Instinct - Science topic

Quran is such a great and final word of Allah that the proof of its divinity and secrets of physical and biological sciences were in just one verse. Read the verse (41-53) which means "Soon We shall show Our signs in the space and what is in their selves and then they will realise that this (meaning Quran) is truth and is not this enough that your Sustainer has the knowledge of everything?" The first sign is in the discovery of existence of aether, the electric dipoles, in space done through the scientific research paper published in peer-reviewed journal titled 'Michelson-Morley Experiment; A Misconceived and Misinterpreted Experiment' which is available in Indian Journal of Science and Technology with website address www.indjst.org besides many scientific websites. As the consequence of the discovery of aether in space all the physical sciences would require change.

Second sign has been given the name of 'energy' as it is allegorically mentioned as 'light' in Quran and is shown to be the only alternative which can explain the phenomena of life like consciousness, instincts, gowth, cell function, self-repair of cells etc., and above all biological laws in the scientific and philosophical paper titled 'Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' published in the same as above-mentioned journal. However the paper is being revised in the 'Revised Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life' which is under preparation. As the consequence of this paper the biological sciences would require the changes.

This should be the sufficient scientific proof of divinity of Quran and the existence of Allah as the Knower so Creator of everything in the universe.

Let the whole Muslim world celebrate this on coming 'night of Qadr'.

IF YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE SUCCESS:

If you want to achieve success then trust your power, read the rules, break the rules positively and set your rules because every next level has different obstacles in your life and they demand a different you to meet them. Always develop, set and maintain standards because strong people have strong standards they never develop an attitude. Always try to inspire people because it creates love and emotions. Never try to impress people because it will lead you to ego, mistrust and revenge. You are born to live with dignity, so respect your surroundings and die with respect, do not let your respect die.

Make your plans and follow them, never follow your mood because your decisions will shape your life not your conditions. Always apologies when you are wrong but for dignity and self-respect don't apologise if you are being provoked. You are creator and master of your life, so be strong in what you stand for and learn to fight alone. It is you who have to carry your journey and have to face unpredictable circumstances, so respect your decisions and never doubt your instinct and value because your success and achievements will inspire many who have dreams to achieve what you have achieved and about to achieve. Be thinking persona and think for the best. In life, always try to make others think and never teach others. Always keep close to your heart that when you forgive you heal and when you let go you grow. Do not think about others and never be ashamed about hustle. Because people do not care about anyone and they are waiting to see you fail.

Always focus on the solution and try to become part of the solution. Always dream big and do not care about what others are thinking about you, if they are calling you crazy then take it as a compliment because most of the people are having below average standards and they judge you accordingly. Do not allow anyone above you, do not accept any things below you always try to keep others beside you. Learn the art of reading people and be safe. Do not try to appear perfect in all manners, because extra perfection create silent enemies. Always take revenge by massive success not by hate, grudges or envy because you will become what you believe so be positive.

Always explore the potential of fear and anger because they are powerful tools and without fear and anger you cannot reach your destination. Never feel nervous when you are passing through a lean patch of your struggle. Convert yourself stronger when you are at your weakness. Believe in your strength, do not allow others to assess you, because you know who you are. Remember you have two things to protect throughout your life, "Character" and your "Attitude". Protect them honestly because both of them are a result of what you think and how you live. Keep in mind that character and attitude are not only words, maybe people think them very strangely but they make a big difference between winners and losers.

Keep on challenging the odds, never live the struggle, never afraid of failure, every failure will expose your shortcomings and will give you a chance to improve them. Always remember that if you want to be a brave warrior then you have to lose some battle to win a war. Never become sad if you lose anything, one bad phase of your life doesn't mean your story is over and you are defeated permanently. If you are brave then you know how to rise after fall, never announce your move, never reveal your strategies before you have to make it real. Always keep yourself focused on core targets and keep on confusing your competitors by your silence and keep on shocking them by your action.

Always work hard and make yourself valuable. If you dream to be a leader then always try to maintain your value, always value your efforts and decisions, always maintain trust, respect, dignity and develop killer instinct, boldness and ability to question Authorities. Keep in mind that you will get respect only when you deserve it. Try to create your mental power through acquiring knowledge and information.

