Gut Feeling

Some animals will try to bury food scraps even when there isn't a lick of dirt in sight, but eventually, that instinct just starts to fade. I don't think it's a flaw or anything—it’s just the history of adaptation playing out.

"A hunger for life" sounds way more meaningful than just some "survival instinct"—at least when you're talking about people.

Amy Howard18 said:What I’m talking about is the philosophical side of having a survival instinct that ultimately ends in failure, simply because everyone dies in the end.

So, you're saying this survival instinct exists solely to serve an individual who—despite having that very instinct—is still destined to die anyway!?

Are you suggesting that the survival instinct alone should be enough to keep an organism from dying? It seems a bit optimistic. What happens if a boulder falls on them? Or take the people of Pompeii—they were lost to a volcanic eruption; how exactly was their instinct for self-preservation supposed to save them then?

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting that the survival instinct alone should be enough to keep an organism from dying? It seems a bit optimistic. What happens if a boulder falls on them? Or take the people of Pompeii—they were lost to a volcanic eruption; how exactly was their instinct for self-preservation supposed to save them then?

That’s the question, isn't it? It feels like survival instinct only actually works if you're some kind of all-powerful deity.

ruggeddriver21 said:At our core, we’ve all got this primal, unstoppable drive to just stay alive.
But if I'm being honest, the only real guarantee we get in this life is that eventually, we won't.
And honestly? There’s a weird kind of comfort in that—knowing that everything is temporary and we're all just passing through.

Is there some kind of catch to Rule 22, or am I just overthinking things again?

From the second we enter this world until the moment we exit it.

It makes me wonder... is this survival instinct actually a glitch in our programming?
Or does it even make sense to have it, considering the end result was already baked into the recipe from the very start?

It's simple natural selection. It makes sense as long as it favors survival. Anything that doesn't tip the scales toward staying alive loses its purpose, and nature just tosses it in the trash.

ruggedraven36 said:That’s the question, isn't it? It feels like survival instinct only actually works if you're some kind of all-powerful deity.

It only makes sense if you can adapt.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's simple natural selection. It makes sense as long as it favors survival. Anything that doesn't tip the scales toward staying alive loses its purpose, and nature just tosses it in the trash.

Exactly. It usually takes some time to play out. Nature might even weed out the philosophers next. Who knows.🙄

Harold Doyle3 said:It only makes sense if you can adapt.

Whenever people start rambling about "meaning," you’ve gotta ask—meaning for whom? At the end of the day, you're the only one sitting in the driver's seat who gets to decide if your life actually matters. If you feel like it doesn't, then even your own survival instinct is basically pointless. Nobody else gets a vote in that.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting that the survival instinct alone should be enough to keep an organism from dying? It seems a bit optimistic. What happens if a boulder falls on them? Or take the people of Pompeii—they were lost to a volcanic eruption; how exactly was their instinct for self-preservation supposed to save them then?

I don't think so... honestly, maybe what we're talking about isn't even survival instinct at all, but more like a deep-seated fear of nonexistence—of death itself. I mean, how else can you explain why people so often sacrifice their lives for others in extreme situations? If it were just a raw, biological instinct, wouldn't that drive strictly forbid such a selfless act? It would be purely self-serving by definition.
Plus, if it were just a simple instinct, it would be most effective in those scenarios you mentioned above—situations where we aren't even aware of the danger yet. That's when an instinct should kick in to anticipate a threat. But it seems like this "instinct" only truly activates when we are fully conscious of the danger ahead of us... which makes me think it's actually a type of fear acting as an instinct.
But hey, even that fear can be overcome... if you come to terms with the fact that life is inherently fleeting.

ruggedraven36 said:Whenever people start rambling about "meaning," you’ve gotta ask—meaning for whom? At the end of the day, you're the only one sitting in the driver's seat who gets to decide if your life actually matters. If you feel like it doesn't, then even your own survival instinct is basically pointless. Nobody else gets a vote in that.

absolute spirit.

