I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins. Is there a clear distinction? Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior? What are the fundamental differences?
This isn't a discussion about free will. I'm not presently interested in philosophical free will, I am interested in the psychosocial roots of agency. Is all behavior, from animal, plant, or person (or any biological entity) simply stemmed from animal drives? Are humans just animals with a few added social cognitive faculties, in terms of how their agencies play out?
This does tie in with the BIP, but I'd shy away from it because in my thinking this is more a practical problem, and less of a philosophical issue. Meaning, we entities may have any manner of agency in psychosocial terms, but that says nothing of how we think about and perceive the BIP. Regardless of the BIP and our relationship with it, the origins of our agency are still in question.
I'm going to link this discussion to Dok Howl's Shackles Tethers and Anchors thread, because it is partially what inspired this, and I think of it as somewhat required reading.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=24191.0
So I'd like to hear your thoughts. Whence does human agency stem? Can we really swallow the notion that everything we do comes from a place of animal instinct, augmented by recent cognitive faculties such as social cognition? Or are we equipped with a pure rationality that can overcome any amount of organic inclination? Where's the line?
Society makes everything so messy.
What I mean is, out in "nature" don't instinct and rationality serve the same function?
Run from predators, fuck desirable mates, eat good food.
So you say that rationality is just another evolved trait that helps us succeed?
How postmodern.
Perhaps that is how we came to acquire rationality, but wouldn't you say that rationality has a behaviorally different 'quality' than mere instinct?
EITHER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Freud.27s_model_of_psychosexual_development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Freud.27s_model_of_psychosexual_development)
OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Stages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Stages)
:?
Edit: ETA
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 05, 2010, 03:33:12 AM
So you say that rationality is just another evolved trait that helps us succeed?
I say that rationality is a natural outgrowth of instinct and the ability to form associations/reason inductively.
It is not evolved, however. It is learned.
Quotewouldn't you say that rationality has a behaviorally different 'quality' than mere instinct?
It depends on the circumstances. Again, there are cases in which rationality and instinct would seem indistinguishable, and others in which it would clearly be one or the other.
I am reminded of a notion from the philosophy of action that we inhibit our actions in order to know what we are doing, and the release of the inhibitory mechanism is according to some kind of rationality. That is, rationality is defined (by Velleman, I think it was) as a kind of predictability. However, instincts are also quite predictable, are they not?
But can you say that a person has no
agency beyond naturally evolved traits that they have inherited?
It seems Agency must be a learned trait. Which implies that different people possess it to different degrees.
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 05, 2010, 05:22:07 AM
EITHER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Freud.27s_model_of_psychosexual_development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development#Freud.27s_model_of_psychosexual_development)
OR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Stages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Piaget#Stages)
:?
Edit: ETA
Shit's weak, son.
Hey man, i was just trying to help within the bounds of my understanding of what you are looking for.
Namely, your thoughts. I've already got Piaget and Freud's take on things.
I think im going to build upon what has already been said in the thread and then add a longer post...Quote from: Brotep on July 05, 2010, 02:18:34 AM
What I mean is, out in "nature" don't instinct and rationality serve the same function?
Run from predators, fuck desirable mates, eat good food.
If by "out in nature" you mean animals, animals arent rational beings, they act purely based on instincts. Or perhaps youd like to explain further or argue that animals are indeed rational beings?
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 05, 2010, 03:33:12 AM
So you say that rationality is just another evolved trait that helps us succeed?
How postmodern.
Perhaps that is how we came to acquire rationality, but wouldn't you say that rationality has a behaviorally different 'quality' than mere instinct?
Rationality is indeed a trait that helped us succeed; being squishy and weak compared to the rest of the animals, it is something we needed. But not merely that.
Also, yes, rationality is distinct from instinct. Instinct is what our body and pre-programing tells us to do. Rationality is what we choose to do. In a simplified manner, they are opposites -but then again one has to take into account that humans arent completely rational, humans also act based on irrational impulses-.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 04, 2010, 08:45:37 PM
I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins. Is there a clear distinction? Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior? What are the fundamental differences?
I think the main distinction is the presence or absence of consciousness and introspection. Within animals there is pure instinct and drive. Meanwhile, humans (also animals), can renounce their instincts and is inherently what makes us human.
Now, I made reference to the psychosexual development and the cognitive stages, because, it is in a not so explicit sense breached.
