Danyael Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 If you had absolutely no contact with humans.. including no parents, you would definitly not be the person you are today. There may be a matter of debate saying how a clinically insane person still may be clinically insane due to chemical inbalances, but let me continue You will not be able to speak. You will have no idea of modern day technology You will most likely die at an early age due to infections and such....because you will not have had anyone to teach you or to experiment with herabl remedies etc.. You would however have the instinct to survive The instinct to mate (which you wont be able to do cause there are no other humans around) Eating, sleeping, and other basic needs will remain the same You most likely will be more athletic, stronger, more stamina and quite intelligent. Learning things for yourself as you grow. you must learn what you can eat, what you cannot, etc.. along with great problem solving skills If you were released into society, you will most likely not adapt quickly. you eventually would adapt, but will most likely want to return to solitude. You would most likely have an edge as far as survival skills than "civilized" humans.. i am not going to go into civilized, because there are countless civilizations on this planet. You would have to watch other humans, and attempt to mimic there behaviors which may be near impossible at an older age. If you are still under 25 or so, you most likely will adapt quicker and learn easier. Oh forgot to mention, you would also most likely be more prone to violence though. Protecting your territory, especially if you are thrown into the mix of whatever society with all the new gizmos and gadgets and such. the other big time freak out for you would be the opposite races. you would be fascinated and or scared or warey of races with different characteristics... like skin color, hair color, eye shape etc... not so much hair color, but skin color the most. If you are a male, you would also have a problem of courting a female. You would constantly fight to keep her as all animals do. when i say fight, i mean physically fight. you would be defending your territory. those are my .02 I may have not made sense to some of you.. but I am tired and bored here at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartDragon Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 You could not be the same person, as the people you interact with and the experiences you have determine your personality and the way you behave. But you would still be Human or at least Homo Sapian. Even such a small diferance in environment and experience as identical twins have as small children creates different personalities so any change would make you a different person. For example what would I be like if my parents had gone with their first choice of name Eleanor ( my Surname is Rigby and I grow up by Penny Lane in Liverpool) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Dan, SmartDragon... both excellent posts. I think you've both really hit the nail on the head (as far as what I believe, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCanr2d2 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen Aside from fulfilling the primary needs (eating, drinking, sleeping, mating), what "things" do you think we learn without direct observation of someone else doing them OR someone teaching us them? I'm curious what you think these "things" we learn without society (society includes family and friends, folks) are. Personally, I think that IF a person is given the chance to live without the contact from any other humans, we would still consider that person human, just not social..... You are now totally changing the question, by saying if we had no interaction with other humans. A totally different proposition than what was originally given. Morals, ethics, amongst other things, which we tend to see as "civilised" are subjective. That easily means that someone who does have no social interaction can still have morals and ethics, although different from our own. Does living a society give us these morals, two people who experience the same things can have two different sets of morals. It is in the interpretation of events that people have morals and ethics. Although the theoretical problem is that the person would have to be old enough to sustain themselves, otherwise they would easily die. Do many other animals try to learn more and more about their habitat? What kind of animal would have the thought "How to get off this planet" or "How can I use my physical abilities to acheive something". Much of animal, or instinct, is not to think about how to use their body, but to use it in reaction to an event. In the end, we are still human, whether there is society or not. There is natural paths in the brain that allow us to think of more than just instinct, whether it is trained or self taught. What you suggest with little or no human contact of people in the 21st century is almost like saying humans without todays creature comforts are less human than you or I. Were people less human in years gone by, because of little or no contact with the outside world, before the car, before the radio and before TV..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 I'm not changing the question. Society is interaction with humans, and if there's no society, there's no humans to interact with. And this is probably going to spark quite a debate, but human beings no longer have any instincts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen And this is probably going to spark quite a debate, but human beings no longer have any instincts. And which logical inferences did you use to arrive at this conclusion? Humans have a ton of instincts. Eating, drinking and having sex as the most obvious ones. Because we're able to supress them to a degree does not mean they're not there. As far as society goes - human interaction is society, yes. But society does not make us human in the "clinical sense", as you're using human beyond the DNA code and consciousness. Chimpanzees do not act on instincts, really. They can use tools and think ahead of themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mofo Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Interaction with others does effect what we become, but that's nature. Other animals wouldn't be normal if they weren't around others of their kind. Animals do what they can to adapt to their surrounding and become creatures of habit. So of course if you throw them into a different situation then of course there will be problems. I think that saying that humans have no instincts is way off the mark, that's a vulcan thing (I think Aru-Wen really does like Star Trek!