Harold Doyle3 said:It's simple natural selection. It makes sense as long as it favors survival. Anything that doesn't tip the scales toward staying alive loses its purpose, and nature just tosses it in the trash.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Exactly. It usually takes some time to play out. Nature might even weed out the philosophers next. Who knows.🙄

You two are looking at nature like some kind of dictator. Just like a tyrant wipes out anyone who won't fall in line, that's how your "nature" works. If one thing doesn't deserve respect, then neither does the other.

If you look at natural selection, instinct makes total sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But once you start diving into the deep end of metaphysics, things get messy fast. You end up hitting conceptual dead ends and getting lost in the weeds. Anyway, I'm just following ruggedraven36 here, thinking about how survival instincts actually function within the limits of life—especially since we all seem to have this built-in craving for what we perceive as "good."

ruggedraven36 said:You two are looking at nature like some kind of dictator. Just like a tyrant wipes out anyone who won't fall in line, that's how your "nature" works. If one thing doesn't deserve respect, then neither does the other.

I see myself as an integral part of that process, not some outsider looking in... I’m just a tiny cog in the machine of the absolute spirit's evolution.
I have nothing but respect for the unfolding of the absolute spirit. To me, honoring that development is the ultimate form of self-respect.

Gerald Jackson48 said:If you look at natural selection, instinct makes total sense from an evolutionary standpoint. But once you start diving into the deep end of metaphysics, things get messy fast. You end up hitting conceptual dead ends and getting lost in the weeds. Anyway, I'm just following ruggedraven36 here, thinking about how survival instincts actually function within the limits of life—especially since we all seem to have this built-in craving for what we perceive as "good."

Is immortality even considered a good thing?
What about euthanasia?
It seems like everything boils down to pure hedonism—chasing pleasure—which explains why people cling to the hope of some eternal, blissful (read: hedonistic) afterlife.
Actually, the survival instinct makes sense from a philosophical standpoint too. Without it, there would be no philosophy, no metaphysics, no struggle, and certainly no drive toward virtue or goodness.
(And if it didn't exist, honestly, nobody would even notice)

Amy Howard18 said:I don't think so... honestly, maybe what we're talking about isn't even survival instinct at all, but more like a deep-seated fear of nonexistence—of death itself. I mean, how else can you explain why people so often sacrifice their lives for others in extreme situations? If it were just a raw, biological instinct, wouldn't that drive strictly forbid such a selfless act? It would be purely self-serving by definition.
Plus, if it were just a simple instinct, it would be most effective in those scenarios you mentioned above—situations where we aren't even aware of the danger yet. That's when an instinct should kick in to anticipate a threat. But it seems like this "instinct" only truly activates when we are fully conscious of the danger ahead of us... which makes me think it's actually a type of fear acting as an instinct.
But hey, even that fear can be overcome... if you come to terms with the fact that life is inherently fleeting.

The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Amy Howard18 said:I don't think so... honestly, maybe what we're talking about isn't even survival instinct at all, but more like a deep-seated fear of nonexistence—of death itself. I mean, how else can you explain why people so often sacrifice their lives for others in extreme situations? If it were just a raw, biological instinct, wouldn't that drive strictly forbid such a selfless act? It would be purely self-serving by definition.
Plus, if it were just a simple instinct, it would be most effective in those scenarios you mentioned above—situations where we aren't even aware of the danger yet. That's when an instinct should kick in to anticipate a threat. But it seems like this "instinct" only truly activates when we are fully conscious of the danger ahead of us... which makes me think it's actually a type of fear acting as an instinct.
But hey, even that fear can be overcome... if you come to terms with the fact that life is inherently fleeting.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

Harold Doyle3 said:Is immortality even considered a good thing?
What about euthanasia?
It seems like everything boils down to pure hedonism—chasing pleasure—which explains why people cling to the hope of some eternal, blissful (read: hedonistic) afterlife.
Actually, the survival instinct makes sense from a philosophical standpoint too. Without it, there would be no philosophy, no metaphysics, no struggle, and certainly no drive toward virtue or goodness.
(And if it didn't exist, honestly, nobody would even notice)

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

Sam Martinez9 said:The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

I find the human element much more fascinating in this discussion... animals don't have this awareness of mortality... they live entirely through their instincts, whereas humans are something else entirely, something elevated above the animal kingdom.

Sam Martinez9 said:The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

It isn't really about how people define the word (the terminology doesn't matter that much), it's about how they react in different situations—some people will ignore that instinct even if it costs them their lives, while others won't.

Sam Martinez9 said:The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

It’s actually good that you moved past that fear at such a young age (though being fearless at that stage isn't always an advantage; for instance, a young guy might get a little too "reckless" when trying out new things because he lacks that survival instinct). Pain is unpleasant, sure, but it's also something a person can learn to manage to varying degrees of success.

Amy Howard18 said:I find the human element much more fascinating in this discussion... animals don't have this awareness of mortality... they live entirely through their instincts, whereas humans are something else entirely, something elevated above the animal kingdom.

It isn't really about how people define the word (the terminology doesn't matter that much), it's about how they react in different situations—some people will ignore that instinct even if it costs them their lives, while others won't.

It’s actually good that you moved past that fear at such a young age (though being fearless at that stage isn't always an advantage; for instance, a young guy might get a little too "reckless" when trying out new things because he lacks that survival instinct). Pain is unpleasant, sure, but it's also something a person can learn to manage to varying degrees of success.

It’s much simpler to illustrate instinct through animal behavior. With humans, however, instincts are layered under drives, emotions, and reason, making them difficult to isolate. Though, I suppose even higher mammals face similar complexities.

You actually have a perfect example on Wikipedia regarding maternal instinct. For a long time, the prevailing theory was that maternal instinct was innate in both animals and humans; however, research has shown that lionesses raised in captivity often reject their cubs because they never learned how to behave toward them from their own mothers.

The awareness of life's fleeting nature isn't really tied to instinct. Since the topic here is specifically about instincts, it would probably be better to define what we mean by "instinct" first. Otherwise, perhaps the thread title should be changed if the focus isn't strictly on instinctual behavior.

Amy Howard18 said:I find the human element much more fascinating in this discussion... animals don't have this awareness of mortality... they live entirely through their instincts, whereas humans are something else entirely, something elevated above the animal kingdom.

It isn't really about how people define the word (the terminology doesn't matter that much), it's about how they react in different situations—some people will ignore that instinct even if it costs them their lives, while others won't.

It’s actually good that you moved past that fear at such a young age (though being fearless at that stage isn't always an advantage; for instance, a young guy might get a little too "reckless" when trying out new things because he lacks that survival instinct). Pain is unpleasant, sure, but it's also something a person can learn to manage to varying degrees of success.

That’s a separate issue. A human being isn't composed of just one single instinct—like survival—but also various other drives, followed by emotions, and eventually reason. We make decisions using all these biological functions simultaneously. Sometimes one dominates, sometimes another, and sometimes it's a combination of several... for instance, choosing a college major is typically a rational decision (even if emotions and drives are lurking in the background), whereas deciding whom to marry is driven by feeling (though reason plays a role there too...).

The example you mentioned, where someone risks their life to save another, is a case where emotion overrides the basic survival instinct.

At any rate, it's a complex field, and I've written quite a bit already. I'll leave the rest of the discussion to the others on the forum.

Harold Doyle3 said:I see myself as an integral part of that process, not some outsider looking in... I’m just a tiny cog in the machine of the absolute spirit's evolution.
I have nothing but respect for the unfolding of the absolute spirit. To me, honoring that development is the ultimate form of self-respect.

Nature isn't exactly playing favorites with the gentle or the peace-loving types. In eras where raw power and sheer cunning are the only ways to stay alive, nature will just toss them aside—to use your own phrasing. It doesn't favor the brave, either; usually, those folks aren't quite crafty or cautious enough to make it. And it certainly isn't looking out for the animals being wiped out by human greed. If this keeps up, what kind of traits—and what kind of people—actually stand a chance at surviving versus going extinct? Survival instinct doesn't give a damn about "good" vs. "evil"—it only cares about staying upright. If "good" is what's slowly dying out, and "evil" is what survives because it's better adapted to reality, then shouldn't we be questioning the whole point of your "evolution of the absolute spirit"? Why should we even respect it? Clearly, neither biology nor evolution is going to provide an answer to that one.