Maybe after going through my write up you will think me mad, but try to find reasons to become North Star for others.

(S. M. Tariq Zafar)

Physical science under open challenge and four forces of nature reduced to just one force and that is electromagnetic force, how the phenomena of life like cell function, consciousness, instincts, growth, self repair and above all biological laws be explained by saying it is because of forces of nature. Without the introduction of the metaphysical substance there is absolutely no other alternative as clarified in the paper "Theory of Origin and Phenomenon of Life" . How can scientific community be so shameless for so long?

How can humans commit such massive and horrifying wars to the extent that millions of people die without exaggeration? No matter how aggressive or selfish humans can be, this does not justify such horrific acts. Not only do tens of thousands of people die, but they also often die in brutal ways, as seen in events like Hiroshima or what continues to happen today in Gaza.

Even if humans have sadistic or aggressive tendencies, such actions seem illogical for beings like us. I believe this phenomenon goes deeper than we can perceive. For instance, animals, while possessing a level of consciousness (albeit not as advanced as humans), do not commit atrocities on this scale.

In nature, stronger animals may prey on weaker ones, driven by survival instincts. Some animals even fight within their o

wn species, but not in the same catastrophic way humans do.

Humans, too, have survival instincts that drive them to act against external threats. Could it be that because humans are considered the dominant species on this planet, with little external threats to their survival, they redirect this aggression and survival instinct toward their own kind? Is it possible that this phenomenon is connected to a universal or natural principle where there must always be a higher power or a looming threat for balance?

I think so because

Ethogram Theory and the Theories of Copernicus "et al" : beyond analogy, but a real similarity

Back in the 1500s, Copernicus "stepped back" and looked at more and more carefully. He gave us a reason to think that, indeed, everything does NOT revolve around the Earth.

In the next century, Galileo Galilei and Keplar gave us more reasons to think this way. Keplar described orbits of the planets as elliptical and Galileo showed that OTHER non-Earth objects had things going around them (e.g. Saturn -- the moons). Finally, with Newton's work, the orbits of the planets were mathematically described.

Now, I firmly think Ethogram Theory is more than an analogy to that above, but has REAL similarity. Ethogram Theory "steps back" and looks at more (and more carefully as well). Ethogram Theory looks at cognitive development in a way like Piaget, but Piaget's theory is merely just descriptive and puts forward nothing like proximate causes; thus, in a way Ethogram Theory, with regard to Piaget's particular theory, is only an analogy to Piaget's, with Ethogram Theory empirical and totally investigateable ; the weakness is not with Ethogram Theory but with Piaget's. Ethogram Theory, like Piaget's , reckons cognitive development as central to most major developments in Psychology. Ethogram Theory yet sees way to see similar stages, not only with Piaget's. but phenomenology described by other major stage theorists. Some of these stage theories, Piaget's in particular, actually have good evidence of universality among peoples (despite being only descriptive); such is seen in all cultures tested. But, by being just descriptive, Piaget doesn't NOT even point us at proximate causes, AND to totally empirical things that could be empirically investigated -- exactly verified or amended, totally INVESTIGATABLE with modern eye-tracking technology.

This is what Ethogram Theory does. If you are familiar with Ethogram Theory, indeed : material, empirical, actual, directly observable phenomenon are cited for the cognitive stage transitions. These are perceptual shifts, often attentional/perceptual shifts (in what the subject looks at, and seeks to see better and more of).

I would argue that something like these shifts is necessary. Nothing except something like Ethogram Theory stages, points clearly to anything fully empirical.

Finally : The productive thinking about Ethogram Theory would be BY FAR mainly inductive processes. And, in fact, inductive processes ARE the very main way [ at least ] ALL other mammals process information and learn. I firmly think that the major types of learning in humans are via such inductive processes, in both child and adult -- for most processing of information both for advanced scientists and babies. [ There are qualitatively different types of inductive learning, varying with the stages. ]

I am going downhill hard and fast (related to age and me); I would guess this is my last post.

