Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!hollombe
From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath)
Newsgroups: sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Hardwired Behavior
Message-ID: <2280@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 88 18:12:51 GMT
References: <24726@brunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath)
Organization: The Cat Factory
Lines: 30

In article <24726@brunix.UUCP> chs@brunix.UUCP (Craig Hansen-Sturm) writes:
>In article <231@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (Jerry Hollombe)
>writes:
>
>>There's some question whether _any_ behavior is hard-wired in any creature
>>above the level of insect.  The following example is from one of my psych.
>>courses: ...

>This argument is falacious, for it does not rule out the possibility that
>an initial `hard-wired' configuration may eventually be overidden through
>learning.  ...

I think the problem here is in the definition of "hard-wired".  I was
thinking that a behavior that could be overridden or eliminated wasn't
hard-wired, by definition.  I see now that's not necessarily a valid
metaphor. (Maybe I've been hanging around with computer types too long (-: ).
Perhaps someone could quote, or propose, an explicit definition of
"instinct" so we have a better idea of what we're discussing?

In a related article, someone mentioned impossible behavior pairings,
citing electric shock vs. nausea in rats.  According to a documentary I
saw a few months ago, rats are physically incapable of vomiting.  That may
imply it's impossible to make a rat nauseous.  We know electric shocks
cause pain, but we can't ask a rat if it's feeling nauseous.  On that
basis, I'd have to reject that particular experiment.

-- 
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM)   Illegitimati Nil
Citicorp(+)TTI                                           Carborundum
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 452-9191, x2483
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe