I wonder what controls instincts which I see as somewhat like inclinations which suggest movement and power. I am inclined to think it is the interplay within a community though not always in ways that can be understood. I wonder of Peirce with his seemingly default inclining toward the community as a sort of teleological destiny and his sense of the porousness of the individual ultimately felt that instincts have something like consciousness?
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina ~ > My notes on habit and evolution are more wide-ranging (random?) than your > comments/questions. These are my interpretation of the science, but of > course I can be wrong. > > 1- Is instinct a property only of the more complex realms? That depends > on how one interprets "instinct." If we define instinct as behavioral > feature shared by all members of a "species," then protons and electrons DO > have an instinct to spend time with each other, when the opportunity > presents itself. The +/- attraction characterizes all protons and > electrons, and they always exhibit the expected behavior in a neutral > environment. I consider that an instinct. Other subatomic particles don't > (necessarily) possess it. Some may label this a "characteristic" of > protons and electron, instead of an instinct, which is fine with me -- if > it is understood this characteristic describes behavior, not physical > attributes. > > 2- Those protons and electrons can change into altered versions of their > original states if placed in a different environment. However, I don't > consider that evolution. It is a reaction to the environment. The +/- > characteristics of atomic particles don't change physically or alter their > behavior without something happening in the neighborhood/environment where > they reside. Chemists change their environment, but so do other things > (e.g., heat in stars, electromagnetic radiation from the earth's core, > nearby atoms). If evolution occurred, then we could not reverse the > process and break materials down into the original atoms. > > 3- Evolution modifies living things (over time) to add physical features > to them that incorporate regular/everyday life activities into the physical > body of species members. Then, behavior originally attributed to volition > become instinctual. Theoretically, nature "decides" that a one-time > investment of resources (so to speak) reduces physical and cognitive effort > that would otherwise be required throughout the lifetimes of the species > members. Following evolution, the individual can devote effort and > cognitive attention to more pressing matters that occur less frequently but > have greater survival value, such as an attack by predators. > > All of this is captured by your statement that evolution "is a basic form > of knowledge." I agree. I see it as nature's knowledge embodied into a > living thing. > > 4- When evolution provides "instincts" that are efficient substitutes for > cognitive activity, an external observer may perceive cognition when none > actually occurs. (Observers may not be able to see something, and abduct > some phenomenon that doesn't exist.) > > 5- Creatures do not simply evolve the "ability to think" or "ability to > move" in some generic way, but evolved the ability to process information > and move in a manner that supports efficient outcomes. Thus human brains > are created as logical organs, with abduction/induction/deduction shaping > (being reflected in) the physical structure of the mechanism just as our > digestive tracts are structured efficiently to perform that function. > Brain cells (neurons) are in the stomach to detect toxins and trigger a > rapid response. > > 6- Living things do, as you say, have a clear advantage over abiotic > bodies when it comes to evolution. However, abiotic bodies comprise the > things that evolve, so they are along for the evolutionary journey. A > light photon traveling from the sun is abiotic, but a plant captures and > processes it to produce sugar and oxygen. Then animals eat the sugar and > breathe the oxygen. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Biological life is > comprised of abiotic material, and that's what it eventually becomes when > life ends. > > 7- For an atom (anything) to "evolve" in nature, it appears a mechanism > would have to exist involving birth, death, reproduction, the concept of > more fit vs. less fit, etc. I am not aware of anyone describing such a > mechanism for atomic particles. It is possible that some atoms can be > described as "evolving" into metals or certain compounds independent of > environmental conditions, but I am unaware of any such mechanism. > > 8- I watched a video last night from the iTunes Store about Darwin which > illustrated the example provided in your final sentences. The same bird > evolved different beaks on each of the Galápagos Islands, corresponding to > the food found on each. A series of birds collected by Darwin were laid > next to each other; on one end was a tiny beak, while on the other the beak > was very large. The birds evolved, not the beaks, via the "survival of the > fittest" mechanism. (This is #7.) Other genetic changes occurred in the > birds while their beaks were evolving, so they became distinct species and > lost the ability to reproduce with each other. > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick > > > > On Jul 19, 2015, at 8:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Tom - I like your outline of the nature of instinct, as a property > triggered by an external stimuli. > > This further suggests that instinct is a property found not merely in the > individual unit - i.e., an entity with distinct boundaries (which could be > a chemical molecule or a bacterium) but further, only in an entity that has > the capacity, as that individual, to act and react (which could take place > both within the bacterium and the molecule). So do both the biotic and > abiotic realm function within instinct? Or is instinct a property only of > the more complex realms? > > That is, instinct is seemingly removed, as a form of knowledge, from the > normative habits or rules-of-formation of abiotic matter. Certainly, a > chemical molecule can, in interaction with another molecule, transform > itself into a more complex molecule. But are the habits, the chemical > rules-of-formation on the same operational level as instinct? Can these > habits continuously adapt and evolve in the abiotic realm? That is, is > instinct a specific form of innate knowledge that gives the biotic realm an > existential advantage? > > I'd suggest that it is a basic form of knowledge that activates the > organism to adapt and evolve in the face of environmental stimuli. If the > environment changes such that a property is missing in the environment > (water, food, security, other members of the species) - then, instinct will > activate the individual to move to a site where such properties do exist. > > One could also suggest that if the environment changes such that food > seeds have tougher shells, instinct, stimulated by the deprivation of food, > would activate the current individuals in that area to develop a tougher > beak. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ozzie <ozzie...@gmail.com> > *To:* Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion > > Ben, list - > Thanks for your interesting comments. I will spend more time thinking > about them later today. > > Let me briefly address one sentence from your comments: "I'd say that > instincts can also be triggered _*inside*_ the body, e.g., by prolonged > emptiness of the stomach." > > According to the common definition (interpretant) instincts are triggered > by things in the external world. Before birth, food is ALWAYS available > to the baby. After birth, and assuming an attentive mother (caregiver), > food continues to be available without any effort or reciprocation on the > baby's behalf. This goes on daily for many years, so not feeling hunger > pains becomes the norm, the expectation. > > Against that backdrop, when food is withheld (by the external > environment), one's sensation of hunger (-) is a disturbance to the > status quo (0), which summons the instinct to do something (+) to make that > "pain" go away. When something from the environment is eaten (+), the > sensation (-) disappears (0). > > It is in this sense hunger pains and their elimination are related to > (triggered by) the individual's contact with the external world. If the > individual eats a full meal AND THEN feels hungry, I agree that particular > sensation has an *internal trigger (likely emotions or a physical > disability). > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick > > > > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 8:04 AM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > > Regarding some of your comments, I'd say that instincts can also be > triggered _*inside*_ the body, e.g., by prolonged emptiness of the > stomach. > > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