Sam Martinez9 said:The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

Wiped them out? Hardly. We still have plenty of hostile viruses and bacteria to deal with, and frankly, those things have a much better shot at outlasting us since they actually know how to adapt.
As for that survival instinct? It isn't going anywhere. Life is dynamic. The universe is a cold, indifferent place, not exactly a welcoming neighborhood.

Sam Martinez9 said:The simplest way to look at how instinct works is through reflex actions (those involuntary, unconscious, automatic movements). You might be sitting there reading a book, and suddenly you swat at your hand without even realizing why. Then the realization hits: ah... a mosquito bit me; I felt the sting, so I reacted instinctively to kill it.

So, are reflex movements conscious? No. However, they are triggered by an external stimulus—the mosquito bite. Instinct isn't really a tool for predicting future events; you predict events using your intellect and your past experiences.

Instinctive reactions are genetically hardwired and, aside from reacting to environmental stimuli, they trigger at specific stages of a living being's development. A good example would be migratory birds that begin building nests once they reach a certain age and a specific season arrives.

Yes, that's possible. As I've noted before, much of this confusion stems from the fact that people attach different meanings to the word "instinct."

Fear is something else entirely; fear is an emotion. The triggers for fear can vary wildly, ranging from very real threats to completely irrational ones. However, the thing about fear—much like any other emotion—is that humans have the capacity to manage it.

As for the fear of death, I've moved past it entirely. And I'm certainly not alone in that; I've heard the same from many of my peers. What remains is the fear of the process of dying—which we all share, naturally. We want a quick, painless end, not a long, agonizing one. But that isn't a fear of death; it's a fear of pain.

We’ve essentially wiped out all our natural predators—well, except for ourselves, I suppose—and we live in such incredibly secure environments now that it’s entirely possible our survival instincts might eventually just fade away. Yet, even then, we’ll likely still be preoccupied with philosophy. In my view, the pursuit of philosophy and metaphysics remains perfectly viable, even once the primal urge to stay alive has been sidelined.

But you can't have philosophers or metaphysicians without that underlying instinct. Period.
They’ll vanish right along with their followers, much like those cults that end in mass suicides.

ruggedraven36 said:Nature isn't exactly playing favorites with the gentle or the peace-loving types. In eras where raw power and sheer cunning are the only ways to stay alive, nature will just toss them aside—to use your own phrasing. It doesn't favor the brave, either; usually, those folks aren't quite crafty or cautious enough to make it. And it certainly isn't looking out for the animals being wiped out by human greed. If this keeps up, what kind of traits—and what kind of people—actually stand a chance at surviving versus going extinct? Survival instinct doesn't give a damn about "good" vs. "evil"—it only cares about staying upright. If "good" is what's slowly dying out, and "evil" is what survives because it's better adapted to reality, then shouldn't we be questioning the whole point of your "evolution of the absolute spirit"? Why should we even respect it? Clearly, neither biology nor evolution is going to provide an answer to that one.

Our environment—the circumstances we find ourselves in—is what carves us into who we are. It’s an inescapable reality. We like to think we’re these independent agents, totally in control, but that’s mostly just ego talking. Our surroundings mold us. They shape our perspectives, our reactions, everything. It's a heavy thought, I know. But honestly, look around. You can't deny it.
We’ve started messing around with our own genetic code lately, and honestly? We're becoming a massive evolutionary force. It's getting out of hand.
If the people of the future decide they want everyone to be mild-mannered and peaceful, they won't need to bother with endless lectures or political restructuring. They’ll just tweak the genetic code of their descendants and call it a day. Boom. Suddenly, we’re all just harmless little lambs. Biology is opening up some massive doors, and honestly, it might be the only real solution left on the table.

There is another way to look at it: blood, sweat, and tears. We’re talking about moving forward without those soft, peaceful types—the endless parade of poets, scientists, philosophers, and great figures who simply get swallowed up by the trenches of historical necessity. It's exactly like that old saying: Nothing new in the West.