Even Sharon Stone admits that she did women a disservice in ‘Basic Instinct’ by suggesting that they could reach orgasm in about 30 seconds flat. This is just not how the female body works, and anyone who suggests otherwise is either a good actress, deluded or blessed by the gods. (Marina Muratore)

1)I am starting to instinctively disdain packaged food both because it's heuristically very processed and tacky.

2)Thus, my favorite food is either home cooked or from the grocery store.

3)With the processed food comes cancer. With the tacky comes horrible aesthetics.

Since my confidence is growing that many will not figure out what I have done, I will tell you : the 1st FULLY empirical philosophy (& it's science) & a clear guide to a true empirical [real science] Psychology (up to now, from any holistic or integrated and real standpoint, such science has been non-existent). : Go To : http://mynichecomp.com/key_content

In addition to the essays/posts I have in zip files, read my newer posts (not that many) here on Researchgate

Fundamental Physics Research is intended to explore the grand maze of the unknown. Throughout the last century, Physicists have occupied themselves with working out Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology in all their implications. In the process, Fundamental Physics has absorbed mathematical ideas and notions of increasing sophistication and abstraction. The tragedy of the last century was the gradual shift in our focus from the physical reality to the abstract mathematical formulations, which are supposed to describe physical reality. We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world. Now we are stuck in plethora of unfounded Belief Systems which are hindering any real progress in Fundamental Physics Research. On the other hand, Applied Physics is supported by physical or experimental feedback as well as mental visualization. As such Applied Physics never gets stuck in abstract mathematical formulations or unfounded Belief Systems.

As a consequence, Fundamental Physics researchers have inadvertently adopted certain abstract mathematical concepts into their physical worldview. For example, the notions of virtual particles, exchange theory of interaction, probability density representing instantaneous particle location, spacetime curvature, Black Holes, Big Bang, metric expansion of Space, etc. are truly abstract mathematical concepts which have been erroneously adopted in our physical worldview as physical realities. Experimental proofs and validations of such physically unacceptable mathematical concepts are often claimed through erroneous interpretation of raw observations. Agreed that Fundamental Research does require a lot of mathematical support, but the end results of any complex mathematical processing must be applicable to the physical world and hence must come within the grasp of human mind and mental visualization.

Perhaps, it is a part of Human Nature that we find ourselves so prone to mass indoctrination by dominant vested interest groups in all fields. Our inherent capacity to use Logic and Reason gets restricted or diminished under such a state of mass indoctrination and we involuntarily join 'Group Thinking'. Fundamental Research is one such area where indoctrination of innocent students and mass hypnosis of general public is inhibiting the use of Reason and Logic for discarding erroneous beliefs like Black Holes, Big Bang, probability waves, spacetime curvature etc.

In my opinion, Fundamental Physics Research is currently plagued by three dominant syndromes.

(a) "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome.

Throughout the last century, Industrial development and technological advancements remained in the public limelight and won public acclaim. However, Fundamental Physics research being of somewhat abstract and slow, could not compete with engineering and technology for winning public limelight and appreciation. As such, Fundamental Physics researchers instinctively started adopting highly abstract but sensational models of Nature, that could attract public attention in wonder and amazement, to win higher public acclaim in comparison with technological advancements. The adoption of highly abstract and sensational models in Fundamental Physics research for gaining public limelight, represents "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome. This approach has been adopted by the mainstream Physics community and sensational models of Black Holes, gravitational waves, Big Bang, weird QM models, particle entanglement, metric expansion of space etc. all represent this syndrome. These highly illogical but sensational models of Nature have now got embedded in permanent Belief Systems of the Scientific Community.

(b) "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" Syndrome.

If we represent the Nature by the proverbial 'Elephant', then the popular tale of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" aptly highlights the current state of Fundamental Physics research. The six blind men in the popular tale could be represented by the researchers in the fields of Astrophysics, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, Relativity Physics, Gravitational Physics and Cosmology. Just as in the popular tale, all researchers are extremely busy in making appropriate observations and making most sophisticated models thereof to represent Nature - 'The Elephant'. Many of such models have won public applaud and even Nobel Prizes. However, making models from raw observations, without necessary physical insight, often leads to fallacious Belief systems that defy Logic and Reason. Prominent examples of Models in this category are - Black Holes, Big Bang, Gravitational Waves, Spacetime Curvature, Length Contraction, Time Dilation, Fields without medium, Exchange Theory of Interaction, Probability Density representing instantaneous electron location, Atomic Orbitals, Metric Expansion of Space, Quantum Gravity, Particle Entanglement, etc. etc.