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais And which logical inferences did you use to arrive at this conclusion? Humans have a ton of instincts. Eating, drinking and having sex as the most obvious ones. Because we're able to supress them to a degree does not mean they're not there. Perhaps you're not familiar with the definition of instinct. An instinct is an unlearned, complex behavior that is true of all members of a particular species. According to many psychologists that study this field, eating, drinking, sleeping (you didn't mention that one, but I figured someone might), and having sex do not qualify as instincts. Of course, this does not mean that they're right, but they do have a point. Those things you mentioned are not complex behaviors. And Mr. Mofo, I do not like Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen Perhaps you're not familiar with the definition of instinct. An instinct is an unlearned, complex behavior that is true of all members of a particular species. Instinct: n. Natural ability or tendency to act in a certain way, without having to learn or think about it. I don't know where you got the "complex" part from. I'd say I do not trust your many psychologists, as the biological definition is clearly way different than theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 The "complex" part is what defines actions as instincts. Blinking your eyes is an unlearned natural ability that you don't have to think about to do, but it doesn't qualify as an instinct. That's why the definition was revised to include "complex." It also doesn't count as an instinct unless it's true for all members of the same species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 sex is a natural instinct. so is the instinct to protect oneself and ones children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen The "complex" part is what defines actions as instincts. In that case, it's an instinct to search for food in any way you can once you're hungry. It's a complex action. Blinking your eyes is an unlearned natural ability that you don't have to think about to do, but it doesn't qualify as an instinct. That's why the definition was revised to include "complex." You're making the word devoid of any meaning. So tell me, what does constitute an instinct? And where did you get this idea that the action itself must be complex for it to qualify as an instinct? Where do you draw the line between simple and complex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais In that case, it's an instinct to search for food in any way you can once you're hungry. It's a complex action. You're making the word devoid of any meaning. It's not a complex action. Your desire to eat may be strong, but you must think of ways to get that food, not get it without thinking. So tell me, what does constitute an instinct? And where did you get this idea that the action itself must be complex for it to qualify as an instinct? Where do you draw the line between simple and complex? Ever heard of maternal instincts? Classical example of instincts. A animal whose just delievered babies doesn't have to be told that her babies have to be fed, or learn that they do. Without thinking, they know what to do and do it. But all you have to do is hear of cases of women who have killed their babies thru neglect to know that human beings no longer have this instinct (it's ruled out because it's no longer true in all cases for a particular species). And I didn't get the idea that the action must be complex - modern science is responsible for that. If you do some research, you can see for yourself. Not all things are close to the line of being simple or complex. Some behaviors are very cut and dry, either complex or simple. For those that seem to be close to that line, scientists look at it in context to try and determine the answer. By the way, can you drop the condescending tone? Let's just have a nice conversation, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen It's not a complex action. Your desire to eat may be strong, but you must think of ways to get that food, not get it without thinking. Yes. So with thinking, it's constitute an "instinct"? Ever heard of maternal instincts? Classical example of instincts. A animal whose just delievered babies doesn't have to be told that her babies have to be fed, or learn that they do. Without thinking, they know what to do and do it. Ever heard of the sexual drive? Without thinking, without it being told to people, they still instinctively know how to reproduce. Ever heard of hunger? Without it being told to babies, without thinking, they still instinctively know how to crawl up on the mother and suck her nipples. And the same goes for my hunger, as well, though I prefer other sources of food. The same also holds true for thirst. And sleep, as pointed out. But all you have to do is hear of cases of women who have killed their babies thru neglect to know that human beings no longer have this instinct (it's ruled out because it's no longer true in all cases for a particular species). Oh please. This is exception. Not the norm by far. And I didn't get the idea that the action must be complex - modern science is responsible for that. If you do some research, you can see for yourself. I think I'd rather trust the three dictionaries I checked than your vague answer and non-evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartDragon Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 To quote the Oxford concise Medical Dictionary Instinct is "1 a complex pattern of behaviour innately (present at birth) determined, which is characteristic of all individuals of the same species. The behaviour is released and modified by environmental stimuli, but its pattern is relatively uniform and predetermined.2 an inate drive that urges the individual towards a particular goal" so Aru-Wen was right about that. We may have lost some of them but we probably still have some which are hidden in our brains and would only come out in extreme conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by SmartDragon 2 an inate drive that urges the individual towards a particular goal" This fits quite well on the sexual drive and the need/desire for food, sleep, water, offspring etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 8, 2003 Author Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by SmartDragon To quote the Oxford concise Medical Dictionary Instinct is "1 a complex pattern of behaviour innately (present at birth) determined, which is characteristic of all individuals of the same species. The behaviour is released and modified by environmental stimuli, but its pattern is relatively uniform and predetermined.2 an inate drive that urges the individual towards a particular goal" so Aru-Wen was right about that. We may have lost some of them but we probably still have some which are hidden in our brains and would only come out in extreme conditions. Thank you very much. And C'jais, you're still acting a little hostile on your responses. Could you possibly work on phrasing stuff as to not offend me or attempt to insult my intelligence? Posted by C'jais Ever heard of the sexual drive? Without thinking, without it being told to people, they still instinctively know how to reproduce. Ever heard of hunger? Without it being told to babies, without thinking, they still instinctively know how to crawl up on the mother and suck her nipples. And the same goes for my hunger, as well, though I prefer other sources of food. The same also holds true for thirst. And sleep, as pointed out. The sexual drive does not qualify as an instinct. It is classified as just that - a drive (which implies a "wanting to," not "needing to"). You may be right about the babies, but some babies do not breast feed, and must be fed by bottle. If there is even just ONE exception, technically, it no longer qualifies as an instinct, because this complex action MUST be characteristic of ALL members of that species. Thirst and sleep are not instincts either because they are not complex behaviors. Oh please. This is exception. Not the norm by far. As I said above, it only takes ONE exception before it is no longer classified as an instinct. I think I'd rather trust the three dictionaries I checked than your vague answer and non-evidence. Ouch, that hurts. Didn't anyone ever tell you that attacking the character of your opponent is the weakest form of argument? The point I'm making can be backed up by the Oxford Medical dictionary, and countless Psychological Journals and publishings. If you don't want to take my word for it, you can, as I said, do some research yourself instead of telling me over and over what you think is an instinct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Mofo Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Yeesh, don't get so defensive. You're the one who asked the question. You know, I think you're just trying splitting hairs, and getting a little off topic. Back to your question, I think that someone without contact with other humans will still be "human", and can still function in his/her world. This topic is totally arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyael Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 as far eating, drinking, mating, etc.. that is the instinct of survival. eye blinking, breathing, sleeping, etc... Are in voluntary actions. Your body must do that. You have no control. You cannot change your instincts, but you can supress them to a degree You cannot stop involuntary bodily actions. Impossible (so far) Some people do not share the same instincts, like Maternal Instincts, some females have it , some dont. it is a characteristic. Not an instinct.. from personal experience. Some mothers have no love for there children, and can do without them. they dont care about feeding them, bathing them, etc... My friends cousin was like that, and the state took the child aware and put the mother in prison. the child is ok, but some mothers just dont care. Mating instict , a form of survival (passing on your gene) is not an instinct set in stone. Look at the celibate Priests/Nuns and homosexuals. lets not get all child like now... I waringly use the word homosexual here because i have seen how some of you act and post. Be responsible and mature. keep this debate professional and civil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen Ouch, that hurts. Didn't anyone ever tell you that attacking the character of your opponent is the weakest form of argument? The point I'm making can be backed up by the Oxford Medical dictionary, and countless Psychological Journals and publishings. If you don't want to take my word for it, you can, as I said, do some research yourself instead of telling me over and over what you think is an instinct. I never attacked you. I said your answer was very vague, and that you didn't provide any evidence. Now, by your interpretation of the "MUST be characteristic of ALL members of that species" is very totalitarian. In the same sense, the example of an instinct you gave before -the maternal instinct- is not an instinct at all either, since there have been found several cases of animals completely ignoring their newborns. Your definition of instinct makes the word devoid of any meaning. Regarding the mating instinct - I already said that being able to supress it does not mean it's still there. Homosexuals still have a sexual desire - that a defect gene makes them unable to make babies the natural way, they still have an instinct to take care of babies and want them as well - evidenced in the many adoptions by homosexual couples and their subsequent paternal/maternal treatment of the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediNyt Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Its all relative of what you think humans should be like. This discussion isnt about instincts, its about society. There are good humans and bad humans, good societies and bad societies. Some things are considered inhuman but I dunno about that. Unless you talk about insane humans who do things that no normal human would. Anyways, as far as normal humans go, Human is as human does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danyael Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Regarding the mating instinct - I already said that being able to supress it does not mean it's still there. Homosexuals still have a sexual desire - that a defect gene makes them unable to make babies the natural way, they still have an instinct to take care of babies and want them as well - evidenced in the many adoptions by homosexual couples and their subsequent paternal/maternal treatment of the child. Actually. homosexuals can produce offspring the same way as heterosexuals. There are and