Stephen- I continue with problems with your analysis. 1) SJ: 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.
Edwina: I don't see how knowledge, which is the formation of habits of both form and behaviour - a practice long supported by Peirce in his analysis of the three categories - is inconsistent with thermodynamic principles and complexity. After all, the very notion of habit formation is to prevent entropic dissipation of matter by establishing stable and continuous forms of that matter - again, continuity is a vital Peircean principle. Complexity theory both supports this notion of habit formation, continuity of type AND the notion of continuous diversity of type - all to prevent entropic dissipation of matter. 2) 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. Edwina: I was under the impression that research is quite knowledgeable about how DNA works - and the argument is over how evolution and adaptation function - which is a form of entanglement. And I don't see how you can claim that instincts are a 'category of knowledge' that is different from Peirce's triadic categories. Instincts, as a form of stored knowledge, are a form of Thirdness. 3) SJ: Biological predispositions predispose us to defining what matters. Edwina: Sorry - but this statement, to me, is circular. Who defines 'what matters' and what does 'what matters' functionally mean? And what is a 'biological predisposition' other than an instinct? As for birds learning to fly - they have both the morphological technological FORM and the instinctive knowledge to act on this biological technology which results in flight. They do not have to learn to operate this technology, as we have to learn to drive a car or fly a plane. They have to practice using this technology but they certainly do not learn it by social techniques. 4) Entropy is a basic causal component of complexity and CAS (complex adaptive systems). They are driving forces in the biological realm, where complex diversity of type evolves to prevent the final dissipation of matter. As for mechanical rather than simply biological complexity, such as that watch or computer, those are technological attributes of the human species, which is, I maintain, a biological species that lacks the confinement of genetically stored knowledge. The human species has to develop and store its knowledge within its social means (language). This means that it can, as a species, become more technologically complex as its population base increases. These technological attributes (eg, farming, the plough, irrigation, energy sources) enable the human species to support a larger population, maintain the health of that population (disease control, hygiene, nutrition)...and so on. But - instincts of our species, such as the capacity for language, the curiosity of the brain, the imaginative faculty - are the grounds for such technological activities. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen Jarosek To: 'Ozzie' Cc: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Stephen C. Rose' ; [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 9:05 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion 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 To: Stephen C. Rose Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <[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 Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: 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 To: Benjamin Udell 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 .
