mats_trash at hotmail.com
Sun Mar 24 15:06:15 EST 2002
CyberLegend aka Jure Sah <jure.sah at guest.arnes.si> wrote in message news:<3C9DAF70.BD4AB0BE at guest.arnes.si>...
> mat wrote:
> > But thats not an instinct (as I take the meaning of the word anyway).
> The way you take the meaning of the word, you leave a couple billion
> things about an animal without a definition.
What?! err not at all. Just because I don't call every aspect of
behaviour an instinct, doesn't mean I can't define or discuss those
other aspects of behaviour...
> > I don't have an instinct to want to wear particular clothes (thats
> > just my preference), but I have an instinct to be warm. Show me this
> > evidence for this 'removing of instincts'?
> Removing isn't the word... Ignoring is.
You said removing not me
> > lower-level instincts are the only instincts. I don't have an
> > instinct to go to a restaurant and have chinese food, thats my
> > preference. My instinct is the need to eat becuase I'm hungry. The
> > higher-level phenomena that you are talking about are not really best
> > talked about as instinct
> Huh? Then what are they? Genetically inherited preferences to the last
> detail?! I fail to see the functional difference between this and the
> low-level instinct.
What are you actually saying here? that such things as my prefered
type of clothing or cullinary tastes are totally genetically
determined? If that is what you are saying then its laughable
> Humans have a "preference" of walking on two legs and wolves have a
> "preference" to howl... LOL... =]
You're equating two things that are not equal. Behaviour to seek food
is not the equivalent to someone preferring chinese to indian. Is
that really so difficult to comprehend?
> > > I think you might have misunderstood the mater a little, atho I am
> > > otherwise suprized of the level of understanding you show.
> > Why surprised?
> Don't take this to scholastically or personally. It's just that I'm not
> used to humans understanding how the brain really works...
That might be becuase no-one, including you my friend, as any real
idea about how the brain works
> The self is in no way related to one object and, personally, I don't get
> it how in the world did you manage to link up those two anyway... The
> mind (self) is a neural circuit in the neocortex, yes, a circuit,
> nothing more nothing less. Well unless you can prove me wrong that is
> (and, no, I don't care what the Bible says).
And you have evidence for this? Am not saying you are wrong, but I do
thing you simply pulled it out of thin air. I'l bet my bottom dollar
that you have absolutely no direct evidence for this 'neocortical
> Huh, well you can guess that I have not been slicing their brains, but
> otherwise all the information is there. Known as the Multiple
> Personality syndrome. A web search should do...
lol. A psychological phenomenon extrapolated to the extreme of saying
there are multiple 'self' circuits in the neocortex. Yeah and becuase
I see different people on the TV, each one must have their special
little circuit inside my TV right?
> Know how the neocortex works?
Oh let me guess you do.
> Stress defines what connections should go
> away, while others improve. Then there is instinct. Attempt to prevent
> the instinct's activity and the neocortex will try to avoid your
> blockade, trying out various possibilities and eventually abnormally
> filling up with stress, killing off all the connections in the
> neocortex. This process is also known as torturing.
Show/direct me to some evidence.. this is just speculation based on
very little data.
More information about the Neur-sci