tabula rasa being?)

[DavidOdden]

Then is it safe to assume that it is extinguished in adults?

It's probably safe to assume that it's extinguished in toddlers. If you have evidence that adults retain the sucking or rooting reflex, that might be a publishable result.

You're making the case that there are two exclusionary options: either man is instinctual or man is volitional, and then taking me to mean that there is a third option: man is potentially instinctual and thus only "partially" volitional.

Not at all, I'm saying that if you want to say that man is both volitional and non-volitional, then you can present your argument and I'll be happy to evaluate it.

That's not what I'm saying. My thought is that man, if he possesses instincts, is still fully volitional. I agree with and understand that this would mean that man didn't arrive at all of his knowledge ( if instincts are to be called that) through volitional acts, but I don't see how instincts would invalidate volition itself.

If man were partially instinctual, then he would have no choice in those instinctual matters. You can't choose to have or not have instincts. Then if man is fully volitional, as you claimed right here, then he is not instinctual. Instincts are automatic (non-volitional) knowledge. They are distinct from reflexes, which are not knowledge.

Supposing suckling were an instinct that some volitional being possessed

Supposing that the moon were made of green cheese... The sucking reflex (in the technical sense, not nursing, which is learned) is not an instinct, it is a low-level automatic response. Like the Babinski reflex or the patellar reflex. This distinction between reflexes and instincts is really, really, really important in this discussion. Reflexes are millisecond-type control systems where the spinal cord is in charge. Compare that to the migratory instinct of salmon, an event that takes around a month; or the food-source dance of honeybees (ask a bee-keeper about the maximum time between finding food and the end of the dance -- I imagine it could be even a couple of hours). Those are not reflexes: they are long-term behaviors that the animal is pre-wired to engage in.

When you think about this tabula rasa business, remember that the idea does not mean "Man is born as a completely unstructured mass of meat-pudding". Man has a conceptual faculty from birth -- man does not "learn" to have a conceptual faculty. What would he use to learn the conceptual faculty?

[Ifat Glassman]

If man were partially instinctual, then he would have no choice in those instinctual matters. You can't choose to have or not have instincts. Then if man is fully volitional, as you claimed right here, then he is not instinctual. Instincts are automatic (non-volitional) knowledge.

Just because some desires of man are determined metaphysically, doesn't mean he has no volition. If certain instincts (even though I do not believe instincts as you define them exist) are present, it does not contradict volition.

For example: you can only have sexual desire for women (I'll assume that is true..). You have no choice about it: you cannot wake up one day and start having sexual desire for plants. You have no choice about what you find sexual (in this context): you are born with the blue-print to make you a man.

To say that volition is the ability to change every single desire a man has is to ignore the nature and boundaries of volition. Volition is metaphysical just like the object of your sexual desire (in this context) is determined metaphysically. Both are a part of man's nature: They do not contradict.

And hunterrose, I answered your question about reflexes vrs. brain control in that quote I gave from my book. Honestly, you just need to read it.

[hunterrose]

If you have evidence that adults retain the sucking or rooting reflex, that might be a publishable result.

I'm still looking for evidence that suckling is a reflex in the first place...

If man were partially instinctual, then he would have no choice in those instinctual matters.

No choice in whether he had instincts, or no choice in whether he implemented/acted on his instincts? Your argument doesn't prove the latter - what definition of "instinctual" are you using?

Instincts are automatic (non-volitional) knowledge. They are distinct from reflexes, which are not knowledge.

Non-volitional knowledge means that one cannot choose to act on the knowledge, and volitional knowledge means that one chooses to learn the knowledge?

"Volitional" and "non-volitional" do not refer to opposite things???

If they were opposites (as they should be,) then one of the previous definitions is incorrect, and both reflexes and instincts (or reflexes alone) are volitional instincts.

hunterrose, I answered your question about reflexes vrs. brain control in that quote I gave from my book. Honestly, you just need to read it.

?

I've read it, but... what question?

[DavidOdden]

I'm still looking for evidence that suckling is a reflex in the first place...

I don't know what level of proof you require to be convinced, but here is a collection of newborn reflexes, so see number 5. Here is another. Unfortunately, I don't know a research article that can prove to you that the rooting reflex / sucking reflex is indeed a reflex. You can, however, perform the text yourself if you have access to a newborn. Brush one cheek and see what happens. Repeat at random.

No choice in whether he had instincts, or no choice in whether he implemented/acted on his instincts?

