User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 60

  1. #31
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Living creatures are less complex than large heights?

    To instincts and feelings it's that tigers run at you, swipe and bite, hurricanes knock things over on you.

    Both of these are simple. Whether you explain tigers as reincarnations of the dead, or hurricanes as god's wrath for some sin, they are both treated the same. The anthropomorphism is a random explanation to help understand, gorillas as dead souls (an actual example) is also a random explanation to help understand. There is no living/non-living distinction instinctually or feeling-wise.

    Complexity and simplicity are merely descriptions of states of understanding, so you are arbitrarily saying living creatures are easier to understand than natural phenomenon. A living creature takes more time to understand than a hurricane, so in that sense is more complex. The effects of a living creature are also more complex in that sense.

    You seem to be missing my point. An animal is attacked by a flood. A flood is a complex things. An animal does not know what exactly this is. Flood is a non-living danger. An animal is attacked by a tiger, the animal sees the tiger and identifies the tiger as the sole threat. This is all that an animal needs to know; what a tiger looks like and that the tiger is bad.

    The animal perceives the tiger as bad and therefore runs from the tiger. What about a flood or a hurricane. There is so much going on in a flood or hurricane (trees falling, the ground being washed away, other animals running and so on), the animal does not know what to think. In short living dangers present only one object of threat (for example, just the tiger) non-living dangers present many.



    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    In my example of pain with cats, you will find the list of emotions a person goes through. Amongst them is for instance self-pity. Wallowing in self-pity is hardly emotionally intelligent. But it is a feeling, that originates in the frontal lobe, an area underdevelopped with certain mammals and non-existent in others so we can somewhat assume they do not engage in self-pity. The same goes for guilt, disdain, vengefullness etc.

    However, instinct is mainly there to ensure your survival. A stimulus enters your brain, for instance a predator, gets routed to your amygdala who then tries to identify the stimulus from previous experiences, and determines a the best course of action, to then send that reaction back, be it fight or flight. If in perceived imminent danger, the amygdala doesn't even compare experiences, and will just sent a flight/flight response, right away. This is why when you startle someone, they jump up or some even smack you. With pain, the amygdala doesn't even get to judge. Your body uses a reflex shortcut to avoid it immediately, and the stimulus only reaches your brain after you've already responded to it. Potential feelings only come afterwards and the scientific community is divided as to how much they have in common with instinct and how similar they are. I think that what you actually consider 'feeling' in this case is you experiencing the amount adrenalin, noradrenalin and all kinds of other stuff being dumped in your body to give you what you need in order to respond appropriately, be it fight or flight.


    As for reacting to dangers, I feel you are ignoring transgenerational behavior and learning principles, though I'll grant you that certain phobias have been imprinted on us genetically and will invoke an instant flight-response. Again, this is instinct, the drive to survive. It it why so many humans have arachnophobia and why rabbits flee when you put their hands out to lift them up (it resembles the shape of a bird of prey and they're genetically programmed to run then).

    I do hereby resign from this discussion, as I have no desire to be teaching basic animal ethology and neurology on this forum (at least not more than I already touched upon by now)


    You never answered my question!

    What is the difference between an instinct and an emotion.

    1)Define emotion.

    2)Define instinct.

    3)Show the difference between the two.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  2. #32
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You never answered my question!

    What is the difference between an instinct and an emotion.

    1)Define emotion.

    2)Define instinct.

    3)Show the difference between the two.
    I did to the extent it is possible. Not my problem that it's not in the format you like so much. I don't particularly care for your style of defining either. They aren't clearly defined yet as we have yet to understand them fully.

    For the third time: there is no concensus in the scientific community to what extent animals experience feelings. All we know for sure is that they have an instinct. That means that you assuming they are the same till proven otherwise is as incorrect as it would be for me to wanna prove you beyond contestation to you that they aren't. We simply do not know, and the general approach to this for now is to work with what we do know, namely instinct. I've seen several documentaries and read about some research that seems to indicate that Elephants and dolphins would rival our ability to feel. But it is still a very controverse topic for now. This also means that your essay is based on something that we just do not have enough data on.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  3. #33
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I did to the extent it is possible. Not my problem that it's not in the format you like so much. I don't particularly care for your style of defining either. They aren't clearly defined yet as we have yet to understand them fully.

    For the third time: there is no concensus in the scientific community to what extent animals experience feelings. All we know for sure is that they have an instinct. That means that you assuming they are the same till proven otherwise is as incorrect as it would be for me to wanna prove you beyond contestation to you that they aren't. We simply do not know, and the general approach to this for now is to work with what we do know, namely instinct. I've seen several documentaries and read about some research that seems to indicate that Elephants and dolphins would rival our ability to feel. But it is still a very controverse topic for now. This also means that your essay is based on something that we just do not have enough data on.

    You do know that if something is not clearly defined, it is non-sense?

    Its just like if we are trying to solve an equation that seems like 5x +2y=10, yet we do not know if the first number is 5 or a 2 (it only seems like a 5..) or if the second number is a 2 or a 3 and so on.

    Defining the terms is a prerequisite to all meaningful discourse.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #34
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    You seem to be missing my point. An animal is attacked by a flood. A flood is a complex things. An animal does not know what exactly this is. Flood is a non-living danger. An animal is attacked by a tiger, the animal sees the tiger and identifies the tiger as the sole threat. This is all that an animal needs to know; what a tiger looks like and that the tiger is bad.

    The animal perceives the tiger as bad and therefore runs from the tiger. What about a flood or a hurricane. There is so much going on in a flood or hurricane (trees falling, the ground being washed away, other animals running and so on), the animal does not know what to think. In short living dangers present only one object of threat (for example, just the tiger) non-living dangers present many.
    If a cat sees a sleeping bear, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a blade, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a bear sprinted towards it, it becomes scared, if cat sees a blade moving towards it, it becomes scared.

    Blade or bear, the cat won't note the difference. The only reason a cat wouldn't understand a hurricane is the same reason it wouldn't understand a kraken. Too large for it to comprehend.
    In the case of humans, bears and hurricanes were both treated the same in mythology (random back stories, hence anthropomorphism).

    Starvation, disease, falling rocks, corpses, fire etc, all non-living objects they can focus on and "think" about.

  5. #35
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    If a cat sees a sleeping bear, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a blade, it isn't scared. If a cat sees a bear sprinted towards it, it becomes scared, if cat sees a blade moving towards it, it becomes scared.

    Blade or bear, the cat won't note the difference. The only reason a cat wouldn't understand a hurricane is the same reason it wouldn't understand a kraken. Too large for it to comprehend.
    In the case of humans, bears and hurricanes were both treated the same in mythology (random back stories, hence anthropomorphism).

    Starvation, disease, falling rocks, corpses, fire etc, all non-living objects they can focus on and "think" about.
    How many animals were attacked by just a blade? Or an entity nearly as simple as that one? Most non-living threats were natural disasters (that were complex, like hurricanes or floods). I do not see the relevance of the sleeping bear comment. An animal learned to fear the bear only after a bear that was awake has attacked the animal. After that the animal will associate the danger with a bear and will therefore fear the bear whether the bear is asleep or awake.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #36
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

    I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

    By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

  7. #37
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

    I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

    By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

    This is nearly entirely irrelevant to our discussion, but thank you for the input anyways.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #38
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Feeling is more primitive than thinking, so it is closer to the animal than to man. Yup. It originates in a more primitive part of the brain.

    I consider myself closer to an animal as an NF than T's appear to be from my perspective. NF comes to the point. It can't always say how it got there. This NF doesn't care. It's a more efficient way to know, I believe. I don't at all see that as inferior.

    By the way, and I do mean by the way, as in, not something to go into for pages on end -- animals know more about natural processes than we do. Animals run in the opposite direction of tidal waves and they can predict earthquakes and sense seizures and smell cancer and do all kinds of things that appear supernatural but are natural to animals, that we can't do at all because we think too much.

    They have an interesting theory on that now, I saw recently. Some believe that animals can perceive the lowest sounds that the soundwave makes (which travels faster than the tsunami itself). And, because those low sounds are often used to establish dominance and in territorial disputes, some apparently believe that animals 'mistake' the sound for a highly dangerous animal.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  9. #39
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker View Post
    How many animals were attacked by just a blade? Or an entity nearly as simple as that one? Most non-living threats were natural disasters (that were complex, like hurricanes or floods). I do not see the relevance of the sleeping bear comment. An animal learned to fear the bear only after a bear that was awake has attacked the animal. After that the animal will associate the danger with a bear and will therefore fear the bear whether the bear is asleep or awake.
    The cat would fear the sleeping bear like it fears the stationary blade. Avoid it.

    Most non-living threats were the result of natural disasters, like falling sharp rocks, known as blades. The animal would not see the earthquakes or hurricane, it would see the dangers it produces, such as falling objects, which it sees the same way as it sees predators.

    If it links the shaking ground or strong wind with the falling rocks, it is the same as linking the smell or roar of a bear with a bear.

    Non-living and living are instinctually and emotionally the same. Both are scary, and both explained in the same way, which later became anthropomorphism when the intellect translated them.

  10. #40
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    The cat would fear the sleeping bear like it fears the stationary blade. Avoid it.

    Most non-living threats were the result of natural disasters, like falling sharp rocks, known as blades. The animal would not see the earthquakes or hurricane, it would see the dangers it produces, such as falling objects, which it sees the same way as it sees predators.

    If it links the shaking ground with the falling rocks, it is the same as linking the smell of a bear with a bear.

    Non-living and living are instinctually and emotionally the same. Both are scary, and both explained in the same way, which later became anthropomorphism when the intellect translated them.
    However, the living creatures, pursue the prey consistently. Whilst the non-living do not. Rocks fall for a certain period of time, than they stop. Yet a tiger chases the prey nearly every time a tiger is observed. Therefore a tiger is related more closely to a danger than a non-living object, because a tiger acts as a danger more frequently than a rock. Or any other object that the animal tends to regard as a threat.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. The importance of feelings?
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 05:51 PM
  2. Avoidance of Feelings = Ignorance of Facts? What Does that say About Ts?
    By Mempy in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 09:33 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Essence of Feeling
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-20-2008, 05:20 PM
  4. Originators of MBTI and Temperaments
    By marm in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-27-2008, 02:34 PM
  5. ORIGIN OF EVIL
    By LIND in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 11:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO