List, John: The copula between instinct and behavior has been studied extensively by biologist.
It is well known that extremely sensitive magnetic field sensors are constructed from genetic information. See the abstract below. See also the web address : http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/natural-sciences/nature-blows-my-mind-6-longest-bird-migrations/ The extraordinary magnetic sensitivity of migratory birds is physically and chemically astounding. Cheers Jerry Mechanisms of Magnetic Orientation in Birds1 Robert C. Beason2,1 +Author Affiliations 1Department of Biology, University of Louisiana at Monroe, 700 University Ave., Monroe, Louisiana 71209 Next Section Abstract Behavior and electrophysiological studies have demonstrated a sensitivity to characteristics of the Geomagnetic field that can be used for navigation, both for direction finding (compass) and position finding (map). The avian magnetic compass receptor appears to be a light-dependent, wavelength-sensitive system that functions as a polarity compass (i.e., it distinguishes poleward from equatorward rather than north from south) and is relatively insensitive to changes in magnetic field intensity. The receptor is within the retina and is based on one or more photopigments, perhaps cryptochromes. A second receptor system appears to be based on magnetite and might serve to transduce location information independent of the compass system. This receptor is associated with the ophthalmic branch of the trigeminal nerve and is sensitive to very small (<50 nanotesla) changes in the intensity of the magnetic field. In neither case has a neuron that responded to changes in the magnetic field been traced to a structure that can be identified to be a receptor. Almost nothing is known about how magnetic information is processed within the brain or how it is combined with other sensory information and used for navigation. These remain areas of future research. Previous Section Next Section On Jul 19, 2015, at 7:26 PM, John Collier wrote: > Folks, > > I am intrigued that this topic has kept on so long, but this response has > little to do with the concept I was concerned with. The use of “triggered” in > the second sentence is not correct for Piaget’s concept of instinct. It was > exactly the point of his introduction of the notion into his work in the late > 60s that instincts are not simply triggered. Thomas’s reply does not address > the concept I was interested in knowing Peirce’s views about. > > > John > > From: Thomas [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com] > Sent: July 20, 2015 2:03 AM > To: Stephen C. Rose > Cc: Edwina Taborsky; <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion > > Stephen, Edwina, List ~ > > I agree that instinct leads to physical activity (though sometimes inside the > body where it can't be seen). But it is triggered by environmental changes. > That is the standard definition of instinct. It is not so much an > "inclination" as "who you are" in a certain environment. But you may never > encounter that environment, so you would never know. > > I do believe we have a socializing instinct, because we were part of someone > else before birth and closely tended to for several years after birth, often > in the presence of siblings. We therefore perceive living with others as the > norm. > > So this instance raises the possibility that instincts are gene-based *except > in one case: where the mother (i.e., a loving, attentive mother) is > involved. Then, genes and baby/infant emotions both originate from the same > source -- so their effects (in the child) are blended and confound analysis. > In that case I don't have a firm opinion. My *guess: we have socialization > instincts (genes) AND socialization habits learned during infancy AND > emotional feelings related to other people (community) shaped by the infant > experience (with mother+father). > > Officially, though, instincts are hard-wired into us (DNA), and do not have a > community trigger -- unless the community alters the environment. > Individuals isolated from their communities have the same instincts: drop a > young bird from a tree that never met another bird, and it will flap its > wings and fly. > > Regards, > Tom Wyrick > > > On Jul 19, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 > 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 > athttp://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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
