What IS the "meaning of life"? Does it differ person-to-person?

[Brain]

Like I mentioned, these criteria were agreed upon by experts. If you wish to modify these laws, then go ahead. Until you do so, or other criteria pops up/gets modify I think it's fair to say that we should use these.

Look, buddy, I don't care what the definition of instinct is. But if YOU are going to give me a definition, then YOU should make sure that you use it properly. If we apply your definition literally, neither humans nor animals have instincts, and that's something I should NOT have to point out. According to your definition, and seeing how literally you apply it, instincts do not fucking exist.

It's not about using a definition agreed upon by experts or not. It's about using this definition competently. All through this thread, you have used your definition to deny that humans have any instincts, while simultaneously hand waving its application to animals (namely, that the vast majority of animal behavior does not fit the criteria either, and that many of them would indeed be devoid of any instinct). That is, you have applied this definition selectively and incompetently.

I mentioned that the ''type of happiness'' they can achieve is different than the one the humans can achieve.

And you have not provided a shred of evidence to that claim. I think you might be confused about what the null hypothesis is here. The null hypothesis isn't that our "type of happiness" is different - it is that our "type of happiness" is the same. YOU need to provide evidence if you want to say otherwise.

The hypothesis that we are somehow special has given us such brilliant theories as the Earth being at the center of the universe and creationism. For a long time, we assumed that animals could not make use of tools (oh, look at that, they can!), had no capacity for language whatsoever (and then we've taught chimps and parrots to make some limited use of sign/spoken language), did not suffer, had no emotions, and all that jazz.

We certainly are more proficient, or at the very least have the benefit of an advanced culture, but animals are much closer to us than we imagine.

They make experiments on us and ALL test subject chew the food they were given, then, yes, it might look like instinct, but it still wouldn't be. Before, we all taught demons caused illnesses and there were ''scientific'' data proving it, still doesn't mean it was correct.

So do you understand now how grossly mistaken we could be about animal instincts? Because that's the point I'm trying to make and that you seem to have glossed over. If we observe that even our strongest predispositions are not instincts, it's reasonable to assume that animal behavior is not instinctive either. After all, we all arised from natural processes. Why the fuck would you set different expectations for them?

Their instinct maybe to bury the food for survival later on? Another survival instinct, perhaps? All animals are different and therefore express their instincts differently. Yes and that effort is in a desire to survive possibly?

How about applying your freaking definition of "instinct" for a change? The behavior I have described obviously fails to meet criteria a) and e) and probably also fails to meet b), c) and f). So it's not an instinct. As for "survival instinct", many behaviors that you would say are done for survival stop occurring when animals are stressed out or depressed, which certainly has been observed to happen. So yet again according to your own definition, animals do not have a survival "instinct".

If you are going to annoy us with some definition of instinct that experts have agreed upon, for the love of all that is holy, use it, and use it properly. Don't make me waste my time doing your homework.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Look, buddy, I don't care what the definition of instinct is. But if YOU are going to give me a definition, then YOU should make sure that you use it properly. If we apply your definition literally, neither humans nor animals have instincts, and that's something I should NOT have to point out. According to your definition, and seeing how literally you apply it, instincts do not fucking exist.

Here I found you another definition of instinct (however it was in French and I used google translation to put it in English): The scientific study of behavior by the fact that the only possibility
to influence the world for an animal, is to perform contractions
muscle. We can simply define an act as a sequence
muscle contractions. To determine whether an act is innate
(Genetically determined) or acquired (learned), it is possible to use
four criteria.
The sequence is identical in all representatives of the species. This
the horizontal comparison method.
The sequence varies in shape and intensity depending on the genetic distance
between taxonomic groups nearby (species, genera, families),
revealing the phylogeny of these behaviors. This is the method of
comparing vertical.
The sequence is altered by any form of learning this is
easily verified for species where parental care is absent or
by artificial isolation from birth. This is the method by
insulation.
In many cases, it is possible to go back to the central nervous
responsible for this behavioral sequence, the rigidity of the constituent
motor center implies an origin as determined for this type of
behavior than the organs of the body. This is the method
physiological.

Following these criteria, humans do have instinct which are the facial expressions (smiling, making X face when terrified, etc.), however these studies are debated. But there you go, if you think these are more viable, then alright.

It's not about using a definition agreed upon by experts or not. It's about using this definition competently. All through this thread, you have used your definition to deny that humans have any instincts, while simultaneously hand waving its application to animals (namely, that the vast majority of animal behavior does not fit the criteria either, and that many of them would indeed be devoid of any instinct). That is, you have applied this definition selectively and incompetently.

Not really, example, please?

And you have not provided a shred of evidence to that claim. I think you might be confused about what the null hypothesis is here. The null hypothesis isn't that our "type of happiness" is different - it is that our "type of happiness" is the same. YOU need to provide evidence if you want to say otherwise.

Alright, let's use the maslow pyramid (which is the most viable ''step by step'' method of achieving happiness, although it is debated.) Step 5 being the first one, and step 1 being the last.

Stage 1: Accomplishment - Realizing our full potential, etc. (Only Humans can achieve this stage)

Stage 2: Self-Esteem - Need to be respected, having a good self esteem, etc. (Only humans can achieve this)

Stage 3: Love and need to socialize - Friends, family, group, privacy, etc. (Some living beings complete that stages)

Stage 4: Security- Financial security, personal security, being healthy, ''assurances'' etc. (Some living beings completes that stage)

Stage 5: Basic needs - Food, breathing, sleeping, etc. (Most living beings completes this stages)

This shows that the state of happiness that animals have is different that the humans have.



The hypothesis that we are somehow special has given us such brilliant theories as the Earth being at the center of the universe and creationism. For a long time, we assumed that animals could not make use of tools (oh, look at that, they can!), had no capacity for language whatsoever (and then we've taught chimps and parrots to make some limited use of sign/spoken language), did not suffer, had no emotions, and all that jazz.

We certainly are more proficient, or at the very least have the benefit of an advanced culture, but animals are much closer to us than we imagine.

So do you understand now how grossly mistaken we could be about animal instincts? Because that's the point I'm trying to make and that you seem to have glossed over. If we observe that even our strongest predispositions are not instincts, it's reasonable to assume that animal behavior is not instinctive either. After all, we all arised from natural processes. Why the fuck would you set different expectations for them?

You carefully took out the part that if there was scientific evidence proving that I was wrong, I would admit it? And yes we could be mistaking.

How about applying your freaking definition of "instinct" for a change? The behavior I have described obviously fails to meet criteria a) and e) and probably also fails to meet b), c) and f). So it's not an instinct. As for "survival instinct", many behaviors that you would say are done for survival stop occurring when animals are stressed out or depressed, which certainly has been observed to happen. So yet again according to your own definition, animals do not have a survival "instinct".

If you are going to annoy us with some definition of instinct that experts have agreed upon, for the love of all that is holy, use it, and use it properly. Don't make me waste my time doing your homework.

Alright, I provided you with criteria that shows evidence of humans having some instincts, happy? Are those criteria better in your opinion?

 

[TheMartian]

I never understood why there is such a fascination with the meaning of life. I find it to be a random, irrelevant question. It is like asking "what is the meaning of this rock being in this exact specific place?" There is no meaning of the rock being there, but there is an explanation of how the rock came to be and how it got to that exact specific place. Life is the same way.

 

[Brain]

Here I found you another definition of instinct (however it was in French and I used google translation to put it in English):

Then maybe I should make the point in French, because you don't seem to get it.

Je me contrecrisse de comment tu définis "instinct", ce que j'essaie de te dire, c'est que tu n'appliques ta définition que lorsque ça t'arrange. Tu montres de quelle manière les comportements humains ne correspondent pas, mais jamais comment les comportements animaux correspondent. C'est deux poids deux mesures.

Alright, let's use the maslow pyramid (which is the most viable ''step by step'' method of achieving happiness, although it is debated.) Step 5 being the first one, and step 1 being the last.

Stage 1: Accomplishment - Realizing our full potential, etc. (Only Humans can achieve this stage)

Stage 2: Self-Esteem - Need to be respected, having a good self esteem, etc. (Only humans can achieve this)

When I say make your case, I mean, make your case, not make other unsubstantiated assertions.

About stage 2: are you really saying that only humans have self-esteem? I call bullshit. Many animals can feel whether you respect them or not, and I don't see why you think they have no concept of self-esteem. I am confident that this stage actually applies to many, if not most animals.

About stage 1: if animals have less potential than we do, then it should be easier for them to realize their full potential. When dolphins make up games like trying to bite a bubble before it rises to the surface, and then give themselves various handicaps to make it more challenging, is this not meeting stage 1 in some sense? They are trying to better themselves and derive enjoyment and happiness from it.

You're going to have to do better than this.

You carefully took out the part that if there was scientific evidence proving that I was wrong, I would admit it? And yes we could be mistaking.

That's like a Christian asking for evidence that God does not exist. You're the one with the irrational belief.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Then maybe I should make the point in French, because you don't seem to get it.

Je me contrecrisse de comment tu définis "instinct", ce que j'essaie de te dire, c'est que tu n'appliques ta définition que lorsque ça t'arrange. Tu montres de quelle manière les comportements humains ne correspondent pas, mais jamais comment les comportements animaux correspondent. C'est deux poids deux mesures.

Yes, I know that, it's what you told me like 3 post ago, but I did show how the behavior of animals correspond; I did admit that some of their action are not instinctual, however that does not directly mean that they are free. Show me proof of when I distorted the definition to suit my point.

When I say make your case, I mean, make your case, not make other unsubstantiated assertions.

In the beginning it wasn't my intention to talk about instinct, Kitten Bukkake simply talked about part of my statement and let the other part go away.

About stage 2: are you really saying that only humans have self-esteem? I call bullshit. Many animals can feel whether you respect them or not, and I don't see why you think they have no concept of self-esteem. I am confident that this stage actually applies to many, if not most animals.

Animals do not have a desire to get valued by others and do no seek ways of increasing their self-esteem. Also, they do no seek to respect themselves by being strong, independent, intelligent, etc.

About stage 1: if animals have less potential than we do, then it should be easier for them to realize their full potential. When dolphins make up games like trying to bite a bubble before it rises to the surface, and then give themselves various handicaps to make it more challenging, is this not meeting stage 1 in some sense? They are trying to better themselves and derive enjoyment and happiness from it.

Quoting Maslow on what is a man that has accomplished himself/ is self-actualized: He possesses an unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, the dishonest in personality, and in general to judge the people correctly and efficiently.

Here are the characteristic of such a person:

They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth. - Animals can't
They are spontaneous. - Alright.
They are interested in solving problems. - Nope.
They are accepting of themselves and others and lack prejudice. - Nope.

You're going to have to do better than this.



That's like a Christian asking for evidence that God does not exist. You're the one with the irrational belief.

Maybe so, except that I have actual scientific facts.

 

[MrIndigo]

Animals can go into denial.

For example, the shingleback lizard in central Australia will partner for life. If one partner is run over crossing one of the desert highways, as does happen, the other one will stay by it, bring it food, etc. as though it is still alive or will wake up.

It should also be pointed out that some animals, particularly apes and certain birds, are interested in solving puzzles. And there are plenty of people who are not.

Also, lol@humans lack prejudice. lol indeed.

Your belief seems to be predicated on the assumption that because we can't talk to animals or read their thoughts, it must follow that they don't actually have any and simply move around like automata; that because we can't actually tell what an animal's mental state is, it doesn't have one.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Animals can go into denial.

For example, the shingleback lizard in central Australia will partner for life. If one partner is run over crossing one of the desert highways, as does happen, the other one will stay by it, bring it food, etc. as though it is still alive or will wake up.

It should also be pointed out that some animals, particularly apes and certain birds, are interested in solving puzzles. And there are plenty of people who are not.

Also, lol@humans lack prejudice. lol indeed.

That's why it's not your everyday person that's happy =)

Your belief seems to be predicated on the assumption that because we can't talk to animals or read their thoughts, it must follow that they don't actually have any and simply move around like automata; that because we can't actually tell what an animal's mental state is, it doesn't have one.

Some animals can partially complete the ''esteem'' step, but not fully, it's somewhat the same for the ''self-actualization'' step, except even less animals are able to. There are some points in which animals can act like us, like you pointed out the denial aspect and like Brains pointed out the dolphins potentially giving names to each other, but on the other hand there are things that they cannot accomplish such as accepting themselves and others and lack prejudice or embrace reality by only accepting the truths (although one could argue that they do that more than us) or even the need to be valued by other animals and being respected and having a need to respect themselves.

I don't really think it's because we cannot communicate with them -- sure it makes finding data on them much harder, but still. I think that they are, despite the fact that they are quite comparable to us in some aspect, still bound by their instinct even if some/many of their actions aren't instinctual.

 

[Brain]

Yes, I know that, it's what you told me like 3 post ago, but I did show how the behavior of animals correspond;

If you did, you're going to have to quote yourself, because I reviewed all your posts and I found nothing.

I did admit that some of their action are not instinctual, however that does not directly mean that they are free.

What are the criteria for them to be "free", then? You never even gave these. All you do is systematic hand waving.

Show me proof of when I distorted the definition to suit my point.

You didn't "distort" the definition. You plainly ignored it. You did not go through the trouble of applying any of your criteria to any example I gave, and hand waved all counter points. I gave many examples of interesting animal behavior - you said (with zero justification) that they fit the criteria - I showed that they most certainly did not - you conceded, but said it didn't matter, and then to add insult to injury you said "But humans being free, their goal in life is to achieve a state of happiness, unlike the animals bound by their instinct." You said that in answer to a post intended to show that animal behavior you thought was instinctive, was not instinctive, right after conceding the points!?! What were you thinking? What am I supposed to answer to that?

Animals do not have a desire to get valued by others and do no seek ways of increasing their self-esteem. Also, they do no seek to respect themselves by being strong, independent, intelligent, etc.

Okay and you know that how? For sure, animals have a desire to get valued by their mates. Some behaviors from pets could be interpreted as them wanting to be loved and valued by their masters. Seeking ways to increase one's self-esteem seems like it would be rather difficult to observe. When a crow witnesses that its ruse worked, don't you think it feels some self-satisfaction and improved esteem? For fuck's sake, that's what esteem is for. It's the particular kind of positive reinforcement one gets for conscious actions that produced the intended results. And as for all positive reinforcement, there is an incentive to obtain more of it. Why would animals somehow escape this logic and never work on themselves?

They embrace reality and facts rather than denying truth. - Animals can't
They are spontaneous. - Alright.
They are interested in solving problems. - Nope.
They are accepting of themselves and others and lack prejudice. - Nope.

If animals don't embrace reality and facts, how do you expect them to survive? Many animals will judge you better than your peers, if only because you don't know what cues to fake to approach them.

What makes you think animals are not interested in solving problems? What's a problem to them might seem trivial to us, so it might not be very noticeable even if it is pervasive. Of course, they usually need incentives (natural or artificial), but so do we. Except for play - play is a form of spontaneously problem solving that humans and animals alike indulge in.

Animals are not accepting of themselves and others? All instances of animal empathy in various settings seem to be counter-examples. In any case, a lack of acceptance is much easier to show than acceptance. That there is acceptance is the better default position, until a case can be made that there isn't.

Maybe so, except that I have actual scientific facts.

Bullshit. I have yet to see one.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

If you did, you're going to have to quote yourself, because I reviewed all your posts and I found nothing.



What are the criteria for them to be "free", then? You never even gave these. All you do is systematic hand waving.

I gave those in a previous post, it's to be able , no matter what, to choose and make a decision never based on instinct.

You didn't "distort" the definition. You plainly ignored it. You did not go through the trouble of applying any of your criteria to any example I gave, and hand waved all counter points. I gave many examples of interesting animal behavior - you said (with zero justification) that they fit the criteria - I showed that they most certainly did not - you conceded, but said it didn't matter, and then to add insult to injury you said "But humans being free, their goal in life is to achieve a state of happiness, unlike the animals bound by their instinct." You said that in answer to a post intended to show that animal behavior you thought was instinctive, was not instinctive, right after conceding the points!?! What were you thinking? What am I supposed to answer to that?

Animals do have similar behaviors to ours, however they still have instinct which means that sometimes they are ''forced'' to do certain actions; they do not know how to act otherwise. They, therefore, can't choose in those instances which means that they aren't free.

Okay and you know that how? For sure, animals have a desire to get valued by their mates. Some behaviors from pets could be interpreted as them wanting to be loved and valued by their masters. Seeking ways to increase one's self-esteem seems like it would be rather difficult to observe. When a crow witnesses that its ruse worked, don't you think it feels some self-satisfaction and improved esteem? For fuck's sake, that's what esteem is for. It's the particular kind of positive reinforcement one gets for conscious actions that produced the intended results. And as for all positive reinforcement, there is an incentive to obtain more of it. Why would animals somehow escape this logic and never work on themselves?

Perhaps they could show an aspect of that stage, but they don't fully complete it. For example some animals have no desire of ''mastery'' of certain acts, nor do they have a need for recognition and accomplishment or fame. How do I know that? Because no animals shows all these types of behavior at the same time. However we could be wrong like you mention for it's hard to study them on a psychological level.

If animals don't embrace reality and facts, how do you expect them to survive? Many animals will judge you better than your peers, if only because you don't know what cues to fake to approach them.

Yes, I mentioned that in my previous post that you could argue this. However, can they detect the fake, the dishonest in one? Nope. For example, we sometimes make fake animals to scare away X undesired animals.

What makes you think animals are not interested in solving problems? What's a problem to them might seem trivial to us, so it might not be very noticeable even if it is pervasive. Of course, they usually need incentives (natural or artificial), but so do we. Except for play - play is a form of spontaneously problem solving that humans and animals alike indulge in.

Maybe so, but to the animals that show these types of behavior conform to the rest of the criteria? Not really, they can't fully accept themselves, lack prejudice, can't discern the fake, they especially can't discern the spurious etc.

Animals are not accepting of themselves and others? All instances of animal empathy in various settings seem to be counter-examples. In any case, a lack of acceptance is much easier to show than acceptance.

Like I mentioned above.

 

[Obsessed]

Some animals can partially complete the ''esteem'' step, but not fully, it's somewhat the same for the ''self-actualization'' step, except even less animals are able to. There are some points in which animals can act like us, like you pointed out the denial aspect and like Brains pointed out the dolphins potentially giving names to each other, but on the other hand there are things that they cannot accomplish such as accepting themselves and others and lack prejudice or embrace reality by only accepting the truths (although one could argue that they do that more than us) or even the need to be valued by other animals and being respected and having a need to respect themselves.

You aren't offering any evidence for any of these claims.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

You aren't offering any evidence for any of these claims.

The fact that some animals shows deny means that they refuse the truth, also we use fake animals to scare undesired ones, they cannot discern the dishonest, etc.

 

[Obsessed]

The fact that some animals shows deny means that they refuse the truth, also we use fake animals to scare undesired ones, they cannot discern the dishonest, etc.

Sounds just like people, especially young children.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Sounds just like people, especially young children.

Infant/Young Children for we are appealed to liberty and therefore, maybe happiness. Otherwise children do have values, etc. whereas an animal cannot to a certain extent.

 

[Obsessed]

Infant/Young Children for we are appealed to liberty and therefore, maybe happiness. Otherwise children do have values, etc. whereas an animal cannot to a certain extent.

Ok can you rephrase the bolded? Maybe its just me, but that is just a strange combination of words that does not quite make a coherent sentence.

Evidence that animals do not have values please.

 

[Morm]

that certain point was just rebuffed entirely by Brain and Mr.Indigo's posts, as well as muddied by mine. I think you have a rather foggy definition of what an instinct is; an instinct is an URGE to do a certain task which can be avoided by either force of will or secondary (or more) input from stimuli.

Based on theses criteria, an instinct cannot be overridden by will. Give me either something criticizing the criteria I gave you with viable arguments or other criteria, then I shall admit that it can be overridden by will if the source you provide me shows it. So, let's say I have an urge of playing the PSP. Would that according to you be an instinct?

All instinct falls under the category of urge but not all urge is an instinct, hence why the words are not synonyms. I have given you many examples throughout this discussion that clearly demonstrate my points while you, when asked POINT BLANK repeatedly, fall behind your C/P'd wikipedia quote without a shred of knowledge about what it truly means. You are accomplishing the EXACT same thing that christians do when they backpeddle to a lowest common denominator, aka God of the Gaps.

I specifically say in my post above

an instinct is an URGE to do a certain task which can be avoided by either force of will or secondary (or more) input from stimuli.

Let me spoon feed this to you since you're having some issues. Force of will would imply that the animal simply doesn't want to do it- for example, migration. A bird doesn't HAVE to migrate, but it's illogical not to since it's entire cohort is moving towards food. So in 99% of cases, sheer will against an instinct is silly in natural settings. We live in a non-natural setting thanks to our outright instinct to alter our environment. It's because of this that we are able to alter our behaviors and ignore some instincts because our one overriding instinct (to change our environment) has made things like bears trivial at best, so our natural instinct when encountering one doesn't really come up a lot. I hope that rather obvious example helps you to understand.

The second part of what I was saying involves a second 'interfering' stimuli. You've demonstrated you kind of understand this, so I won't go in depth unless you need more help.

I am again baffled by you- brain's elegant and rather accessible examples, questions and answers for you should be evident to even the most simple minded people. Is there some particular reason you are exhibiting intellectual zealotry to this idea, beyond your one trick pony intellectual theft from Wikipedia? I'd like to see some more in depth reactions from you other than demanding everyone else prove things and then ignore the outcomes that you clearly don't like.

Obsessed, Animals have values but they are different from ours. Hell, murderers and complete amoral crackpots have values, though they may be negative ones. I think he mis spoke though...

Brain, I agree, he has zero scientific backing and IS hand waving all over the place. I hope this gets resolved, either by lock or understanding from a stubborn party, before this descends into utter lunacy. Oh wait:

The fact that some animals shows deny means that they refuse the truth, also we use fake animals to scare undesired ones, they cannot discern the dishonest, etc.

What the hell does this mean? I'd like to experience this thought process.

Infant/Young Children for we are appealed to liberty and therefore, maybe happiness. Otherwise children do have values, etc. whereas an animal cannot to a certain extent.

...what?

This is such a common thing. I see it all the time. When backed into a corner, you plead to a higher power (in this case, wikipedia). When that is utterly smashed it becomes apparent you have no idea what idea you're even defending. It's unfortunately a by-product of being educationally ill equipped and stubborn in most cases. No offense flygon, but I strongly suggest you educate yourself on this whole idea beyond your single faulty link, then read up on what a scientific "fact" is, as well as the process people use to come up with these ideas.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

All instinct falls under the category of urge but not all urge is an instinct, hence why the words are not synonyms. I have given you many examples throughout this discussion that clearly demonstrate my points while you, when asked POINT BLANK repeatedly, fall behind your C/P'd wikipedia quote without a shred of knowledge about what it truly means. You are accomplishing the EXACT same thing that christians do when they backpeddle to a lowest common denominator, aka God of the Gaps.

I specifically say in my post above



Let me spoon feed this to you since you're having some issues. Force of will would imply that the animal simply doesn't want to do it- for example, migration. A bird doesn't HAVE to migrate, but it's illogical not to since it's entire cohort is moving towards food. So in 99% of cases, sheer will against an instinct is silly in natural settings. We live in a non-natural setting thanks to our outright instinct to alter our environment. It's because of this that we are able to alter our behaviors and ignore some instincts because our one overriding instinct (to change our environment) has made things like bears trivial at best, so our natural instinct when encountering one doesn't really come up a lot. I hope that rather obvious example helps you to understand.

The second part of what I was saying involves a second 'interfering' stimuli. You've demonstrated you kind of understand this, so I won't go in depth unless you need more help.

I am again baffled by you- brain's elegant and rather accessible examples, questions and answers for you should be evident to even the most simple minded people. Is there some particular reason you are exhibiting intellectual zealotry to this idea, beyond your one trick pony intellectual theft from Wikipedia? I'd like to see some more in depth reactions from you other than demanding everyone else prove things and then ignore the outcomes that you clearly don't like.

Obsessed, Animals have values but they are different from ours. Hell, murderers and complete amoral crackpots have values, though they may be negative ones. I think he mis spoke though...

Brain, I agree, he has zero scientific backing and IS hand waving all over the place. I hope this gets resolved, either by lock or understanding from a stubborn party, before this descends into utter lunacy. Oh wait:



What the hell does this mean? I'd like to experience this thought process.



...what?

This is such a common thing. I see it all the time. When backed into a corner, you plead to a higher power (in this case, wikipedia). When that is utterly smashed it becomes apparent you have no idea what idea you're even defending. It's unfortunately a by-product of being educationally ill equipped and stubborn in most cases. No offense flygon, but I strongly suggest you educate yourself on this whole idea beyond your single faulty link, then read up on what a scientific "fact" is, as well as the process people use to come up with these ideas.

It is clearly stipulated in the Wikipedia article and on many other articles that an instinct cannot be overridden; I doubt there is something to misinterpret here. Educationally ill? I went to the top schools in my country and got some of the best marks. I don't plead to an higher power, and I have idea of what I am defending: humans are appealed to liberty, and therefore possibly happiness. Every humans have values whereas animals do not to a certain extent (not mentioning they don't have values, but they are VERY basic.)

 

[MrIndigo]

humans are appealed to liberty, and therefore possibly happiness. Every humans have values whereas animals do not to a certain extent (not mentioning they don't have values, but they are VERY basic.)

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

This is what I was saying before. You think that because you can't read the mind of an animal, it doesn't have one. That because you can't hear it thinking, it isn't thinking.


EDIT: Actually, @thread in general. Definitions of "instinct" defined by psychologists have almost all the same problems as definitions of sentience, probably because of how the concepts are related. The definition of sentience keeps changing because human beings are desperate to believe that they are somehow special and different from other animals; as science discovers more about animal behaviour and just how self-aware many animals are, the definition of sentience adjusts to exclude the new observed behaviours. The difficulty that has started to arise in recent years is that animals have been demonstrably more self aware than certain members of society, in particular the newborn and the aged infirm. This means that definitions of sentience are harder to adjust because to retract it to avoid the animal behaviour usually means you're excluding babies and old people as well, which is undesirable since many aspects of societal function are predicated on the idea that people are sentient.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

This is what I was saying before. You think that because you can't read the mind of an animal, it doesn't have one. That because you can't hear it thinking, it isn't thinking.


EDIT: Actually, @thread in general. Definitions of "instinct" defined by psychologists have almost all the same problems as definitions of sentience, probably because of how the concepts are related. The definition of sentience keeps changing because human beings are desperate to believe that they are somehow special and different from other animals; as science discovers more about animal behaviour and just how self-aware many animals are, the definition of sentience adjusts to exclude the new observed behaviours. The difficulty that has started to arise in recent years is that animals have been demonstrably more self aware than certain members of society, in particular the newborn and the aged infirm. This means that definitions of sentience are harder to adjust because to retract it to avoid the animal behaviour usually means you're excluding babies and old people as well, which is undesirable since many aspects of societal function are predicated on the idea that people are sentient.

Babies are excluded, old people aren't. Why that is? It's because babies are appealed to liberty, which means that as they grow ''independent'' they will become free. On that point, most animals have more freedom that babies and infants and maybe young children. However the values of an animal are comparable to those of a very young child, not to those of an independent man. Truth is, I only believe about a fifth of what I said, the rest I ''invented'' it and then checked for sources of information backing me up after; for that matter, I actually only know about a fifth of what I am talking about too, lol. I mostly did that for fun (maybe not at the very beginning, but at the end ,yes). Yes, I do not know at all, actually. I know nearly nothing about animal biology. Also, it's not because I can't read it, that it doesn't have one; never told that. But by observations we deduced it. Could be wrong, despite the fact that science as of now is on it's way to disproving it possibly, could be true, you don't know either.

 

[Morm]

It is clearly stipulated in the Wikipedia article and on many other articles that an instinct cannot be overridden; I doubt there is something to misinterpret here.

Yes, I do not know at all, actually. I know nearly nothing about animal biology. Also, it's not because I can't read it, that it doesn't have one; never told that. But by observations we deduced it. Could be wrong, despite the fact that science as of now is on it's way to disproving it possibly, could be true, you don't know either.