The former.

Non-volitional knowledge means that one cannot choose to act on the knowledge, and volitional knowledge means that one chooses to learn the knowledge?

How do you get that? Non-volitional knowledge, were there such a thing, would be knowledge which man has no choice about having. You are describing non-volitional action. Action and knowledge are distinct.

Reflexes are not volitional at all -- what they share with instincts in involuntariness. Reflexes are distinct from instincts in being automatic response systems -- they don't require the neural signal to travel to the brain and back.

[hunterrose]

The former.

So then you agree that having instincts would not prevent him from having a choice as to whether he implemented/acted on the instincts? We'd be on the same page.

How do you get that?

If instincts are non-volitional in the sense that one has no choice about having them... reflexes are non-volitional in the sense that one has no choice about having them.

If reflexes are non-volitional, but are not "non-volitional knowledge", then what are they exactly? "Non-volitional action"?

My concern is, if both instincts and reflexes are non-volitional, then why is instincts regarded as "knowledge" and reflexes regarded as "not knowledge?" A duck "knows" to follow the first "mother" it sees. The duck also "knows" to jerk its wing away from any source of pain.

Reflexes are not volitional at all -- what they share with instincts in involuntariness.

By "not volitional" you mean that they are enacted involuntarily? I agree with that... but reflexes would still be non-volitional by the "no choice about having them" meaning. I would think that "not volitional" and "non-volitional" ought to refer to the same thing, but that's a digression, I suppose.

[DavidOdden]

So then you agree that having instincts would not prevent him from having a choice as to whether he implemented/acted on the instincts?

I can't say, since I have no basis for giving a yes or no to that question. The ideas themselves don't seem to be in an entailment relationship, but possibly that which causes instincts also suppresses volition when it comes to action.

My concern is, if both instincts and reflexes are non-volitional, then why is instincts regarded as "knowledge" and reflexes regarded as "not knowledge?" A duck "knows" to follow the first "mother" it sees. The duck also "knows" to jerk its wing away from any source of pain.

Because a duck doesn't "know" to jerk away from the source of pain. It just does it. If you want a metric for deciding, I suppose the 500 msc reaction time test is as good as any. Instincts are complex patterns of behavior, reflexes are very simply stimulus / muscle contraction pairs.

[W.J. Wilczek]

The principal difference between man and the rest of the animal kingdom is the capability of abstract reasoning through the process of "time-binding." See Alfred Korzybski, Time-Binding: The General Theory First Paper (1924).

[konerko14]

From my earlier post:

"I want to point out one reaction by humans that I'm curious to know if it can be called an instinct, or just a reflex. When humans sneeze, the eyes automatically close and you have no control over this. Logically, it would make sense that the eyes are shut to keep germs and mucus that explode out of the nose from coming in contact with the eyes. This is knowledge, however, and the body must know this innately if it is the reason the eyes stay shut during a sneeze. Instinct or reflex?"

What makes this different than an instinct?

[DavidOdden]

This is knowledge, however, and the body must know this innately if it is the reason the eyes stay shut during a sneeze.

What is "knowledge"? Can the body know something without the mind not knowing it? How does a rock know to fall when it is let go?

[konerko14]

What is "knowledge"? Can the body know something without the mind not knowing it? How does a rock know to fall when it is let go?

What makes you think that the mind doesnt know to shut the eyes during a sneeze? I made a mistake of using the word 'body' instead of 'mind' in my question, but now you know what I mean.

Edited September 23, 2006 by konerko14

[DavidOdden]

I made a mistake of using the word 'body' instead of 'mind' in my question, but now you know what I mean.

Okay, now, what do you mean by "knowledge". Explain why it is an example of knowledge. I'll ask the question about how the rock gets its knowledge after I understand how you apply the concept "knowledge" to eyes closing.

[konerko14]

Okay, now, what do you mean by "knowledge". Explain why it is an example of knowledge. I'll ask the question about how the rock gets its knowledge after I understand how you apply the concept "knowledge" to eyes closing.

knowledge: acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles. With my sneezing example, the mind automatically knows the concept of closing the eyes during a sneeze to protect them from germs.

The dictionary defines "knowlege" as 'Acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation.' But then instincts in animals wouldnt be considered automatic knowledge because they werent learned through study or observation. So I just used that definition while leaving out the last part of it.

Edited September 23, 2006 by konerko14