|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Instinctual Behavior Vs Intelligent Decisions | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I do not see evidence that we inherit our intelligence, sorry. I merely point to the brain, especially the Frontal Lobe of the Cortex. A part of the brain that handles reasoning, planning and problem solving, and say 'I inherited that'. When that lobe is being used, I am being 'intelligent', as I define it. I use that lobe instinctively, though it takes a lot of learning to use it well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I do not see evidence that we inherit our intelligence, sorry. Well if you had the DNA of a pumpkin you would be markedly less intelligent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, I know that is what you say.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
jar writes:
We use our brain, and we learn how to do that.
It's not binary, we both have (are born with) intelligence and we learn how to use it. A child will behave relatively intelligently whether taught or not.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Really?
Have you ever been around a child? I'm sorry but you guys are really getting silly I fear and trivializing the term "Intelligence" to the point it has about as much meaning as saying "we walking on our feet instinctively". Sure the hardware is (kinda) there and that is trivially true. We cannot walk with our ears or think with our noses but we learn to think by working at it, by trial and error, by practice and failure. Just as we learn to control the muscles and concentration needed enable us to use our feet to walk, we learn to think, to consider, to make choices and decisions. I do not see evidence that "intelligence" is instinctual.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
jar writes:
Have you ever been around a child? Weirdly, not only have I been around quite a lot of children I've been one myself. Of course, kids are intelligent. Sheesh.Life, don't talk to me about life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Yes, we inherit our intelligence. Much of this is caused by the genome we inherit - along with the environment of our development. This genome has mutated since it first came into being. The current theory would predict that the first life was not intelligent. So intelligence has arisen through the mechanisms described by the present theory of evolution. There may be further mechanisms that are as yet unknown. "along with the environment of our development. " Could you be more specific please? Is it learninig included? Could these "further mechanisms" be learning as well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
"along with the environment of our development. " Could you be more specific please? Is it learninig included? The womb seems to be an important environment that has significant impact on development. I'm excluding the learned aspects because I'm specifically talking about instinctive (ie., not learned) behaviour.
Could these "further mechanisms" be learning as well? But sure, learning is an important part of human brain development, but I'm talking about the unlearned stuff specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
But sure, learning is an important part of human brain development, but I'm talking about the unlearned stuff specifically.
How cam we be sure that leant behaviour ,repeated over many generations, is not finally ingrained to genetical structures so to be inherited and instinctive at the end? I know this thought is forbidden by Darwinism and current theory, but what is the evidence agajnst?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
What you have described is by no means 'forbidden' by Darwinism, it is essentially an example of what Waddington called canalisation, the repeated behaviour forms the suitable environment to select for variations which promote that behaviour. Waddington further called the situation where an organism chooses its own environment to a degree or modifies that environment to its own ends 'The Exploitive System'.
Waddington identified 4 systems involved in evolution, the exploitive system, the epigenetic system, the natural selective system and the genetic system. Of course whether such a thing would occur would be highly dependent on what the specific behaviour was and how it would become selectively advantageous. Mere repetition would not be sufficient TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
How cam we be sure that leant behaviour ,repeated over many generations, is not finally ingrained to genetical structures so to be inherited and instinctive at the end? I'm not sure. In fact I'm persuaded that it does in fact happen. I can't remember the name of the effect, but the idea that organisms that learn ideas quickly have greater success - the faster the better- and this continues until it is no longer even required for the behaviour to be learned at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
I'm not sure. In fact I'm persuaded that it does in fact happen. I can't remember the name of the effect, but the idea that organisms that learn ideas quickly have greater success - the faster the better- and this continues until it is no longer even required for the behaviour to be learned at all.
If i understood it well , it seems that you believe that instincts in first place had been learned and so are not the result of mutations .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
If i understood it well , it seems that you believe that instincts in first place had been learned and so are not the result of mutations . Then you haven't understood it well. Some instincts may have originally been learned behaviour, but certainly not all instincts. And even those that are originally learned and later became instinctual did so as a result of mutations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
What you have described is by no means 'forbidden' by Darwinism, it is essentially an example of what Waddington called canalisation, the repeated behaviour forms the suitable environment to select for variations which promote that behaviour. Waddington further called the situation where an organism chooses its own environment to a degree or modifies that environment to its own ends 'The Exploitive System'.
This repeated behaviour, which obviously predates any instinct formation,is carried out mainly through leerning process by neural system. This type of behaviour may or may not form any suitable environment. The gee dance in order to inform other gees does not have any impact on environment.In any case Environment change is trivial to instinct formation.Before the time learnt behavior could affect environment, many generations must have past.But in this case how the behaviour could be transferred to next generatios?
Waddington identified 4 systems involved in evolution, the exploitive system, the epigenetic system, the natural selective system and the genetic system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3620 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Some instincts may have originally been learned behaviour, but certainly not all instincts. And even those that are originally learned and later became instinctual did so as a result of mutations.
So lets take the example of a crow, who had learnt to choose and use a special long leaf rugged in apropriate direction, so to take out insects from inside their nests. She uses the method In her life span.How this knowledge is transferred to next generations if not a relative mutation does not happen on this specific crow? But surely the propabilities are that it will not happen.All the effort will go in vain! I dont think crows are so stupid to let it happen! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024