Are my beliefs coherent with all that we know to be true?

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

To begin I will make the following claims about instinct.

1. It is a guiding force in all creatures (including us).
1a. It is most noticeable in the insect kingdom. Because they have smaller brains they are totally controlled by instinct. With larger animals (with more advanced brains) it is still observable. We are the least effected by instinct but it still has an effect on us.

2. It is one force.
2a. When a species mutates and eventually separates into two separate species there is never a separating of instinct into two separate forces. This one force provides the guidance for both creatures.

3. It is possible for humans to communicate with there instinct.
3a. If instinct has the ability to communicate its will to all creatures then it only sounds reasonable that ability should operate in both directions. Is there a reason to assume that communication is only one way? This would likely include meditation, prayer, etc.

[Sonofason]

Hello,

To begin I will make the following claims about instinct.

1. It is a guiding force in all creatures (including us).
1a. It is most noticeable in the insect kingdom. Because they have smaller brains they are totally controlled by instinct. With larger animals (with more advanced brains) it is still observable. We are the least effected by instinct but it still has an effect on us.

2. It is one force.
2a. When a species mutates and eventually separates into two separate species there is never a separating of instinct into two separate forces. This one force provides the guidance for both creatures.

3. It is possible for humans to communicate with there instinct.
3a. If instinct has the ability to communicate its will to all creatures then it only sounds reasonable that ability should operate in both directions. Is there a reason to assume that communication is only one way? This would likely include meditation, prayer, etc.

I am not altogether convinced that such a thing as instinct even exists.

Consider this definition of instinct:
a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity.

Seriously, what does this even mean. a natural capacity?, a natural impulse?, a natural aptitude? an intrinsic or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity? What is this?

There is nothing in existence that is not natural. The brain is capable of reason. It can reason even while you are sleeping, while you are unconscious. You do not have to be aware that you are reasoning in order to be reasoning.

Nevertheless, lets look at another definition of the word instinct.
Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.

As I have said, the brain is capable of reasoning even in an unconscious state. Does that make it instinct? Brains are inheritable features that all creatures with brains have inherited. Is the brain and it's ability to reason instinctive?

On the other hand, we all should be familiar with Chemistry. Molecules and atoms don't interact with one another just because you want them to. It is the structure of the atom or molecule which enables it, or causes it to interact with other atoms and molecules. Honestly, you don't even really get to decide if you want particular atoms and molecules to interact with one another, because the atoms and molecules in your brain are of a particular structure that enables them to interact with one another in such ways that, somehow, you are caused to believe that it is your desire that certain molecules ought to react with one another. You, whatever that is, are truly nothing more than a complex of molecular interactions which you really have little control over, unless of course "you" are more than something physical. If that is true, then maybe you do get to think for yourself, and maybe you do have some degree of free will, and maybe I was right in the first place. Maybe there is no such a thing as instinct.

[sleepyhead]

Hello Sonofason,

Thanks for your reply. I didn't notice it until just now.

The 1st part of your thread involved providing a definition and then showing why the definition didn't make sense. You then provided a second definition which was: "Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason. " I like this definition also so we'll use it. With regards to "unalterable tendency", I think instinct evolves. For example if a species mutates instinct will evolve for that new species.

>>>As I have said, the brain is capable of reasoning even in an unconscious state. Does that make it instinct? Brains are inheritable features that all creatures with brains have inherited. Is the brain and it's ability to reason instinctive? <<<

It seems to me that if the individual brains were doing the reasoning then you wouldn't have the same species performing the same function. After taking a shit would all dogs begin digging?

Your next paragraph was mostly about the interactions of atoms and molecules. I don't see how it relates to what I wrote. With regards to your final sentence, it seems to me that insects (those with the least developed brain) function totally by instinct. As you move up the latter as far as brains go you have a combination of instinct and free will.

[Divine Insight]

To begin I will make the following claims about instinct.

Hello Sleepyhead. I'd like to offer my views on some of the things you've mentioned. I don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions conclusively, not even scientists.

But I'll take a stab at offering my thoughts on your claims.

1. It is a guiding force in all creatures (including us).
1a. It is most noticeable in the insect kingdom. Because they have smaller brains they are totally controlled by instinct. With larger animals (with more advanced brains) it is still observable. We are the least effected by instinct but it still has an effect on us.

I agree that instinct is a guiding factor. I'm not sure if I would call it a "force". It clearly exists in some form. But to say that it's a "force" suggests (at least to a physicist) that this is something that exists outside of the body acting on the body.


I don't think instinct is a force in that sense. But it's clearly a determining factor in terms of programming how a brain will function. Instinct most likely resides as information in DNA. It's also not likely to be encoded into the DNA like genes. Genes are basically instructions for building and controlling proficients. The information that is "instinct", is most likely far more subtle than this. This would be a "higher level" of information, not on the level of genes, but rather on the level of a much larger instruction of how the entire DNA molecule is constructed.

Think of it this way. Say you have a computer program that plays a game. Let's say that Chess is the game that this program plays. Genes, would be akin to the instructions of the program that control how the pieces move. But instinct would be more like the strategy of how to play the game. The strategy is clearly a different type of programming than how to move the pieces.

So instinct is more like 'programming' than a force. But it's also clearly a very dynamic program. It would be like creating a bunch of chess programs that all move the pieces in the same way, but they all play with a different strategy. As you point out, in the insect world the different strategies between the various insects in a group is very slight. But when you get to the level of humans the difference is the strategies become far more pronounced, but clearly still driven by instinct on some level.

2. It is one force.
2a. When a species mutates and eventually separates into two separate species there is never a separating of instinct into two separate forces. This one force provides the guidance for both creatures.

Again I wouldn't use the term "force". It's more like one kind of programming level.

3. It is possible for humans to communicate with there instinct.
3a. If instinct has the ability to communicate its will to all creatures then it only sounds reasonable that ability should operate in both directions. Is there a reason to assume that communication is only one way? This would likely include meditation, prayer, etc.

Now this is where things can get extremely deep.

I just said that instinct is like a program and one might ask, "What would it mean to communicate with a program?" Especially with this type of program (i.e. a program that is basically programmed into the architectural structure of DNA).

Well, actually it may very well be possible to communicate with such a "program".

Such a program would be extremely complex and potentially dynamic as well as contextually interactive.

Many mystics claim that we have the "minds" of our ancestors available to us through our brains. This actually may very well be possible via this very type of programming that I'm referring to. Of course this wouldn't be the precise thoughts of our ancestors, but it would be their instincts.

Now, if our instincts are both dynamic and contextual, (which they very well may be), then we could indeed "communicate" with our very own instincts via this dynamic contextual interaction. So in this sense, this could be a basis for prayer, meditation, etc.

In fact, many psychics believe that something along these lines are indeed going on. Although most of them allow for a larger connection to a higher consciousness that resides behind (or within) the collective human consciousness.

It does seem as though some insects and other social animals do tend to communicate via some sort of instinctual mental telepathy. There have been theories put forth by some western scientists that the medium for this communication between individual could be gravity. In other words, they have suggested that our minds (our brains) may indeed be connected via gravity waves. This is something that we currently do not have the scientific ability to detect.

Having said the above, there are also many scientists who object to this notion proclaiming that a brain could not generate such gravity waves. However, that is open to questions that cannot be answered until we have a picture of quantum gravity in our hands, which we currently do not possess.


So yes, there may be far more the power of instinct than we might think. And we may indeed be able to dynamically interact with our own primordial instincts. And interaction is certainly a form of "communication". Or at least it can be if done with purpose which is the idea behind many meditations, and psychic journeying, etc.

So yeah, I think you're onto something. But calling it a "force" is going to attract a LOT of criticism from the secularists. Thinking of it as a programmed database within the higher structure of DNA would be far more intriguing to scientists I'm sure.

But even then they are going to question the concept of communicating with a DNA molecule. So even there the term interaction is probably better used. It would be more like accessing a hard drive, then actually communicating with a dynamic consciousness.

But then again, if they believe a brain can be conscious then why not a DNA molecule?

[sleepyhead]

Hello DI,

I'll admit that my belief in one force is largely a result of the OT teaching of one God. The logical problem I see with there not being a force is the problem of how reproduction got started. Early reproduction involves cells splitting in two, however, after animals mature how would they know what to do to reproduce if there wasn't a force in nature telling them?

How did the first chickens know that they needed to sit on the egg rather than find food? In the theory of evolution were only starting out with one mutation of something else, therefore in the beginning we only have one chicken. If that chicken doesn't know that he needs to sit on the egg then after she dies that will be the end of chickens.

[A Troubled Man]

How did the first chickens know that they needed to sit on the egg rather than find food? In the theory of evolution were only starting out with one mutation of something else, therefore in the beginning we only have one chicken. If that chicken doesn't know that he needs to sit on the egg then after she dies that will be the end of chickens.

The first chickens? That doesn't make sense considering chickens evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, etc. There was no first one chicken.

[A Troubled Man]

Hello,

To begin I will make the following claims about instinct.

1. It is a guiding force in all creatures (including us).

Instinct is not a force, by definition. You begin with a false premise.

[Sonofason]

How did the first chickens know that they needed to sit on the egg rather than find food? In the theory of evolution were only starting out with one mutation of something else, therefore in the beginning we only have one chicken. If that chicken doesn't know that he needs to sit on the egg then after she dies that will be the end of chickens.

The first chickens? That doesn't make sense considering chickens evolved from something else, which evolved from something else, etc. There was no first one chicken.

Although I believe that you are correct that chickens likely evolved from something else, which as you say, evolved from something else. But I do believe that there was indeed a first chicken.

I'm certainly not suggesting that the first chicken was the first of it's kind to lay eggs. Although all chickens must lay eggs, not all eggs are lain by chickens. Thus I would suspect that some particular species, close to that of chickens, that preceded chickens, that were ancestors of chickens likely laid eggs too. But a mutation that affects the genetics of a population of some particular species does not enter into all individuals of that particular species to change all members of the previous species into a new species at the same time. Such a genetic mutation would have developed in one chicken, and that chicken would have had offspring and passed along his mutation to his offspring. And then the offspring would have offspring and introduce the new gene into other individuals in the population, until, possibly, all or many individuals in the population inherited the gene.

Thus, I do believe there was a first chicken.

[sleepyhead]

Hello,

The problem is the instinct for survival would naturally cause the chicken to go out and look for food. Most species lay there eggs and off they go. Not chickens. Somehow, instead of chickens evolving eggs which didn't need to be tended to, they developed eggs that required there presence in order to hatch. I can't imagine that a biological based instinct would figure out that the eggs needed tending.

[A Troubled Man]

Such a genetic mutation would have developed in one chicken, and that chicken would have had offspring and passed along his mutation to his offspring. And then the offspring would have offspring and introduce the new gene into other individuals in the population, until, possibly, all or many individuals in the population inherited the gene.

Thus, I do believe there was a first chicken.

Technically, chickens evolved from non-chickens and it was the changes in DNA that slowly evolved into chickens, it was not something that simply happened overnight, it took a long time with many tiny changes, as evolution has showed us in regards to how all species came about. There is no difference in the evolution of chickens that we can't see in all other species.