At least you admit your shortcomings, but it still makes me curious as to why you're so stubborn about it in light of your full admission that you're basically talking out of your ass. The second bolded sentence is one of my favorites because you show in one elegant form that you are ignorant to the scientific process/method AND you admit that you're basically wrong, but you're using God of the Gaps "You don't know for sure so that little bit of doubt means you're a lot wrong" mentality.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

...




Astounding. Baffling.

How can people, as a species in general, appeal to liberty? I have absolutely no idea what perspective you're debating from. Can you enlighten me more on your elite background?

Babies aren't free, they need their parents, but as they grow more independent, their freedom also increase. Which is why I stated that we are appealed to liberty. Hmm, what do you desire to know?

Liberty has nothing to do with instinct and is also mutually exclusive to happiness.

It is exclusive to the ''animal happiness'', but not the human happiness.

I know it's like beating a dead horse to get gold out of it, but please define the parameters of this.

Their values basically are their basic needs for survival.

EDIT: Personally, I believe that it is more inclining towards the wrong part and I personally think it is more likely to be wrong, but we don't have enough evidence of that to make that claim yet and be sure it's true.I am simply defending the other part of the deal for fun, mainly. I am not ignorant of the scientific method, I am studying physics, chemistry (maybe not my best scores, but I still have decent marks around the 80-85), and social sicences type of deal.

 

[Morm]

I don't understand what you mean by free, liberty and etc. What is your background in? What's your degree in? That can help us all understand what case you're trying to beg to here.

You're really treating instinct like it's some enslaving force, like mental shackles if you will, when in reality it actually exists as a behavioral regime in response to constant/consistent stimuli throughout the evolutionary history of said animal (including people).

How can a value be compared with a basic need for survival in such a way? Can you elaborate?

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I don't understand what you mean by free, liberty and etc. What is your background in? What's your degree in? That can help us all understand what case you're trying to beg to here.

You're really treating instinct like it's some enslaving force, like mental shackles if you will, when in reality it actually exists as a behavioral regime in response to constant/consistent stimuli throughout the evolutionary history of said animal (including people).

How can a value be compared with a basic need for survival in such a way? Can you elaborate?

I explained it's to always be able to choose and make a decision free from constraints.

I don't know where you live (USA I am guessing), but I study in Québec, Canada and soon maybe to Vancouver (for Univ.) or stay in Québec. Here our system works kinda like this: we have primary schools (the basic deal) for 6 years. I obviously completed that. Then we have secondary schools for 5 years (at the 5th year we have to choose between a ''humanities'' program or a science program, I chose science). After that we have CEGEP (which I am currently doing, my 2nd year of it). Cegep is a pre-university type of deal where we can choose from different programs like humanities, science & humanities (which I am doing), science & humanities & art etc. The lengh of Cegep is from 2-3 years depending on whether you wish to go to university or not. Therefore I don't really have degrees (except the secondary school diploma), but I have won maths, rhetoric, science contests, etc. (not that it matters outside of cv). For the case I am begging, I don't believe in it (well in most of it).

For instance, food would be a value.

 

[Morm]

I am from Canada and did my university at UofA.

So in other words, you haven't gone to the best schools in Canada but you intend to. That's like...pre-emptive higher power pleading.

So you don't even believe in the arguments you're pitching, judging by how you just said you don't believe in the case you're begging. Why not just back away from the thread, slowly?

There are always constraints, in every choice, whether you perceive them or not.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I am from Canada and did my university at UofA.

So in other words, you haven't gone to the best schools in Canada but you intend to. That's like...pre-emptive higher power pleading.

So you don't even believe in the arguments you're pitching, judging by how you just said you don't believe in the case you're begging. Why not just back away from the thread, slowly?

There are always constraints, in every choice, whether you perceive them or not.

Well I have been to the best schools (secondary, cegep) as of now and most likely will go to a good univ. I don't quite see why I wouldn't go to a good one. Just out of curiosity, what's your degree in?

Well I see it as fun to argue something that I don't agree with and that is most likely to be false.

 

[Morm]

Paleontology.

You cannot count silly high school as anything. It's a nothing diploma in this day and age. It's nothing short of retarded to play devils advocate this far into an online thrashing.