Human Instinct and Free Will

[Trausti]

Humans are animals. For a long time we used religion or other excuse to mark a clear line between us and other other animals. But we are animals. The behavioral genetics of non-human animals gives way to a wide range of inherit instincts - some rather fascinating.



What I am curious about are behavioral instincts in humans. We know that there are innate reflexes - like the Moro reflex. Yet, I think we sometimes fool ourselves when we believe - because we have the highest cognition among animals - that our behavior or choices arise from free will. What if it does not always come down to free will? What if we do things not because we have made the choice to do those things, but because our genes have imposed that we act so?

 

[untermensche]

I don't think you will get specific behaviors. Human psychology is too complicated.

But you will get certain compulsions, like the sexual instinct.

But how the sexual instinct is expressed will not be the product of genes because it takes place in specific cultural contexts which the human is aware of.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Humans are animals. For a long time we used religion or other excuse to mark a clear line between us and other other animals. But we are animals. The behavioral genetics of non-human animals gives way to a wide range of inherit instincts - some rather fascinating.

What I am curious about are behavioral instincts in humans. We know that there are innate reflexes - like the Moro reflex. Yet, I think we sometimes fool ourselves when we believe - because we have the highest cognition among animals - that our behavior or choices arise from free will. What if it does not always come down to free will? What if we do things not because we have made the choice to do those things, but because our genes have imposed that we act so?

Anything that makes you happy. Pleasure and pain is the method by which our genes try to control us, aka instincts. If you ever chose happiness over pain you've chosen slavery over freedom.

It's that simple. The same neurotransmitters can be found in every species on the Eukaryotic branch. So a molusc might get happy for different reasons than you. But they very likely feel happy in the same way. Also, they might also feel that they're the only species who truly understands the meaning of life and that all over species are mostly controlled by instinct.

 

[fromderinside]

Humans are animals. For a long time we used religion or other excuse to mark a clear line between us and other other animals. But we are animals. The behavioral genetics of non-human animals gives way to a wide range of inherit instincts - some rather fascinating.

What I am curious about are behavioral instincts in humans. We know that there are innate reflexes - like the Moro reflex. Yet, I think we sometimes fool ourselves when we believe - because we have the highest cognition among animals - that our behavior or choices arise from free will. What if it does not always come down to free will? What if we do things not because we have made the choice to do those things, but because our genes have imposed that we act so?

Anything that makes you happy. Pleasure and pain is the method by which our genes try to control us, aka instincts. If you ever chose happiness over pain you've chosen slavery over freedom.

It's that simple. The same neurotransmitters can be found in every species on the Eukaryotic branch. So a molusc might get happy for different reasons than you. But they very likely feel happy in the same way. Also, they might also feel that they're the only species who truly understands the meaning of life and that all over species are mostly controlled by instinct.

I am a Watsonian/Skinnerian only in this respect: emotive attributions and anthropomorphizations do not advance science.

Why not go with approach/withdraw, a  T. C. Schneirla observation, as criticism of both approach/avoid and emotional response.

This meaning of life thing is not science. It is the stuff of belief and self centered analysis.

 

[Trausti]

I don't think you will get specific behaviors. Human psychology is too complicated.

Exercise behavior does seem to be genetic/inherited.

First, individual differences in physical activity traits are significantly influenced by genetic factors, but genetic contribution varies strongly over age, with heritability of leisure time exercise behavior ranging from 27% to 84% and heritability of sedentary behaviors ranging from 9% to 48%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25034445

We find that BMI and obesity are strongly correlated among biological parent-child pairs, but there are no significant intergenerational associations in these health traits among adoptive parent-child pairs. The intergenerational elasticity of BMI for children to their parents is 0.2 in the matched biological sample, but indistinguishable from zero for adopted children with a standard error more than three times as large as the coefficient. Under reasonable assumptions, these findings indicate that the intergenerational transmission of BMI and obesity occurs primarily through genetic mechanisms.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X1630106X?np=y

Hence, the desire to exercise or keep in shape may not be a matter of free will but instinct.

 

[untermensche]

Exercise behavior does seem to be genetic/inherited.

First, individual differences in physical activity traits are significantly influenced by genetic factors, but genetic contribution varies strongly over age, with heritability of leisure time exercise behavior ranging from 27% to 84% and heritability of sedentary behaviors ranging from 9% to 48%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25034445

Utter nonsense.

"ranging from 27% to 84%"??

In other words meaningless.

This is a game of trying to find statistical correlations between genes and things in the world, things like human behavior. Utter nonsense.

I can make statistical correlations between genes and the zodiac signs, with college football scores, with woman's fashion styles. With anything since there are so many genes. I just have to look at enough genes.

Correlations of these kinds are totally meaningless.

