Tom - thanks for your response; mine are below.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ozzie
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
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.
EDWINA: Exactly. It depends on how one defines 'instinct'. I consider the
physico-chemical realm does not have 'instincts' but has LAWS of organization
(as does all other matter). Certainly, a law is not a 'physical attribute' but
is a rule-of-organization of that physical matter.
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.
EDWINA: Yes, the protons and electrons can change into altered versions -
but- according to the stable LAWS of organization within that matter. I think
that to have the physico-chemical realm open to adaptive evolution would be
disastrous! - That would mean that the basic infrastructure of matter was
unstable, which would render all biological organisms that depend on the
stability of chemical composition - equally unstable.
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.
EDWINA: Agreed, the biological organisms can add/remove physical features to
render them more constructively adaptive to the environment; this new feature
doesn't have to be learned; it is a part of the biological attributes of the
species.
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.
EDWINA: Peirce would refer to this nature's knowledge as 'Mind'..which he
considered a basic reality right down to and including the physico-chemical
realm. I'll provide one of my favourite quotes from Peirce: 4.551
"Thought is not necessarily connected with a b rain. It appears in the work
of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world"...Not only is
thought in the [in]organic world but it develops there. But as there cannot be
a General without Instances embodying it, so there cannot be thought without
Signs".
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.)
EDWINA: But the development of that instinct can be understood as a result of
the operation of a universal or general 'Mind'. And this is NOT some agential
force, but is an inherent property of matter, to be organized and capable of
networking with other forms of matter. [I am interested in CAS, or complex
adaptive systems.]
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.
EDWINA: Exactly - the ability to develop and process information..that
supports efficient outcomes. I fully agree.
As for human brains and logic, yes, but there is another factor of the human
brain, which contributes both to man's benefit and its downfall. That is the
capacity for imagination, which is the basis of innovation and development, and
the basis for hatred, irrationality and evil.
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.
EDWINA: heh- yes, the abiotic bodies hitch a ride and are transformed,
mechanically, to various less complex and more complex bodies. BUT, the biotic
bodies are the ones that are capable of novelty of form - which the abiotic
bodies, thankfully, cannot develop. [The world would destabilize if such were
possible!].
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.
EDWINA: A transformation of a collection of atoms into compounds does not
change the atomic nature of the atoms. So, I don't consider that evolution of
this physico-chemical realm - at least now - billions of years after the
universe began - is possible. Again, thank goodness.
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.
EDWINA: Exactly. Now, I consider that there are TWO methods of evolution.
One, is the anticipatory one - which is not talked about as much as the simpler
external 'Natural Selection'. Anticipation, however, is an internal information
process of networking with other organisms...coming up with a small set of
possible solutions to environmental stresses - and, by chance, picking one of
them (any of the set would have presumably done the job). THEN, natural
selection kicks in, allowing members of the population with this new attribute
to become dominant.
Regards,
Edwina
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
To: Benjamin Udell
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 .