I am scientifically speaking (i did a report a couple years back in College) that not all homosexuals nor heterosexuals have the desire to produce offspring. If you look a majority of A-Sexual Human beings, (And there are plenty around) Sex is disgusting and children are the last thing on there mind if at all. As far as taking care of babies, that is not neccassarily true. The "instinct" to take care of babies is not actually an instinct that all humans have. We are breeded that way, we are taught that. You may not Want to take care of a baby, but our society (and i speak for the USA) requires that we take care of the baby otherwise it is neglect, and we serve sentence. Alot of our actions are based on comon sense. and even if you are along with no contact with another person for your entire life, you have common sense.. for instance.. Dont touch that, its hot. And if you do touch it, you will not touch it again. common sense tells you that you will get hurt again. Perfect example. If you are a person driving down the roadway, and you have to slam on your breaks and you have a passenger, how many of you will put out your right arm and hold the passenger tight... Not all of you, actually only about 32 out of a 100 of you will. That study was conducted 3 years ago by some institution of human studies or what not...but those you that do that have the maternal instinct to protect your young, fend for your young 100% devoted. So in recap, 32% of the population will take car of a child without hesitation the rest of you will do it either because you feel obligated or are instructed to do so. We are not talking about loving the child.. just fending for it... dont confuse the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais I never attacked you. I said your answer was very vague, and that you didn't provide any evidence. Now, by your interpretation of the "MUST be characteristic of ALL members of that species" is very totalitarian. In the same sense, the example of an instinct you gave before -the maternal instinct- is not an instinct at all either, since there have been found several cases of animals completely ignoring their newborns. Your definition of instinct makes the word devoid of any meaning. You keep calling it "my interpretation" and "my definition." What I have been saying does not come from me. It is not my interpretation, but the definition and interpretation of psychologists and sociologists who have been studying human instincts since Freud started it (back around 1879). Since you insist on calling it "my definition," and have not done research on it yourself (as I have twice now suggested to you), what follows is a listing of information for you to browse (or ignore) at your leisure, along with the appropriate links. From Instinct: A Study in Social Psychology by L.L. Bernard So numerous are the variations in the meaning of this term, as used by those discussing social relationships and origins, that it is difficult to classify them accurately. A considerable analysis of the literature dealing with social themes, however, suggests that the several fairly well-defined usages may be grouped under the following four general headings:--(1) a general and indefinite employment of the term instinct, not necessarily descriptive of a concrete act at all; (2) all cases covering automatic and habitual actions of any sort; (3) those more or less automatic stimulus-response activity processes which are supposedly inherited; and (4) acts which are definitely inherited and which may be properly termed instinctive. These usages may fittingly be described under the following categories and illustrated accordingly from the numerous examples at hand. The least scientific employment of the term instinct is that of the litterateurs. From Bob Riesenberg, PhD - Professor of Psychology at Whatcom College [...]describe your perspective on humans and instincts. What instincts do you think humans have and why are they not learned patterns of behavior? Do all healthy humans perform this behavior the same way without learning? Remember, it is not instinct unless all members of the species perform the behavior the same way when a common stimulus is present, and no experience was necessary to learn the behavior. Salmon returning to their home waters to spawn is instinct. I will continue to gather and post on the subject when I have more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen You keep calling it "my interpretation" and "my definition." What I have been saying does not come from me. You're the one interpreting the "MUST BE TRUE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE SPECIES"-part. An example is given - salmon returning to their home waters to spawn. So, if just one salmon doesn't do this, your whole definition of it falls, right? Since you insist on calling it "my definition," and have not done research on it yourself (as I have twice now suggested to you), what follows is a listing of information for you to browse (or ignore) at your leisure, along with the appropriate links. I have done research about it, as I wrote before. No offence intended, but I'd rather trust the English language and biologists than Freudian "social scientists". Oh, and I'm not being offensive. I take your overly defensive stance as a reaction to the one person who dares to go up against your bright idea that cannot be untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 9, 2003 Author Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais You're the one interpreting the "MUST BE TRUE FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE SPECIES"-part. An example is given - salmon returning to their home waters to spawn. So, if just one salmon doesn't do this, your whole definition of it falls, right? Part of the second quote that I left contained this line : "Remember, it is not instinct unless all members of the species perform the behavior the same way when a common stimulus is present, and no experience was necessary to learn the behavior." So i'll say it again - how is this my interpretation? You can believe the English teachers and biologists if you'd like, but when biologists want to study animal behavior, they team up with behavioral psychologists (for either animals or humans). I'd much rather trust the scientifically researched view, but like anything in life, you can believe whatever you feel most comfortable with. I just didn't want you to walk away with the notion that these are my ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.