Do Humans Have Instincts??

[HydrogenBond]

One way to answer this question, is to look back into natural history. Instincts can be traced to the DNA, while changes in the DNA are very slow. Theoretically, we don't have to go back very far to find natural human instincts, maybe just before civilization. If DNA changes slow, we would expect that these natural human instincts should still exist, unless the DNA can change quickly in 10,000 years. The fact we are less conscious of natural instincts (we are asking if they exist) implies the natural instincts within the DNA may be unconscious in modern times. If natural human instincts are not there, and the DNA is responsible for instincts, that means civilization has altered the DNA using mind over matter. But this is not the way genetics is suppose to work. The compromise is they are unconscious, but still there in the DNA. .

One way to look at natural instinct, is with an analogy. For example, consider hunger, looking for food and eating. This very basic schema is the same for all animals. They get a feeling of hunger. They get into motion to seek food. They then chew and digest. Beyond that basic schema, there are variations depending on the species.

This basic schema is analogous to a genetic river that flows for all animals. As animals get more progressed and/or evolved, this river branches into tributaries increasing the cerebral variability and complexity for the basic schema. By the time it reached the pre-humans, the complexity or river branching was at a maximum, due to the potential of the human mind. This final genetic state would be natural human instincts. It is not exactly correct to compare humans to apes since the river branched again.

With the onset of civilization, the effect added to the blend was analogous to adding canals to the river and tributaries. These are not instinctive or based on DNA, but are more or less synthetic, man made. These canals are transferred more by education and less by DNA, but may still use the water or potential within the genetic river and tributaries. This is where instinct appears to be relative. The potential is from the DNA but the water that is conscious is in the canals, which can be invented left and right.

The question is, how do you separate the canals from the river and tributaries so we can differentiate genetic instinct for humans?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

..This basic schema is analogous to a genetic river that flows for all animals. As animals get more progressed and/or evolved, this river branches into tributaries increasing the cerebral variability and complexity for the basic schema.

My instinct is to make pertinent corrections; to whit, the flow of a river system is not into tributaries, it is from tributaries.

[lemit]

Originally Posted by Turtle

My instinct is to make pertinent corrections; to whit, the flow of a river system is not into tributaries, it is from tributaries.

Since the word "branches" is in the original quote, could the usage problem be solved by substituting other tree references?

Just curious.

--lemit

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by lemit

Since the word "branches" is in the original quote, could the usage problem be solved by substituting other tree references?

Just curious.

--lemit

I'm sure many corrections exist; simply pointing out one is due.

[arkain101]

We have a problem as people that a lot of animals don't have.

Some animals are born, and OFF THEY GO! They know how to feed, run or swim, fend off prey with social behaviors and these kinds of things.

A lot of animals are born with some pretty amazing strength.

Hu-mons on the other hand, we are pretty much retarded for I dunno, how long? 6months?

Sure we get hungry, thirsty, poopy, gassy, needy. But we do it while blind deaf and dumb.

Humans begin a lot more like a sponge than they do an Iron casting.

Children can be raised to think and be a dog, or a monkey, or whatever creature they are raised by.

However, once puberty kicks in, I think we do develop some stronger evidence of instinctive behavior. We start observing waste to hip ratios, and smelling out substances of odors from the opposite sex that would make good and bad offspring based on our dna.

According to a study [will find link later] I watched on television, humans have the ability to determine what is a good dna match through certain kinds of 'smell-able' compounds. Such as sweat. A more pleasent sweat could mean a good match, while a horrible repulsive sweat could mean you are more closely related than is good for nature.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Children can be raised to think and be a dog, or a monkey, or whatever creature they are raised by.

Do you have a source for this claim, Arkain?

[arkain101]

Not off hand. However, if you were to google "feral children", you may find exactly the kind of source you are looking for.

I suppose this would be a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Children can be raised to think and be a dog, or a monkey, or whatever creature they are raised by.

Originally Posted by freeztar

Do you have a source for this claim, Arkain?

Originally Posted by arkain101

Not off hand. However, if you were to google "feral children", you may find exactly the kind of source you are looking for.

I suppose this would be a good starting point.

Feral child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accepting the summary of an encyclopedia like wikipedia, or carefully tracing the many accounts of humans who allegedly believe themselves to be nonhuman as the result of living with nonhuman animals, leads to the conclusion that such cases are either fictional (Mowgli, from Kipling’s 1894 The Jungle Book, and Tarzan from E.R.Burrough’s 1912 Tarzan of the Apes are two widely-known examples), legends (eg: Romulus and Remus) or hoaxes (eg: Monique de Wael’s 1997 Misha). In short, the idea appears to be a myth which is widely accepted as real.

Although there have been verified cases of children surviving for long periods in animalistic ways, I’m unaware of any scientifically validated case resembling the fictional Mowgli, Tarzan, or Misha. The closest I’ve read is the case of “Natasha”, a 5 year old Siberian girl who’s parents appear to have confined her to their apartment, treating her like one of the family’s several dogs and cats, until she was removed by police to an orphanage in 2009.

As evidenced by arkain’s posts, the acceptance of the existence of children raised by nonhuman animals as confirmed fact isn’t unusual. Careful examination of the evidence shows, however, that such cases are less simple than of “humans who believe they’re animals” that fictional depictions lead many to conclude.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Some animals are born, and OFF THEY GO! They know how to feed, run or swim, fend off prey with social behaviors and these kinds of things.

Certainly this appears to be the case with many animals, such as fish and reptiles, where in many cases infants hatch from eggs untended by their parents.

As a general rule, animals that as infants require care – a class that by definition includes all or nearly all mammals – appear to require not only protection and feeding, but to varying degrees training in many social and practical skills, even those for which they have strong instinctive predispositions, such as self-defense and hunting.

Originally Posted by arkain101

A lot of animals are born with some pretty amazing strength.

Hu-mons on the other hand, we are pretty much retarded for I dunno, how long? 6months?

Humans are certainly in the class of animals who, if not cared for many days after birth, will die. We’re not alone in this class, or extreme in it: bears, for instance, are born small and helpless, in most species with sealed eyes for about 1 month, unable to crawl/walk for about 2. They must be sheltered for about 4 months, usually can’t hunting successfully until about the age of 1 year, or survive without their mother until about the age of 3. (source, specific to polar bears: Polar Bears: IX. Birth and Care of Young)

At birth, humans are several times larger than bears, and able to see, in a limited way. In most other ways, our postnatal developmental timeline is similar to that of bears, and several other mammal species.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Sure we get hungry, thirsty, poopy, gassy, needy. But we do it while blind deaf and dumb.

Normal humans can see, hear, and vocalize strongly at birth, although we’re poorly coordinated and lack teeth usually for about 8 months.

It’s difficult to address the question of the minimum age at which a human could survive without adult care, because it’s legally and ethically prohibited to observe a very young human child attempting to survive without intervening to assure that the child is cared for in accordance with usual standards. My guess, however, is that, like bears, a human has a reasonable chance of unaided survival in a suitable habitat at about age 3 years.

The dramatic difference between humans and zoologically similar nonhuman animals is not, IMHO, the duration of postnatal care required for our most basic survival, but our ability, need, and the amount of time and effort required for us to acquire language, which in terms of its importance and complexity, is effectively unique to us. Our acquisition of language appears coupled to our acquisition of knowledge accompanying its use, to the extent that it’s difficult to distinguish the two. The importance of language and knowledge is commonly perceived as so great that we see all other measures of biological success, survival, reproduction, etc. as subservient to it. We spend at least a decade, arguably a lifetime, acquiring it. No other animal appears to have anything equivalent in its development to the human acquisition of language and knowledge.

As an instinct is defined as “the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior”, and acquiring language and knowledge can be described as a complicated collection of related behaviors, I believe we can say that not only do humans have instincts, but we have at least one instinct – the acquisition of language, and the knowledge that correlates with it – that is nearly or entirely unique among animals.

[HydrogenBond]

To separate the DNA aspects of instinct or the main river of basic instinct from the natural branches of species, from all the canals of human culture, it is necessary to first break each of the components down into simple terms.

The genetic based main river of common instinct is analogous to hardware emulating software. The analogy I have used before is an old fashion mechanical Coo Coo clock. The time keeping, the bird coming out, the coo cooing each hour, and then the bird going back into the bird house, is all done with springs, gears and levers. This is the type of control system is what one might expect from the DNA, using chemical feedback as hardware to create actions that sort of look like software. For example, when the food value in body or blood begins to get low (not exactly correct) this triggers chemicals, which trigger chemicals, etc. leading to chemicals associated with being hungry. It is a coo coo clock using only hardware but it is very amazing.

Although the DNA is fairly large or compose of a large number of genes, most of these genes are junk, while the majority of the rest are needed to take care of the thousands of activities within and between the billions cells within the body, all with swiss watch precision. This sets a practical limit with respect to how far this hardware emulation of software can go, relative to all the real time needs of the instincts with the dynamics of changing environments. The first branching of the DNA hardware river forms, what can be seen as firmware, which gets the brain involved. This are little fixed programs that assist the DNA hardware instincts. These can interact via feedback, but have a loop which sort of follows or parallels the hardware emulation.

For example, the animals gets hungry via the DNA hardware loop, due to whatever trigger the DNA has evolved for that animal. The little firmware programs help gets the legs moving, the nose sniffing, etc., with the sensory feedback having an impact of the firmware programs. But these firmware loop with with the DNA cycle. Once the DNA is satisfied, the firmware also stops.

The next level of branching is connected to software programs. This is more obvious in humans, but it connected to learned behavior than can assist the firmware and the hardware emulation. To put it all together, the DNA hardware generate the chemical feedback loop, which activates the firmware, which gets the animals in characteristic motion using basic species dependent predictability. But the critter is also learning and/or developing habit software that gives assistance.

With humans, we can learn at will and place the software at the top of the loop thereby changing the firmware and/or altering the duration of the DNA hardware loop. Let me give a good example of this effect, where the software branch improves the control system of the DNA, by overriding the natural instinct firmware while also altering the cycle at the hardware level.

If an animal, in the wild, has to take a whizz (urinate), when the DNA control system is set into motion, the firmware causes him to let loose. Although this is fine for human hikers in the woods, in culture this would lead to unsanitary conditions. We don't know what the pre-human did when they had to take a whizz, but the needs of civilization required a software program, trained with pain, to override animal firmware. The DNA hardware would still active, but the cycle may have to be altered, if the opportunity to whizz is not available when DNA says go. One holds the door when the coo coo tries to get out.

Science has most of the DNA hardware instinct loops figured out at the biochemical level for hunger, sex, etc. We sort of know the river. The natural human firmware is another story due to programming using software and software being used to control the DNA loops.