Animal instincts

[Apollyon]

Now humans are by nature animals (OK let's not get into a humans are better than animals blahdiblah religion thread, please) and as such are "gifted" with instincts and animalistic urges. These appear in unconscious actions and reactions among other things. The question is: Do we try and supress animal instincts (and urges) and try to judge with a logical, level head, do we submit to the urges and instincts temporarily so as not to succomb completely to them or do we simply give into them as a whole? What do you guys think?

[Egeides]

I believe "instincts" are very fast rational analysis. It's based on a specie's past (with lots of information pre-analysed). So if you don't have enough time/information to do better than instincts, use instincts. Otherwise, trust instincts: it's your best move.

My 2 cents :)

[Acriku]

Depends on the situation, really. Surely, you should keep a leveled head to logically go through problems from the matter-at-hand, but sometimes resorting to animal instincts is the only way. Like a mother who would do something that would endanger her life to save her baby, and often times achieving more strength than ever from adrenaline. We can also change our instincts like martial arts does, for greater survival.

[Caid Ivik]

Apollyon, you want something impossible. If Darwin was true, then we have some animal foundation. That means our soul was just added on the mattery and made it a human. This is an argument for Darwin: we have animal instincts for food, reproduction etc., just our soul can make a plan for them. We can organize ourselves, animals are being organized without any higher order.

[Terror]

I think the human brain merely suppress their instincts like apollyon said. It is our gift and our way of survival, thinking and being able to use tools. But i also agree somewhat with Egeides. If you don't have enough time to think, or perhaps things that are not that important, you use your instinct

[Caid Ivik]

One my friend very likes the theory that our brain is same as cat's claws or snake's venom teeth, I believe he isn't one such. But I see more use of brain than just a tool of survival.

[Apollyon]

Apollyon, you want something impossible. If Darwin was true, then we have some animal foundation. That means our soul was just added on the mattery and made it a human. This is an argument for Darwin: we have animal instincts for food, reproduction etc., just our soul can make a plan for them. We can organize ourselves, animals are being organized without any higher order.

Well I don't really understand what you're saying here, all I know is that in my first post I wasn't actually asking anything lol, other than for you to give your opinions...

In my opinion if instincts can be mastered they are very beneficial but then there are naturally detrimental and obstructive animal urges and instincts as well. For instance an instinct in a group among some people is to actively insult other members in an attempt to put them down so as to enhance their own image. In my opinion the human race would benefit as a whole with the extermination or at least control of such behaviour.

[Caid Ivik]

You are asking "what do you guys think?". Without religious view. In fact, your view as same as mine, maybe you told it without such divinity as me, so in your question I am in your shadow.

[Dude_Doc]

I don't think one can master instinct. It is like mastering time: it is impossible. Instinct is like a computer, telling one what to do next. The reason I think we humans have, like, a higher "consiousness" is because we are all different. I think we humans have more liberty because each and every one of us has an independent soul. The animals on the other side, do also have a higher spirit, but (because mostly of my judgement), animals look just about the same, I think they have a more "collective soul", that is why I think animals are able to somehow "feel" things (well, if you believe those kind of things), their whole soul is like a "net" on this globe. Animals such like dolphins and monkeys, who resemble intelligence and understanding (+ self reflection), I don't really know. I'd say they are "between" the animals with the "net-souls" (cat, dog, fish), and those with one soul, us humans.

Then there are, of course, other theories, for example that every living organism is one big soul, like the Final Fantasy movie, only change "Gaia" into "soul".

Pretty interesting, I think...

[Terror]

One my friend very likes the theory that our brain is same as cat's claws or snake's venom teeth, I believe he isn't one such. But I see more use of brain than just a tool of survival.

i agree with your friend though. We do not have strong arms, or big butts. We have brains, we work in groups and use tools. That is also why we change still. Our teeth are getting weaker and stuff as our body is no longer used to dealing with such harsh circumstances. Who knows what we will become.

