Jerry ~ This information about birds is interesting! Thanks for posting it. Regards, Tom Wyrick
> On Jul 19, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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:[email protected]] >> Sent: July 20, 2015 2:03 AM >> To: Stephen C. Rose >> Cc: Edwina Taborsky; <[email protected]> >> 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 <[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 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 >> [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 .