(c) "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome.

In spite of tens of thousands of advanced research papers being published every year, there is hardly any perceptible advancement in Fundamental Physics. One reason is that under the current system of research dissemination, it is virtually impossible for any researcher to know about the research contributions of all other researchers. Second reason is that when a researcher develops a model of certain aspect of Nature, due to long mental association and efforts put in, the model tends to get embedded in one's permanent Belief System. Accordingly, each researcher will tend to develop a personal Belief system which will act as a Benchmark for evaluating the models or contributions of all other researchers. In the absence of any centralized or common research dissemination and evaluation system, the individual Belief systems will constitute a "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome, which is a great hinderance for any advancement in Fundamental Physics Research. Most independent researchers are likely to be affected by this syndrome.

Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination.

Learned researchers are requested to give their considered opinion on the issue of "What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?" and how to rectify the situation.

This discussion results from ideas that have been growing in the back of my mind for about 30 years. The trigger that gave rise to the present post is a video by Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder called "Capitalism is good. Let me explain." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRPHp2EjNR8

Turn, Turn, Turn – as everybody, from the Bible to singers like the Byrds and Australia’s Seekers, tells us … There’s a time for every purpose. Capitalism has served the world amazingly well but simply won’t work forever. I suppose that’s because it has to be combined with human nature. Everybody wants more and more dollars (or whatever their currency is). Can prices and wages keep increasing forever without getting out of control? What are we going to do about all those scammers who couldn’t care less if nobody gets their apple, egg, banana, or shoelaces? All the scammers care about is acquiring bigger and bigger piles of money for themselves.

For the human race’s own good, we’ll have to either get rid of human nature or get rid of money. I suppose becoming cyborgs that merge with AI would help discard our nature. But I think the increase in logic that comes with merging with artificial intelligence would only contribute to our desire to eliminate skyrocketing prices, equally skyrocketing wages, and illogical scamming (it's illogical since it assumes people really are the separate beings they appear to be).

Bernard Beitman, a visiting psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences professor at the University of Virginia, says there is an invisible network that connects everyone and everything. There’s no evidence for this, but he’s not the first one to pursue this fringe line of thinking. Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer believed coincidences arise out of unknown forces, or waves, that he called seriality. He wrote a book on the subject in 1919. Albert Einstein even commented on it, saying it was “by no means absurd.” And in the 1950s, psychiatrist Carl Jung came up with a similar idea, his so-called synchronicity theory.

This "invisible network" might work this way - There's a fascinating idea which has been floating around in science for years. It says the universe may be a computer simulation. If this is true, reality would be the same as the apparently separate objects and events in a computer game being joined by electronic 1’s and 0’s. The linkage affects not just every part of space (including on Earth) but also every part of time, since physics says space and time can never be separated.

And the simulation needn't be the work of God or Little Green Men (or Women). Albert Einstein told us that space-time is curved (not only space but time too). This means time can loop around and any period of time can interact with any other. What we'd call the miracle-workers from future humanity could someday use this connection to the past and then use presently undreamt-of biotechnology to create man and woman in their image. In this way; the future humans would be the cause of the original humans but they’d obviously be the effect of those first humans too, having descended from them many thousands of years later and having endured changes to anatomy and physiology as a result of mutations and adaptations. “Adam” and “Eve” would likewise be cause and effect of unborn generations.

As a result of this invisible connection, you and I are the same person in many ways. When people realize that hurting others in any manner is the same as hurting yourself, the Golden Rule (treat others as you would like to be treated yourself) will spring to life and World Peace will be inevitable. Realization of our invisible/permanent interconnectedness would also be of great assistance in achieving post-economic sharing and cooperation.

Just because money has been making the world go around for thousands of years does not mean money must remain the way of the world forever. Idealistic and naïve as it appears, the future way of the world could be based on sharing and cooperation. This radical step seems to be possible because the human instinct to survive is much greater than other drives such as self-interest and greed. If money ceases to be an option, people will freely share and cooperate if that’s the only way to not merely ensure survival, but to actually improve everyone’s standard of living.

I would like to add BG-azide to cells for SNAP tag pulldown however I don't know whether it is going to be cell permeable. My instinct is to day yes it will be but neither me nor the supplier know whether that is true. I thought I would ask if anyone has tried something similar, even though that is unlikely... I have attached the structures in case that is informative

These are the products https://www.iris-biotech.de/global/rl-3950 and https://www.iris-biotech.de/global/rl-3960

Instinct responsive behaviors are very stable and can last for hundreds of generations. For example in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) flies that were kept in a vivarium for 80 years and never been exposed to a predator (i . e. Wasps) exhibit special reaction in terms of egg laying capacity.

How this kind of behavior exists for many many generations in lab-grown animals?

I will be glad if you can share your thoughts with me.

I am conducting some personal studies about the evolution of human society, however, I am not a sociology expert and I have a question:

I will explain better my question with a simple example:

Before the rise of civilizations the man who can defended himself from the attack of animals, the bad weather etc… was the one who survive.

Since the human being starts to become sedentary the structure of human society become to assume a pyramidal structure (for ex: at the top there is the king, then the priests etc etc… up to the slaves)

In this new environment (which is very different compared to the hunter-gatherer society) the one who is on the upper part of the social ladder is the one who has more chance to survive (A king has more chance to survive compared to a slave).

I hope to have been clear with my message and with the example that I made. If you have more questions let me know.

Thanks in advance for those who will reply to my question! :)

Legacy of >340,000 dead as of 23 May 2020 & expected another 300,000 deaths in this yr: Should humans still be fond of bush meats? Keep giving a damn to the so-called restoration of the environment & biodiversity; issues of carbon emission & greenhouse effects; health & disease research? Calm to remain busy with war or peace? Going beyond an instinct or abide by judgment, & rationale? Assailing or defend each other?

I am currently doing a research dissertation for my third year undergrad (just done a placement year so was able to get ahead) and I am desperate for some advice

My research topic is on emotion regulation strategy choice-specifically rumination and thought suppression, and variables that may make someone more likely to engage in these strategies. These variables (independent) are neuroticism, trait emotion reactivity, and vulnerability to cognitive distortions.

Due to my university’s disorganisation and endless striking I did not want to risk the extra ethics consideration time of going with a clinical sample. So I have used a non-clinical cohort.

Now here is the problem. I think it is fairly obvious that these variables would be linked, but I am really struggling to find directly relevant literature.

For example neuroticism and rumination-I can only find one theory (response styles) to suggest a link would exist and a couple studies. This is the same for nearly all the IV’s and DV’s. And a big reason is they are strongly associated with mental health issues and thus most of the literature focuses on clinical populations. E.g rumination and neuroticism in the context of depression. I am not sure whether that is generalisable to a non-clinical population when the proposed mechanisms are focused on mental illness symptoms.

As a result I am not entirely convinced by my justification/literature review in the introduction of my dissertation and I am worried this will negatively impact my grade.

Is it possible to write a convincing justification with sparse prior research and not directly relevant findings? I know that the point is to try and find something new but if the literature background is not there or not relevant enough, and it is a gut instinct, surely this is not enough?

Should I restart with a topic with more literature? I am tired of spending hours searching to come up with almost nothing?

Hi,

Reading for my lectures I am a bit confused about examples of fixed action patterns in humans.

Are swallowing and vomiting fixed action patterns or reflexes?

Are facial emotional expressions fixed action patterns?

thank you

I am a graduate student who has just entered the laboratory. I did an electrodeposition experiment a few weeks ago, and after a period of deposition, I found that the resistance increased. My instinct tells me this may be a common phenomenon, because the ions in the solution will preferentially deposit in the area where the current flows out/in, that is also the area with the least resistance. After these areas are covered, the resistance of the electrode will increase. Is that right?

