Instinct as evidence

[GeorgeW]

I think we're all rationalists here in that we want our beliefs to be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than superstition or arbitrary assertion. But it's not always clear how to interpret the evidence, or even what counts as evidence at all.

I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and it seems to me clear that we have at least some  instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. 

Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data? 

[barn]

1 hour ago, GeorgeW said:

I think we're all rationalists here in that we want our beliefs to be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than superstition or arbitrary assertion. But it's not always clear how to interpret the evidence, or even what counts as evidence at all.

I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and it seems to me clear that we have at least some  instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. 

Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data? 

Hi @GeorgeW

A quick question. Did you include free-will?

[Boss]

7 hours ago, GeorgeW said:

I think we're all rationalists here in that we want our beliefs to be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than superstition or arbitrary assertion. But it's not always clear how to interpret the evidence, or even what counts as evidence at all.

I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and it seems to me clear that we have at least some  instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. 

 Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data? 

2

Yes we may have instincts like fear of snakes or more objective instincts like thirst, hunger, and sex. However, it is our choices on how we decide to deal with them that makes us good or bad. Like if you want to steal from someone else to quench your thirst or hunger and rape for "sex" that is obviously bad.

As for what is good or bad, it can be known through something like UPB. 

Instincts at best can influence however, it is the free will of the person that makes the choice.

Instincts(which is a fixed pattern) without free will would 100% be determinable thus if you want to prove such, determine it with 100% or fall to the current reason and evidence that say such claim is unproven, and if they are claiming it true without reason and evidence, they are a LIAR 

[GeorgeW]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, I mean "good" and "bad" as in good and bad for us, not in any absolute sense, e.g. if something tastes awful it's probably because it has poison in it.

We may be excessively sensitive to some toxins, so some things that taste awful to us (especially as kids) may not have enough toxins to do us any harm, but it likely is a toxin that is responsible for the bad taste.

I'm not really sure how free will got into it. I think the fact that we believe in free will is evidence (if any were needed) that it is helpful to believe in free will. I think it's pretty obvious that a fatalistic worldview will help lead to boneheaded decisions.

[barn]

Hi @GeorgeW

On 07/29/2018 at 6:12 PM, GeorgeW said:

I'm not really sure how free will got into it.

earlier you wrote...

On 07/22/2018 at 9:44 PM, GeorgeW said:

I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and (I.) it seems to me clear that we have at least some  instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. 

(II.)

Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data?  

I.

->

Yes. Optimisation. Or in other words, that which doesn't adapt, perishes. Not all increments of changes result in the same/equal degree of benefit and in some instances, some superior adaptations occur too 'late', accidents manifest... etc.

I agree, I can too, verify it existing, universal property of that which is alive.

 

II.

->

Several reasons,a lot of them... but no, I don't think it's reasonable. (have a look for: 'Is->Ought')

0.

First of all, even now, your and humanity's genome is undergoing a what seems like constant change (mutation too). We are still (and hopefully will be) evolving...changing , due to a myriad of different factors.

0.+1

Why do you go to the dentist, if what you'll be experiencing is going to be stuff, that every creature without a consciousness would plain & simple avoid? (Isn't that overwriting a 'hard coded programming' with consideration & comparing for objective standards, resulting in a conscious action based on the most preferable outcome ?)

° Just because something 'works' , it doesn't mean there's no superior, or that it can be objectively asserted. It just means, that what you are looking at 'fits neatly into a custom made glove'.

Think of the size (length) of beds that were in use at the turn of the previous century, we wouldn't fit in those. (in general)

Think of the way societies manifested, and how they are or aren't shaping up to be better today. (note that I'm not saying that all changes were for the better... but I pretty much prefer a world with rational, objective ethics, much more property rights, to the free for all tribalism that ran for many a thousands of years)

° Look at how, in the free market of ideas, those that do not provide value, can't keep up with those that cater to the newly emerging, ever changing needs of the people.

° ... don't you think, something that which is that deeply rooted in us, say for example the deference to high sugar content food, isn't such a great idea without the free-agency for saying no (free-will), in a world where such ailments readily and cheaply are available?

° Why do you think, throughout the history of cold climate inhabitants, the general ability to survive and do well increased, whereas in warmer climates it did not? What was necessary for the newly arrived settlers to end up 'suffering' , in order for survival?