[Apollyon]

We do not big butts

Speak for yourself! ;D

Ahem

It is entirely correct, in my opinion, to say that our brains are a massive survival aid. It is because of our brains that we triumphed evolutionarily over our less intelligent but larger, stronger, humanoid counterparts.

[Acriku]

You can call it a "soul", but it may just be our conscience that you like to call soul. It's not a force all throughout our body on another plain, it's in our noggin'. It's our brain.

[Phage]

This is a very interesting question and my answer is we both supress and satisfy them. I actually see desire, whether it stems from genes or conditioning as the only basis for motivation. Even if we take into account so-called spiritual values we find they are based in some way on biological instinct, the pleasure of heaven and fear of hell's pain. The semi-instinctive precedent to obey the more powerful and intelligent. This basically amounts to a sacrifice of short-term satisfaction for some expected long-term satisfaction.

Hence ultimately desires, or what I call values, are the basis for all action. But not all desires can be satisfied all the time, so we cut some out in order to concentrate on others and sometimes they come into conflict.

So it's not entirely a matter of IF we should satisfy our instincts but more one of what instincts should we satisfy and to what degree.

[Caid Ivik]

Soul is a higher form of life-force, not intelligence. Like a "software". Memory is a "hardware", visible thing in brain. Maybe intelligence too, someone has "better CPU". But I think things like will, they USE the brain.

[Apollyon]

Conscience does not imply intelligence, Caid. Akricu meant the conscioussness that allows us to have free will and to make decisions (which was rather interestingly given to us by Satan, not God... but we won't go into that...).

[Caid Ivik]

Take it as an underline for his post.

[nemafakei]

"Do we try and supress animal instincts (and urges) and try to judge with a logical, level head, do we submit to the urges and instincts temporarily so as not to succomb completely to them or do we simply give into them as a whole?"

We should do the first, but far too many end up in the latter.

After all, the more we are ruled by reason, the more we act logically; the more we act logically, the better of we are.

[Dante]

I believe that everything is here for a reason, if not a religious one. Our instincts are here to potect us. Antisocial behavior is trying to move the toughest to the top of the pecking order, to reproduce more, and thus produce a tougher species.

Quick reflexes, fast thinking, momentary analysis, these are all skills that most of us have from birth, and they can be trained to serve our logical conclusions. Without them, we wouldn't make it past childhood.

Logic is of course not foolproof, but neither are instincts. Both can be fooled. Thus why trust either when the most sensible option is to take the best of both world? It needn't be an either-or decision.

[Caid Ivik]

There are more sources of acts than logic and instincts. Fantasy, curiousness, rutine...

[sneezer3]

Conscience does not imply intelligence, Caid. Akricu meant the conscioussness that allows us to have free will and to make decisions (which was rather interestingly given to us by Satan, not God... but we won't go into that...).

We have to have a soul, otherwise why would people with VERY identical DNA raised in a home with very identical education end up haveing way diffrant jobs, hobbies, things for entertainment, and so on?

[Acriku]

I assume you are talking about twins? Twins can be the same in a lot of things, or can be very different in looks and in mentality. People aren't clones. I don't understand your argument. Twins aren't clones. No one is a clone to another. The differences between each other are what distinguishes each other from each other. What does two people being alike in many aspects have to do with a soul? It does not follow. And DNA does not decide what you decide for yourself, it does not code every decision you make.

[Caid Ivik]

Many characteristics aren't affected by decisions. Anyway, even clones won't have same interests. People born from one egg are same thing as clones.

[Acriku]

It's called the environment. It has a big affect on what you are today, and so does genetics. I don't understand how this has to do with a soul, but whatever.

[sneezer3]

It's called the environment. It has a big affect on what you are today, and so does genetics.

Thats exactly what i'm saying. People with almost exact genetics. Very close envirorment. very similar life experiences yet there life goals and other things end up tottaly diffrant.

[Acriku]

That doesn't prove anything. And certainly not a soul. Since the environments are not exactly the same, and neither are the genetics (while very similar), it makes all the difference to make then different. There are also twins that are more alike than different, does this mean that they don't have a soul?