Humans during the oral stage (birth to 15 monthish) are pretty much all instinct and drive – parallely speaking, the pre-operational stage (birth to 24monthish) humans don't have symbolic abilities.
Now, during the anal stage (15montish to 3yearish) there is some boundaries instilled into human instinct, namely, bowel control, which implies a control over a bodily function and also the basic acquisition of language. Right after this, comes the phallic stage (3yearish to almost 6yearish) in which humans "go thru the oedipus complex"; mothers are libidinally desired because they are the caretakers and the center of the childs life, but come to realize that she is bound to another person, the father, and thus, the child must renounce its drive and desire for the mother in exchange of the promise of having a partner in the future, whilst identifying with the father. Parallely it's the cognitive operational stage (2ish to 7ish) during which the child now has the ability of symbolization, but isn't capable of logic thought yet.
After this, latency takes place (6ish to 12ish), in which the child represses most of his sexual energies and redirects (sublimates, cathexises) that energy into learning and fantasy. Paralelly this is the concrete cognitive stage (7ish to 11ish, funny that theres a supermarket named that way eh?).
Finally, the last cognitive stage is the formal operational stage, in which the human can think logically. (11ish- onwards).
TL;DR: Consciousness, repression and sublimation are some of the main characteristics that distinguish humans from animals. Animals shit wherever they want, do acts of agression when they want to, and hump what they want to.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 04, 2010, 08:45:37 PM
Or are we equipped with a pure rationality that can overcome any amount of organic inclination? Where's the line?
Im not sure how to address this... but, the simplest examples would be trying to overcome breathing or sleeping...
Retraining the Breath, (i.e. consciously deconstructing your breathing patterns, changing them, and them embedding these new reflexes) is totally what Pranayama is about.
So with enough "rational mind power" one can survive without eating, breathing or sleeping indefinitely?
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 05, 2010, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Brotep on July 05, 2010, 02:18:34 AM
What I mean is, out in "nature" don't instinct and rationality serve the same function?
Run from predators, fuck desirable mates, eat good food.
If by "out in nature" you mean animals, animals arent rational beings, they act purely based on instincts. Or perhaps youd like to explain further or argue that animals are indeed rational beings?
Heh. No, animals do not act purely based on instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct). They are capable of learning from experience.
That's why this works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
You
could argue for animals as rational beings, as limited by their comprehension.
Quote from: Brotep on July 06, 2010, 02:32:40 AM
Quote from: Joh'Nyx on July 05, 2010, 09:10:25 PM
Quote from: Brotep on July 05, 2010, 02:18:34 AM
What I mean is, out in "nature" don't instinct and rationality serve the same function?
Run from predators, fuck desirable mates, eat good food.
If by "out in nature" you mean animals, animals arent rational beings, they act purely based on instincts. Or perhaps youd like to explain further or argue that animals are indeed rational beings?
Heh. No, animals do not act purely based on instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct). They are capable of learning from experience.
That's why this works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning
You could argue for animals as rational beings, as limited by their comprehension.
Well ok, you do have a point that if its learnt thru experience, its not instinct, but im not sure if that qualifies as rational. take this definition (which you might or might not agree with)
QuoteReason is a mental faculty found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose (specific) reasons, or explanations of cause and effect.
I wouldnt say animals have a deep sense of causality... and im not to sharp on animal psychology but...
QuoteHuman reason is something much more specific, requiring not just the possibility of associating perceptions of smoke, for example, with memories of fire, but also the ability to create and manipulate a system of symbols, as well as indices and icons, according to Charles Sanders Peirce, the symbols having only a nominal, though habitual, connection to either smoke or fire.[6]
perhaps it is more linked to the capacity of symbolic thought?...
Thinking about the intellectual differences between humans and other beings as:
Operant conditioning, the ability to generate behavior in opposition to it (metacognition)
The cognitive faculties hinted at by Freud's repression and sublimation (reacting to inclinations with forethought)
The ability to employ "logical" reasoning in explaining things (whatever shape that may take in itself)
These all seem to outline the hard limits of rational agency, regardless of species. A being not in the habit of metacognition, for example, has a weaker agentic quality than one who does.
Is there more?
You must be over 18 to be an agent :lulz:
(depending on the country/state)
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 04, 2010, 08:45:37 PM
I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins. Is there a clear distinction? Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior? What are the fundamental differences?
I'm not sure there's a clear distinction. Even the most sophisticated and urbane Don Juan is still carrying out instinctive reproductive programming.
The difference between Einstein and Mike Tyson may be that Einstein experienced rewards for being clever, whereas Tyson experienced rewards for being strong. To me, it's the same organism, just wired to different rewards.
QuoteSo I'd like to hear your thoughts. Whence does human agency stem? Can we really swallow the notion that everything we do comes from a place of animal instinct, augmented by recent cognitive faculties such as social cognition? Or are we equipped with a pure rationality that can overcome any amount of organic inclination? Where's the line?
to expand ....
Behavioral psychology has given us a number of models we can use to understand human behavior. To me, the most salient are operant conditioning and the melioration principle.
We're very familiar with operant conditioning, our eternal romance with rewards and punishments. If there's anything unique about mankind's execution of these biological imperatives, it's that we have
some degree of control over what we consider a reward.
The Melioration principle states that an organism will continue to carry out a behavior until a competing behavior offers a better reward. I can't think of a single moment in my life where I've managed to escape this programming.
We also have the ability to project the future - a trait not shared by many animals. Our ability to sniff out long term rewards and weigh them against short term ones gives us significantly more variance in our behaviors than our animal friends. We are also not very good at predicting the future and calculating for unknowns - hence the chaotic nature of human behavior.
In my thinking, the hyperrational people who have escaped the meat parade have merely decided that intellectual rewards outweigh physical ors social rewards. They are still playing the melioration game, they're just being rewarded by different things than us bonobos. To some extent, it may be a function of identifying with the collective (ie, doing things for the betterment of the whole human tribe), rather than being stuck in a tiny little ego which is easily distracted by flesh and luxury.
Then it seems like the best way to really have long term, cohesive agency in one's own behavior is to actively control the reward schema and let the rest of it "take care of" itself.
ETA: What I mean by that is, if I really want to control the things I do in a rational way, in anything more than a proximate capacity, I need to be able to control what rewards me. If I can't escape melioration, then I might as well try to steer it.
For the concept "rational behavior" to exist, there needs to be some agreed upon concept of purpose first. You need to have a goal to act rationally towards.
Every single goal that is considered worth pursuing is in line with our basic instincts, however.
We want the best for our selfs, for our gene-pool and especially for our children. We may cut back on self-interest here and there, but only to help our fellow humans.
Even the stuff that looks like true altruism is sold to us as a benefit to our gene-pool. "Save [insert endangered species x here] so that our grand-children may enjoy seeing them too".
If every goal for rational behavior is set by our instincts then there isn't much point trying to make a fundamental distinction between the 2, is there?
Ok I'm going to be a littlebit vague about this, but I don't have much more than those 2c now.
Quote from: Sigmatic on July 04, 2010, 08:45:37 PM
I'm interested in establishing where, in practice, rational (deliberate, systematic, and calculable) behavior ends, and animal (instinctual, survival oriented, primitive) behavior begins. Is there a clear distinction? Is there any such thing as pure rational behavior, and, in humans is there such a thing as pure animal behavior? What are the fundamental differences?
First, don't these two things come from a different part of the brain? Aren't there parts for low, medium and higher brain functions? That would show at least that the distinction is real.
Second, on an entirely different level, the two types of behaviour just
feel different.
Quote from: SuperNull on July 07, 2010, 08:07:09 AM
Every single goal that is considered worth pursuing is in line with our basic instincts, however.
Quote from: wikipediaInstinct is the inherent inclination of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited.
Therefore, all culture is discredited, according to you?
Quote from: SuperNull on July 07, 2010, 08:07:09 AM
We want the best for our selfs, for our gene-pool and especially for our children. We may cut back on self-interest here and there, but only to help our fellow humans.
That sounds slightly contradictory, can you explain? Do we do it for "our-selves" or do we do things "to help our fellow humans" too?
Quote from: SuperNull on July 07, 2010, 08:07:09 AMEven the stuff that looks like true altruism is sold to us as a benefit to our gene-pool. "Save [insert endangered species x here] so that our grand-children may enjoy seeing them too".
You seem to be questioning the relation of rationality with altruism - but i dont think anybody brought that up? i dont think they are related concepts
Quote from: SuperNull on July 07, 2010, 08:07:09 AM
If every goal for rational behavior is set by our instincts then there isn't much point trying to make a fundamental distinction between the 2, is there?
The distinction doesnt stem of the "why" of the behaviour necesarrily, but the "how" of it.
edit: bold parts
ooh, related
(http://zs1.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100605.gif)