TOM: “I believe Peirce argued that "pragmatism" is incorporated into genes
during evolution. If so, then instincts are purposeful/efficient without
intervention by others or instruction on "how to be."”
SJ: I am not a Peirce scholar... my respect for his work was established
back-the-front, after I formulated my own categories and realized that, thanks
to him, it had all been done before. So I cannot comment on how he factored
pragmatism into genetic theory. However, the idea of instincts being
purposeful/efficient is problematic because it implies the sort of bottom-up
complexity that requires a creator. It is inconsistent with thermodynamic
principles and the entropy that must invariably render persistent complexity
impossible.
TOM: “Falsifiable? You have already agreed to the DNA part ("... a body built
to do these things"), so the next step is to test whether anything ADDITIONAL
is required for instinctual behavior to be exhibited.”
SJ: We don’t know how DNA works. My own hunch is in favour of DNA entanglement,
and that changes everything... all bets are off, all prior assumptions null and
void. Furthermore, establishing instincts as a category of knowing that is
fundamentally different to Peirce’s triadic scheme is inconsistent with
axiomatic thinking. Either an axiomatic framework applies or it doesn’t. The
creation of exceptions to the rule should raise alarm bells... Occam’s razor
applies.
TOM: “If a bird's egg is taken out of the nest and the bird is raised by humans
without special attention beyond feeding, it does not receive the care,
training and social contact that other birds receive. Then when the bird is
sufficiently mature, if you drop it from a height of (say) 20 feet, it will
fly.”
SJ: Huh? Not sure about that:
http://blogs.bu.edu/bioaerial2012/2012/10/09/nature-vs-nurture-how-do-baby-birds-learn-how-to-fly/
In the event that exceptions to this rule exist... biological predispositions
predisposing critters with wings to fly.
TOM: “Some plants make tiny movements throughout the day to "follow" the sun
across the sky. This occurs regardless of a contact with other plants. Next,
switch the light source to a stationary bulb, and the same plant will stop
moving throughout the day. This occurs regardless of contact with other
plants. The effect is the same for all plants of the same species.”
SJ: Biological predispositions predispose us to defining what matters.
TOM: “I interpret such behaviors as evidence that instincts are DNA based, then
triggered by a stimulus from the environment. These effects are independent of
socialization or contact with others of the species, including a parent.”
SJ: There are all sorts of problems with the genocentric paradigm, and it is
difficult to enumerate them all. Complexity versus entropy... the idea of, say,
a watch or a computer materializing all by itself in nature, even within an
infinite universe, has to contend against enormous odds that render its
unlikelihood an impossibility. By contrast, “knowing how to be” is robust
because it motivates every agent in a collective to observe its partner agents
and how they behave. The penalty for misbehaving often impacts adversely on
survival, and so most member agents learn very quickly to imitate the norms or
be damned. Fear of the unknown is a very powerful motivator capable of
resisting the entropic forces of disunity.
sj
From: Ozzie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 1:22 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Edwina Taborsky; Stephen C. Rose; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen -
I believe Peirce argued that "pragmatism" is incorporated into genes during
evolution. If so, then instincts are purposeful/efficient without intervention
by others or instruction on "how to be."
STEPHEN: "The idea of instinct as somehow hardwired into the DNA is a red
herring that is not falsifiable."
Falsifiable? You have already agreed to the DNA part ("... a body built to do
these things"), so the next step is to test whether anything ADDITIONAL is
required for instinctual behavior to be exhibited.
If a bird's egg is taken out of the nest and the bird is raised by humans
without special attention beyond feeding, it does not receive the care,
training and social contact that other birds receive. Then when the bird is
sufficiently mature, if you drop it from a height of (say) 20 feet, it will
fly.
Some plants make tiny movements throughout the day to "follow" the sun across
the sky. This occurs regardless of a contact with other plants. Next, switch
the light source to a stationary bulb, and the same plant will stop moving
throughout the day. This occurs regardless of contact with other plants. The
effect is the same for all plants of the same species.
I interpret such behaviors as evidence that instincts are DNA based, then
triggered by a stimulus from the environment. These effects are independent of
socialization or contact with others of the species, including a parent.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Jul 20, 2015, at 4:33 AM, Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> wrote:
List,
Many of us seem to be persisting with the narrative that instincts are
programmed into the DNA. Edwina, you make reference to a socializing instinct.
