Killing a Squirrel?

[Moebius]

I was born with two feet and two ears. Are feet and ears instincts?

Instinct is something you're born with, but not all things you're born with are instincts.

Right, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since man has no instincts.

I respectfully disagree.

I think if you really intend to support the stronger claim, in full knowledge of what you just implied, you must be utterly insane, deluded, or some other adjective. I won't touch the weaker claim, until you fully renounce the stronger claim. So now, I would really like you to think about the full set of cognitive abilities of all life-forms on Earth, and think very seriously about whether you really intend to scientifically defend some bizarre theory of cognitive monotonicity, where once an organism acquires a mental trait, then that trait can never by any evolutionary process be removed from its descendants. I have nothing to say about the remains of your post until you give full consideration to what you actually said, and declare your willingness to defend the claim scientifically. If you want me to, I will destroy each and every one of your arguments that all cognitive aspects of a brain are irrevocably passed on to all offspring, if you have any arguments. At your leisure, sir.

I may or may not be wrong, however I'm not sure why my beliefs make me "deluded", much less "utterly insane". In fact I'm not even sure why you're reacting so strongly, given your choice of hostile adjectives (which may or may not constitute a personal attack, though given the moderator tag I assume you'd know best). Two questions:

1) Which part exactly is the "stronger claims" that you wish me to denounce?

2) What do you mean exactly by "defending scientifically"? Do you mean that we're both expected to start citing peer-reviewed scientific journals, backed up by empyrical data? Because there would be obvious technical and time problems with that method.

And a couple of points I wish to make absolutely crystal clear. A mental traits that a species acquire CAN BE removed from its future descendants through the evolutionary process. However it doesn't happen magically. A trait will be removed ONLY IF there is a selective pressure that kills off members of that species who possess that trait, or if a massively catastrophic event killed off most or all of the organisms that possess that trait.

Secondly, not necessarily EVERY SINGLE cognitive traits are passed on, with one hundred percent fidelity, to later species. Learned behavior for instance isn't passed on, but rather are something that you acquire. For example, while you might need to teach a babe how to hunt, you DO NOT have to teach him how to suckle milk (be it from a breast or from a bottle), since the act of suckling is an instinct acquired prior to environmental conditioning. As for the one hundred percent fidelity part, I don't mean that if the ancestral species likes to eat honey combs, hunt mammoths, and lick rock salts, all later species will follow that exact behavior. However they WILL probably have an instinctual craving for foods that contain fat, sugar, and salt. Another example that illustrate this would be the fact that baby deer will learn to walk within hours of its birth, while a human baby requires learning to do so, despite both species sharing a common ancestor relatively recently on the evolutionary time line.

Bottomline is I actually quite enjoy this discussion, and frankly I don't want it to degenerate into an argument of semantics (I actually quite like your posts on other threads that I've browsed by the way, Dave). I think we can all agree that there are behaviors that a human knows without having to be taught - when hungry, eat, when horny, mate, when in pain, remove your hand from fire, for instance. There are also responses like fear, aggression, territoriality, innate social hierarchy that I also consider instinctual, since they're things that we know prior to learning. Many of those responses may override the higher functions of our brain (ie. reasoning), since the areas of the brain that controls these responses are interconnected with your neocortex (or left and right hemispheres). And all of which are things are products of evolution (if you believe in evolution). Feel free to tell me exactly which part of my claims you consider wrong, and then perhaps we can proceed from there.

[aequalsa]

Hi Moebius,

From what I can see you are operating with a somewhat sketchy definition of instinct and suggest you attempt to define it as clearly as possible. When evolution first became popular, explaining behaviour(human and animal) in terms of instincts became very common. A "selfish instinct" or a "achievment instinct." This notion of behaviour is very out dated and wrong.

As a side note, a sociologist looked through 500 books from the late 1800's and found almost 6000 different "instincts" that humans possessed.

What it boils down to is that instinct just isn't a useful term anymore. It is one of those concepts that lumps a whole bunch of stuff we don't understand into one pile. Fortunately, science is far past that now in this regard.

[Moebius]

What I think you might have in mind are tendencies toward behavior that result from physiological factors. Eating carbohydrates for example, increase serotonin which has a calming effect. So when distressed we might quickly learn that a large piece of chocolate cake makes you feel better. This response to carbohydrates and inclination toward chocolate cake does not equate to an instinct.

If you take any particular example of something you call an "instinct" and research its actual dynamics, you will find that the propenisty for that behavior is a combination of subconscious learning and physiological response that rewards or punishes us based on the particular stimulus.

The only instinct that humans are still thought to have is an infants suckling, and I have some doubts about that.

Yes I see your point. You're quite right that I have a muddled and perhaps erroneous definition of instinct.

At the risk of starting far too many tangents from the original discussion, can you also tell me something about the objectivist view on cognitive psychology?

For instance, it doesn't seem very far fetched to me that at least some part of our brain formation may predispose us towards certain types of behavior. Does that run contrary to the belief that we have no innate ideas prior to learning?

[aequalsa]

Yes I see your point. You're quite right that I have a muddled and perhaps erroneous definition of instinct.

At the risk of starting far too many tangents from the original discussion, can you also tell me something about the objectivist view on cognitive psychology?

I don't know of any official objectivist position on it or any particular variation of it. Parenthetically, most objectivists recommend montessori education for young children. Maria montessori was heavily influenced by Jean Piaget, who was big in cognitive psychology. So I would suspect that they would be supportive of it.

Ayn Rand specifically rejected behaviorism. Skinner in particular. So that also implies being on the cognitive side of the fence.

Personally, from what I know of it, I like. My one complaint about it is very related to what you brought up as instincts. Biological processes do seem to shape behavior in the same way reality generally shapes behavior. If I am standing below someone on a ladder I would not let go of a paint brush and expect it to fall up to him.

Same thing with human biology. Exposure to the hormone levels that a typical female fetus is exposed to strongly increases the likelyhood of homosexuality in males. A few other things found recently in regard to homosexuality is that gay males have fingerprint patterns similiar to women and perform similiarly on spatial tests to heterosexual women. Lesbians have also been found to have hearing abilities midway between heterosexual men and women.(women typically have much better hearing). Also with gay men, a cell cluster in the hypothalamus has been found to be consistently larger in gay men.

So from where I sit there seems to be a biological basis to them "choosing" to become gay.

This is not meant to discount cognitive psychology. If you raised a child with gay proclivities in a room with one female and no other stimulus, I imagine that it would never occur to him to be gay. Choices are made and freewill exists, but I think to view humans and their choices as purely rational cumputing devices is incorrect. OUr choices take place in the context of the reality we live in which includes our personal biology.

Children that choose not to eat spinach because it tastes bad might not be as irrational as parents suspect. They have more taste buds then adults and some bitter or pungent foods are unpleasant to them.

Freewill and cognitive choices do not eliminate causation, just determinism. Our ability to think rationally or choose freely is certainly influenced by our biology and circumstances. Understanding those concepts help you act in spite of those causal influences to some extent.

For instance, it doesn't seem very far fetched to me that at least some part of our brain formation may predispose us towards certain types of behavior. Does that run contrary to the belief that we have no innate ideas prior to learning?

See above.

[ricknav]

To be honest I think killing things is probably something that's hardwired into our brains. We're not the greatest hunters nature has ever produced for no reason. Compassion and empathy on the other hand might also have biological roots, which I assume accounts for the reasons why you're feeling bad about killing a squirrel.

Objectively speaking though, I don't think there's much of a different between say, squashing a cockroach, swatting a fly, or killing a deer. The only real difference is that since biologically we're closer to a deer, we innately feel worse about killing it due to natural empathy. Likewise I would probably feel worse about butchering a chimpanzee than I would about shooting a deer due to genetic proximity.

The act of killing an animal doesn't really bother me, unless in doing so we are damaging the environment in which we live. For instance the systemic elimination of large predators as it effects the ecology, or hell, the thousands of species wiped out daily from the bulldozing of rain forests. However, the intentional torturing of animals WOULD concern me, in so far as what it implies about a person's mental state, and the potential of those tendencies being transferred to a fellow human being (especially in regards to myself, my family, and my friends).

Interesting point.

Are you sure you belong on an Objectivist board? A lot of the ideas you put forth here run directly against Objectivism.

I would think you would encourage diverse opinions. If everyone has to agree with one ethos to speak it would be more like church than a "forum". Have a nice day.

If every single person on this board has the exact same ideas, then why are we even here? Just so we can have a great big intellectual circle jerk?

Well said!

[ricknav]

Your claim that an animal is capable of determination, I thought that was obviously what I was questioning.

The point is that you haven't made a point if part of what you are trying to establilsh is wrong. I don't understand how you think you can separate the two things.

I'm not concerned with what you "believe". You can "believe" anything you want in difference to all known facts; people do it every day. But if you come to this board and make statements that require such faith or whim instead of statements that you can support by some facts, you will be called on them. If you don't like being asked to explain your claims, you have come to the wrong place. If you are not interested in facts and reason ("intellectualizing") while examining an issue, you have come to the wrong place.

This is a personal attack and it's a violation of the forum rules which will not be tolerated. If you have no interest in supporting your claims on this board, don't make them.

Hello Biker. I missed your calming presence these last couple of days. I guess I'll just have to read more of your thought processes to get to know you better before I go off half cocked again. Sorry, you seem to be a real nice fellow. I didn't mean to antagonize you so bad. I'll do better. Have a nice day.

[RationalBiker]

I would think you would encourage diverse opinions. If everyone has to agree with one ethos to speak it would be more like church than a "forum". Have a nice day.

I'm glad you appreciate my calming presence. Few enough people recognize it.

Your first sentence is an indicator that you probably don't understand the nature of this forum. I would direct you to review the forum rules for clarification. There are plenty of "diverse opinions" that are not welcome here, the intimidation of the "church" comment notwithstanding. It should be noted that such fallacious comments are not bought into on this board.

If you go to a forum that strictly discusses the use of hammers, it would be improper to start a discussion on the use of saws even though they are both pieces of hardware. If you come to this forum, which focuses on discussions concerning the understanding and application of Objectivism and it's principles, it's improper to start discussions supporting a Kantian point of view (unless you do it in the Debate sub-section). Both are philosophies, but this isn't a general philosophy forum where all views are welcome. It remains a forum (and not a church) despite the fact that it has a more specific focus.

So it's important for you as an individual, who perhaps seeks to find great value in your life, to understand the nature and purpose of this privately owned forum and determine whether or not it's purpose will aid in your search under the constraints of the rules that are set forth. If what you seek is counter to the focus of this board, then perhaps another forum would provide greater value for you. On the other hand, if you seek to learn and understand things about Objectivism, then perhaps this forum can provide value to you. The wonder of the internet is that you can almost always find a place to discuss your viewpoint even if it isn't appreciated in other places.

Oh and, have a nice day.

Edited March 9, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DavidOdden]

I respectfully disagree.

Look, this claim about instincts isn't a matter for respectful agreement or disagreement, it's a matter for cold hard inspection of the facts. I am saying that man does not have any instincts, and I'm asserting that as a defensible scientific fact. You have presented no rational basis for concluding that man has instincts, and that's pretty much the end of the story until you put your money where your mouth is.

Now you've also made a particularly bizarre scientific claim about the accretion of genetic properties, and I've invited you to do two things. One is, you could actually defend the claim you made, and the other is that you could back-pedal and say something like "I meant to say ....", and then you can state your weaker claim more precisely.

I asked you "Are you claiming that a species always retains all of the cognitive traits of its ancestors?" and you replied "Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying". Please re-read your words and think about what they mean, and decide whether you really were speaking the truth when you said "Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying". I'm a generous man and I'm willing to allow that people make mistakes, but when they are pointed out and you are given an unmistakeable opportunity to correct an egregious error, you should either take advantage of this face-saving opportunity and admit "Yeah, I guess that was not really what I meant to say, what I meant to say was..." and then you can get your story straight, or, be prepared to actually defend that claim. Now, are you going to defend your claim, or are you going to withdraw the claim?

2) What do you mean exactly by "defending scientifically"? Do you mean that we're both expected to start citing peer-reviewed scientific journals, backed up by empyrical data? Because there would be obvious technical and time problems with that method.

Of course. You've made a scientific claim, so obviously you have knowledge of and access to the relevant scientific sources to back up your factual claim. You're not admitting that you completely made this nonsense about species always retaining all of the cognitive traits of its ancestors because it seemed like a good idea at the time??? So I'm assuming that you have the relevant background to defend the claim you made. Don't worry about me: it's true that I don't have the same level of access to scientific journals that I usually do, but I'm betting that I can get access to any source that you have. Don't be afraid to use facts to support your argument.

And a couple of points I wish to make absolutely crystal clear. A mental traits that a species acquire CAN BE removed from its future descendants through the evolutionary process.

Should I take this to be a revision of your previous reply? That is, when I asked "Are you claiming that a species always retains all of the cognitive traits of its ancestors?", you actually means to say "No", and instead accidently say "Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying"? If so, retraction accepted.

Emphatic speech is sometimes necessary to get people to actually read and think about the meaning of what they have said. This can be avoided if people think about what they are actually saying, so that they don't have to waste time with distracting indefensible claims, and then arguing "I don't want to argue semantics". Me neither -- my suggestion is to be more literal and not assume that people can guess that for you, "Yes" means "No".

[Moebius]

If you're going to quote me, do not do so out of context. What I actually said was:

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. Or at the very least, human beings possesses a portion of our ancestor's cognitive traits.

A PORTION OF. As in, not in its entirety. Although I would say the more integral the behavior is to living (ie. pain, fear, lust, hunger responses), the more likely they are to being inheritable. Now, when I said that "A mental traits that a species acquire CAN BE removed from its future descendants through the evolutionary process", I don't see how my previous statement and this one are mutually exclusive or contradictory. It certainly isn't a matter of changing an "yes" to a "no" as you're seemingly suggesting. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

As for backing up my words. To be honest I did not intend to invest a large amount of time into this thread. Currently I'm working in a foreign country (Taipei, Taiwan), and have no access what so ever to either a library or my own books. So the best I can do is to pull stuff off of the internet. If that is acceptable to you, I shall do some research, albeit at a later time when I'm more free.