C'jais Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Originally posted by Aru-Wen 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." Yeah. Can you name just one example of a species where every individual have acted this way? There are always exceptions to this rule, or else there'd be no "instincts" to speak of. Which is making the word useless. Here's the deal: The definition which Smartdragon gave -"an inate drive that urges the individual towards a particular goal"- is the one I'm going with, and the one that's also stated in my dictionary. Humans have instincts, eg the survival instinct and the parental instinct. Sure, your social scientists can call all these things "reflexes" and "drives", but to the rest of the uneducated world, it's still instincts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Talliusc Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 i believe that what defines us as human is our ability to adapt and conform to life around us (other humans i mean). there are some families where passing flatulence at the dinner table is one of the highest compliments possible. if you were living there then to be civilized you would do as they do. when in rome, do as the romans do. also in being human is being able to adapt QUICKLY, you may go from one house where being casual about yourself is of the utmost importance, toss your jacket where you may and grab a seat on the couch. then 10 minutes later you leave for a formal dress party, your ability to change gears is what defines you as human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldritch Posted February 10, 2003 Author Share Posted February 10, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Yeah. Can you name just one example of a species where every individual have acted this way? There are always exceptions to this rule, or else there'd be no "instincts" to speak of. Which is making the word useless. Here's the deal: The definition which Smartdragon gave -"an inate drive that urges the individual towards a particular goal"- is the one I'm going with, and the one that's also stated in my dictionary. Humans have instincts, eg the survival instinct and the parental instinct. Sure, your social scientists can call all these things "reflexes" and "drives", but to the rest of the uneducated world, it's still instincts. Salmon returning to their birthplace to breed is one example that was given. Others include female Praying Mantis' eating the male after (and partially during) the mating process, the "courting" process of most animals when finding a mate, the process cats go thru before giving birth to their kittens (they will gather bits of soft things to make a bed of sorts before giving birth)... you asked for 1, but there's 3. I guess where we argue is which definition of the word 'instinct' to accept: I like the scientific, and you like the other one. Not sure why you're choosing to go with the one you say is the uneducated one, but you have the right to believe what you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmartDragon Posted February 10, 2003 Share Posted February 10, 2003 sorry was only trying to give complete defintion both of you are correct in different very scientific ways as my last post shows. As for instincts humans still have only the survival instict probably remains. And don't say that this is disproved by suicide as even when the mind wants to die the body struggles to stay alive, e.g. if youy try to drown yourself you will hold your breath as long as possible and try to reach to surface. well my opinion anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.