Women Want Tall Men

[Ed209]

That's pretty much it.

Regards the generalisation. The pleasure principle is the cornerstone for desire. For instance, a plant reaching up to catch light is evidence of a will. The will is simply a will to live, while the external stimulus that it latches onto is the formulation of desire. The pleasure principle is simply whatever brings reward to the creature thereby structuring desire. If it didn't get any reward, then it would no longer desire*. That's all the pleasure principle is. It explains the birth of self consciousness through experience, though this is vastly different depending upon the sophistication of the species.

Dawkin's uses this in relation to an underlying genetic culture. He under-emphasises the significance of semiotics in the human condition, as well as other things.

* This is fairly significant in relation to pathologies, as some humans under certain emotional constraints do things that oppose reward and pleasure. They begin to destroy themselves as a way of catharsis or self deprication. If healthy, it can be a form of self torture done to cleanse the soul or eliminate certain aspects of their identity. Detachment is one such process.

[worm]

ok, so refering to the final bit on my last post; not all animals *seek* pleasure, only those with the intellegence and mobility to do so. Basic organisms are bobbing around in a sea of pleasure and pain having their decisions dictated to them by what they sense.

[eFestivals]

No, they still seek it. It may not be intelligently in the human sense, but it is nevertheless seeking out what it needs to quell its learned desire. Learned through reward, I may add.

These are theories, not facts.

[worm]

Only if I buy into the definitions that you buy into, which are indisputably unproven.

Edited May 26, 2011 by worm

[worm]

These are theories, not facts.

Edited May 26, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, you're making conceptual errors. The definitions are there: instinct is something that just occurs out of nowhere. Therefore, it can't be applied to something that occurs out of knowledge.

the definitions might be literally correct and clear, but what they're not is able to be accurately applied.

And so anything that works from those definitions ends up being nothing more than guesswork at the end of the day. This is the only true fact of this whole area of theories and study.

And I've shown where you're wrong.

You are only able to show that I'm "wrong" by your blind faith in unprovable ideas.

What part of that are you finding so difficult?

We can know for certain what is instinct, what is programmed and what is learnt because we made these words up in opposition to each other.

Yep, in a literal sense that's correct.

Where it can never be known if its correct is in their application in reality.

[eFestivals]

Theories based upon evidence. Theories that underpin and are essential to the notion of evolution.

EDIT: In fact, it's not even theory. Those are facts based upon observations of the natural world. All life forms do this, hence the driving forces of evolution.

PMSL.

So show me the indisputable evidence that what you believe to be 'intelligent' is just that and not tainted by instinct or programming, and the same instinct not being tainted by intelligent and programming, and programming not tainted by instinct and the intelligent.

You can't. And so what you really have is simply guesswork without supporting evidence.