... the list goes on and on...

I mean, if your question was about the 'lizard brain', without any consideration for morals... well, sure. But we are humans, not animals. We are nothing like anything we know. We are more than animals, while also resembling animals. (architecture, language, science, art, self-destruction... etc.)

 

ps. - If you don't mind, please quote certain parts from posts, making it clear who/what you were referring to. I think that would be better for all. (If you agree)

 

- - - /19-08-2018/

Hi voter,

An arrow (colours negligible) points to things, since you didn't make any argument... thanks for highlighting mines!

[AnonLifeForm]

On 7/22/2018 at 3:44 PM, GeorgeW said:

I think we're all rationalists here in that we want our beliefs to be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than superstition or arbitrary assertion. But it's not always clear how to interpret the evidence, or even what counts as evidence at all.

I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and it seems to me clear that we have at least some  instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. 

Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data? 

Well if they are evolutionary in origin, they would be based on information that has made them. With my knowledge of semantics, empiricism is simply data that is processed with a scientific standard or is fit to do so.

So the question is is how scientific is the evolutionary process, and if its method of drawing conclusions from data inputs is empirical.

I don't see how whatever you say is relevant though. It all boils down to how reliable your instincts are. I couldn't care less about what the semantics end up being.

[barn]

Hi voter,

Thank you for
your continued interest
and for the views, here as well.

Don't be afraid to make an argument...

Barnsley

[RichardY]

The Scorpion and the Frog

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the 
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The 
frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion 
says, "Because if I do, I will die too."

The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of 
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp "Why?" 

Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature...

---------------------

I remember Stefan mentioning in a fairly recent video he had a friend who bred dogs, his friend said that he wouldn't breed a dog that bites or fails the sh*t test. Although by breeding the more vicious elements out of a creature, it can become more susceptible to exploitation. 

----------------------------

@barn I did not vote down your post. But, I do find many of your posts fragmented and hard to follow, in terms of layout and sentence structure. I did consider voting down your posts, but have not found reason to do so. Enthusiasm for posting, personable. Although I tend not to be personable, sometimes outright tactless. Said the food wasn't very good at a wedding once to the Bride & Groom. (too many butter beans and square plates).

Usually I ignore your posts. I found accusations of doubling down a while a go annoying. Generally prefer to stick to the topic, although open to various exploits or insights of people. I wouldn't assume warmth from me or trust. Generally indifferent to praise, criticism is fine as long as it's not concern trolling and is constructive. I don't mind focusing on various abstract collaborative topics, although prefer it be focused on the topic. "you of all people". does not endear me to help, even if everything else is positive and praiseful in a message.

[barn]

26 minutes ago, RichardY said:

@barn I did not... [...] 

Hi Richardy,

Thanks for sharing that... not sure why it occurred but I'm sure you had a good reason.

I guess it also helped you to reinforce / organise your thoughts better.

[ofd]

Quote

Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data? 

When it comes to biology, teleological reasoning has to be used. The goal of those instincts is it not to present you with an accurate description of reality but to make sure that your genes with those instincts are passed on. Hence it is better to err on the side of caution (assuming there is a danger when there is none) than having an accurate picture of your enviroment that might take a bit longer to process.

[RichardY]

@barnJust find it frustrating that there seem to be so few sources to learn from. Why have only two people on a video or on a stage debating, discussing. When a forum permits many. I think it would be better if there was some form of feedback with votes. A better user interface, although the layout of this forum is pleasant on the eye. Thinking of how developed video games are, compared to forum software. To lock horns & cooperate. I don't get why forums like reddit and many others are so popular.

[barn]

5 minutes ago, RichardY said:

@barnJust find it frustrating that there seem to be so few sources to learn from. Why have only two people on a video or on a stage debating, discussing. When a forum permits many. I think it would be better if there was some form of feedback with votes. A better user interface, although the layout of this forum is pleasant on the eye. Thinking of how developed video games are, compared to forum software. To lock horns & cooperate. I don't get why forums like reddit and many others are so popular.

This sounds like a composite draft for a possible 'suggestion letter', were you interested to sending it, some might read/implement this or that... It's possible, no one thought of it... (other than that + basic empathy for your frustration, not sure what else to say... I'd rather not add to the thread's derailing.)