What has meaning is finding a gene, showing what it does, and then showing how what it does has some influence on behavior.

This nonsense of making statistical correlations between genes and human behaviors is a stupid game for idiots.

 

[DBT]

Evolutionary psychology is an interesting field, and quite relevant to the issue of human behaviour and instinct.

 

[iolo]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

 

[DrZoidberg]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

1) How could you possibly know that the choices you never took were ever available to you? I think it's more helpful to think of our brains having competing urges. One will release more dopamin or serotonin than the other's. So that will be selected. But you will perceive it as you choosing, weighing pros and cons... perhaps using your rational faculties.

2) If the choice is between happiness or pain, is that really a choice at all? To anybody who has experimented with drugs or even suffered a mental health issue that requires medication, they know that choice is an illusion. We will systematically behave differently on or off the drug. Is that really freedom?

I just realized that I've sidled into a free will debate and that wasn't my intention. I can't think of any more boring subject.

 

[DBT]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

Self consciousness has its own source mechanism, neural networks/structures. To which self consciousness has no conscious access.

 

[braces_for_impact]

It seems to me that our consciousness is more along for the ride and gives justification for our choices. Where our thoughts and preferences comes from, no one really knows. Doubtless instinct is part of it. We do seem less instinctive than the a lot of the rest of the animal kingdom. As DrZoidberg said:

I think it's more helpful to think of our brains having competing urges. One will release more dopamin or serotonin than the other's. So that will be selected. But you will perceive it as you choosing, weighing pros and cons... perhaps using your rational faculties.

True Dat

 

[DBT]

Rational faculties are subject to the same underlying process that gives rise to all conscious thoughts and feelings, decisions and actions.

 

[Speakpigeon]

This nonsense of making statistical correlations between genes and human behaviors is a stupid game for idiots.

If it's for idiots then it's probably correlated to their genetic make-up.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I just realized that I've sidled into a free will debate and that wasn't my intention. I can't think of any more boring subject.

Which is good evidence you don't have free-will.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think it's more helpful to think of our brains having competing urges. One will release more dopamin or serotonin than the other's. So that will be selected. But you will perceive it as you choosing, weighing pros and cons... perhaps using your rational faculties.

No free-will, no rational faculties properly speaking.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not free to renounce the idea of free-will. Like Popeye/Trump said: I am what I am.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

I just realized that I've sidled into a free will debate and that wasn't my intention. I can't think of any more boring subject.

Which is good evidence you don't have free-will.
EB

Right. One more time then ...

C: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
O: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
C: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
O: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
C: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
O: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
C: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.
O: Nononono, no, no! 'E's resting!
C: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up!
(shouting at the cage)
'Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I've got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show...(owner hits the cage)
O: There, he moved!
C: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the cage!
O: I never!!
C: Yes, you did!
O: I never, never did anything...
C: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) 'ELLO POLLY!!!!!

 

[DBT]

I'm not free to renounce the idea of free-will. Like Popeye/Trump said: I am what I am.
EB

Popeye has bigger forearms, no doubt. And loves Spinach.

 

[Malintent]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

"override" is a word. no need for a hyphen.. no one (not no-one) is in the doghouse (not dog-house) over using a proper compound word.

Anyway, "in the animal sense" is unnecessary.. in that it is not a real distinction. Perhaps you may have meant "in the self-aware sense", in that degrees of awareness vary between the animals. Humans are very complicated animals, with the highest degree (that we know of) of awareness, but we're animals nonetheless. I know... most Christians have some problem with that very fundamental fact... but one might as well argue the sky is green and the grass is blue.

to answer your excellent question, though... none. There is exactly no evidence there exists this thing called "free-will", outside of our ability to understand our own conscious thought processes.

 

[untermensche]

As far as I know, humans can over-ride any 'instinct', so are they instincts in the animal sense? Similarly, what evidence other than self-consciousness have we for any 'free will'?

"override" is a word. no need for a hyphen.. no one (not no-one) is in the doghouse (not dog-house) over using a proper compound word.

Anyway, "in the animal sense" is unnecessary.. in that it is not a real distinction. Perhaps you may have meant "in the self-aware sense", in that degrees of awareness vary between the animals. Humans are very complicated animals, with the highest degree (that we know of) of awareness, but we're animals nonetheless. I know... most Christians have some problem with that very fundamental fact... but one might as well argue the sky is green and the grass is blue.

to answer your excellent question, though... none. There is exactly no evidence there exists this thing called "free-will", outside of our ability to understand our own conscious thought processes.

No evidence?

What you just wrote is evidence of free will.

You have a lot of evidence for free will.

Try to move your finger with your mind. Move it in a manner of your choosing and at a time of your choosing.

If you can do it, how is that not free will?

What is the proof the clear evidence of free will is in fact not free will?