Might it be that this socializing instinct is not an instinct at all, but a
manifestation of knowing how to be (relates to pragmatism)? Allow me to
explain. At least as far as higher level organisms are concerned, a newborn
entering the world is entering a scary unknown. Mothers of all kinds across all
species pick up on this vulnerability (it never ceases to amaze me the
affection that mothers of all kinds lavish upon their offspring). The newborn’s
mother provides a known familiarity with which the youngster assimilates and
becomes comfortable with. Under the mother’s nurturance and care, the scary
unknown into which it first enters quickly becomes the familiar known that
informs how it should be... and that’s why, if you want such a critter as a
pet, it has to interact with humans from an early age in order to become
domesticated.
Consider the phenomenon of feral children, like the famous “wild boy of
Aveyron.” An abandoned infant that is taken into the care of a matriarchal wolf
has to contend with a scary, alien world that its adoptive mother makes
comfortable and familiar. This ensures its survival, but the things that come
to matter to it, as a wolf-child, are going to make it impossible for it to
assimilate to a human society, should it ever venture there again.
Thus my thesis is that “instincts” (for want of a better word) subscribe fully
to the principles of pragmatism and the three categories, but that they occur
at deeper levels. For example, in the narrative of chaos theory, associations
made before birth and shortly after birth provide the “initial conditions” onto
which all subsequent associations (experiences) accrue. Also, the organism’s
physiology provides the predispositions for making choices... a critter with
hands is predisposed to grasping things, a critter with a tongue and vocal
chords is predisposed to vocalizing things. Neither the impulse to grasp nor
the impulse to vocalize is an instinct. The impulse to grasp and the impulse to
vocalize are just what you do when you have a body built to do these things,
and you have a bucket of plastic neurons in your skull that organise themselves
to accommodate the choices you make. The idea of instinct as somehow hardwired
into the DNA is a red herring that is not falsifiable... to be blunt, it’s
nonsense and the genocentrists peddling this nonsense need to lift their game.
ALL thought, whether impulsive or directed, must necessarily subscribe to
exactly the same Peircean categories and in accordance with the principles of
pragmatism. Heck, even the mother’s “instinct” to nurture subscribes to the
same Peircean principles... it’s not an instinct, maybe it’s just what it seems
to be... an awareness that her little one is vulnerable and helpless. Perhaps
it tugs at something in her own memory, back when she was a newborn first
entering a scary unknown.
The bottom line... a socializing “instinct” is just a manifestation of the need
to know how to be. Infinity is scary, and socialization provides us with the
fixations of belief to which we can anchor our identities... this applies to
all organisms, not just humans. There is no such thing as an “instinct”
hardwired into the genetic code... such a belief allows us to be led down a
merry garden path that doesn’t take us anywhere. Of course if anyone does
believe that instincts are coded into the DNA, I’m open to revising my stance
if they can provide hard, falsifiable evidence to support their claim. The
existing “instinct” narrative is not properly accounted for, and defaulting to
it as a given closes our minds to considering other possibilities (like DNA
entanglement).
Copying to biosemiotics... this unfalsifiable instinct fiction is a serious
problem that needs to get ironed out.
sj
PS. I continue to be somewhat confused about the different contexts in which
the word pragmatism is applied. I use it in the context of an organism
“defining the things that matter.” But Peirce and his pragmatic maxim seem to
relate to methodology in experimentation and research. Is there an agreed-upon
terminology that eliminates this ambiguity?
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 2:56 AM
To: Thomas; Stephen C. Rose
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Tom - see my replies below:
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas <mailto:[email protected]>
To: Stephen C. Rose <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Edwina Taborsky <mailto:[email protected]> ;
<mailto:[email protected]%3e> <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 8:02 PM
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.
EDWINA: We have a socializing instinct, not simply because we were part of
someone else before birth - and that IS valid, but because our knowledge base
is almost entirely learned. Therefore, as a species, we MUST be social or we
are unable to live. That is, without language, without learning
how-to-get-food; how to build shelter etc...we would not survive as a species.
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).
EDWINA: The socialization instinct is genetic; the socialization habits are
learned - because our species alone of all species, has the capacity to change
its technological attributes by which it interacts with the environment.
Emotion is a basic requirement for developing and using socialized
habits/knowledge.
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 <[email protected]> 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> http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art:
<http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl> http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: <http://buff.ly/1wXADj3> http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Ozzie <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <mailto:[email protected]>
To: Benjamin Udell <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