People have to eat and drink because of hunger, thirst and basic requirement to live. People rest and sleep because it's also a requirement to continue living. Both eating and sleeping come naturally and instinctively. Exercise, however, requires work and motivation and does not have the same natural instinctive behavior to stay alive as eating and sleeping.

Hi elites;

I'm Farid(psychology student).I want to know what's main difference between instinct and desire?

can you help me by your special academic perspectives?

whit all regards.

We have recently developed a framework for tenacity -

But I am increasingly struck as I observe learners (including one of my children) how powerful the force of interest in a topic or activity can be and how it can produce tenacious behaviours and call on skills of persistence and resilience which are absent when the learner is required to learn something in which there is little instinctive interest?

I'd love to hear your thoughts and read anything on the topic.

Thanks

Bill

Prof Bill Lucas

Isn't grounding all interactions (& our understanding of particular interaction) best done by better understanding the Memories AS (being) EXPERIENCE ITSELF? I see this as one of the 2 consistent common groundings for properly coming to an understanding of concepts we come to have as a being, and this includes the development of not just bare simple concepts, but even the development of contingent SETS of such concepts, AND it includes that which come of the developed and developing Memories which allows for abstract thinking -- abstract concepts and abstract processing. Let me elaborate on this first type of thing:

First, realize: By the definitions of the Memories (our basic types of memory, all rather well defined by EXISTING research already), there is no way not to see EXPERIENCE as the operation of the Memories themselves (and THAT is EXPERIENCE ITSELF, literally true BY THE DEFINITIONS in modern perspectives and research). AND, CONCEPTS MUST BE ALL BASED ON THIS. Thus as experiences "grow" and as application of our concepts (defined by interaction with environments: social and/or otherwise, linguistic and/or otherwise) become (to the extent that they can) more widely seen as relevant and applied, this simply occurs by way of the simple forms of associative learning (the definition of such FORMS something that can be well agreed on); NOTE: All this eventually will only suffice WITH the second set of required groundings "emerging" for prompting MAJOR developments in ontogeny (see below) -- those influencing attention and learnings A LOT. Yet simple associative learnings seem to partly work (for a lot of the more bit-by-bit development) given evidence OF the existence of concepts/representations/ways-of-looking in the first place (such as its there, at least at later levels of child development). _AND_ these very simple associative learnings are ALL that would needed at the major points in development, in addition to the base perceptual/attentional shifts (described below). In a sense, yet still, they will be THEN AND THERE all that's needed -- those simple learnings STILL being ALL of what's necessary to "put things together" even WHEN THE SECOND SET/TYPE OF MAJOR FACTOR IS FOUND AND SEEN (and as and when such shifts are occurring). Yet, so far (i.e. the above) would not provide a complete picture of human learning and development . AT BEST, the Memories as they are at any point and associative learnings are still just "half" the picture (as already has been indicated). BUT: What's the other "half", at least more specifically/functionally? :

These other major necessary factors are basically the capacities (or capacities within capacities, if you like) developing with very subtle innate guidances (which are not-unlikely and certainly possibly, at least for a time, quite situation-dependent); these, of course, leading to some of the most major developments of the Memories and HERE, of qualitatively new learnings (still combining with the "THE knowns" and with each other JUST THROUGH THE SIMPLE ASSOCIATIVE LEARNINGS). These innate guidances are at first just sensing more: THAT OF _THAT_ which is _THERE _IN_ any given concretely definable situation (where more adaptation is needed). This is reliant upon and given also the way our Memories have already developed (given our past learning, and earlier innate guidances, the products of which have become well-applied and consolidated (etc.) and all which yields "the time(s)" for some new types of learning) . And now (from the good processing and consolidation ; and discriminations here, perhaps just associative learning as dis-associations) giving us, in a sense, a new or greater capacity in working memory (through more efficient "chunks" and/or some situations-specific "trimming" of the old chunks, and both WITH CHANGES IN OUR _WAY_ OF CHUNKING (and realize: this may not preclude other adaptive reasons for an adaptive increase in the effective capacity of working memory (WM)). The details of the nature of the periodic innate guidances:

What is newly, or at least now truly sensed, sensed as "the-more": that is sensed (and at least glanced at, if not gazed-upon) in a situation or situations, will lead to new perception of at least something more in the scope of "what's there". This will rather quickly go to perceiving more and then to perceptual/attentional shifts (applying some of our past-developed categories and processing to the new "material" -- AND at such also-adaptive points offering more "material" to refine or moderate one's responses/interactions). Here, there will be more in WM , and thus provide more that can be "associated-with" via the simple forms of associative learnings (now, with some new content: new parts and likely new wholes). These developments might be quite situations-specific at least at first, but they may develop to be concepts of rather great scope -- observations and other research which may well be possible are the ONLY things that will clarify all this. All we can say is that this will be some sort of BASIC KEY species-typical cognitive developments (with their inceptions, as indicated) during ontogeny [(birth to 18 yr. old, minimally 5 MAJOR hierarchical levels or stages are historically seen (but with several modern theorists hypothesizing phases within each level); all this can be seen in the overviews of great classic theories, still the most prominent in textbooks of General and Developmental Psychology)]. This very outline of this sort of process has NO limits (except human limits) and it includes the abilities to know, have, and use abstractions, INCLUDING contingent abstractions (holding true in just only some sets of apparently similar circumstances; AND, eventually, with ontogeny and the development of sufficient abstract abilities, ALSO enabling the ability to think and classify across previously differently-seen [(i.e. seen as different)] circumstances -- putting such complexes together in a concept -- this sort of thing including the most sophisticated abstract concepts and processing there is) : in some ultimate ("final", "rock bottom") analysis this all is possible because of demonstrable development and changes in the Memories, WHICH CAN BE RESEARCHED (as other characteristic of the Memories HAVE BEEN researched to date); AND the inceptions of new MAJOR LEVELS (those being with the "perceptual shifts" ... ) can also be directly observed and researched, using the new eye tracking technology (and ancillary technologies) -- and this will greatly guide one to fruitful research on the Memories.

The reasons, likelihood, justifications, better assumptions involved in having this viewpoint and understanding, AND the qualitative changes that which are developed this way (basically starting with key, adaptive "perceptual shifts") is what I spend much of my 800 pages of writing on: 200 pages, written some decades ago, and some 600 pages, written just in the last three years -- a lot of this latter being the job I did not finish back in the late '80s (and I really had no reason to pursue until the development of new technologies, esp. eye tracking and related technologies, came into existence to allow for testing my hypotheses). I also have take great pains in these latter writings to contrast this perspective and approach as thoroughly and completely as I could with the status quo perspectives and approaches in General Psychology and Developmental Psychology . And, to show all the ways this [what I have dubbed] Ethogram Theory is better in so many, many ways, including in its basic foundations, clearly more empirical (as directly as possible) than any perspective and approach heretofore.

I both show in details what is wrong with the "old" and much more likely correct and useful -- and more than plausible (and Biologically consistent and plausible) -- through this new general view. (Again, I provide related testable hypotheses -- verifiable/falsifiable.)

You will be able to see this new approach as better empirically than any other. Related to this: the great benefit that the FIELD of study is ALL clearly and firmly based (grounded/founded) on just 2 "things": (1) directly observable KEY overt phenomena (behavior PATTERNS, here in Psychology ) and (2) on certain clear directly observable and present aspects of circumstances/situations (aka "the environment) active in KEY past developments and/or present now. This is simply the return to the original and intended definition of Psychology _AND_, frankly, is THE ONLY WAY TO BE BEST-EMPIRICAL. (Think about it: NO MISSING CONNECTIONS.)

READ:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory

and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)

ALSO (not among the 200 pages of major papers and 512 pages of essays in my "BOOK", you already have been directed to) the following link gets you to 100 more pages of worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf

Sincerely, with respect, Brad Jesness

For one reason, and maybe a more direct one, it has to do with issues of the nature of visual working memory and visual long-term memory (very important, general issues). For a great Article on this, see:

Now, in order to use my writing to best effect, let me basically quote a letter to the author (quoting myself):

First, the letter's Title: " [From where] do some top-level discriminations (familiar/recollection) [come]"; now continuing:

"Dear  Professor Mark W. Schurgin

I am a "top down" guy (the most top-down there is) and a complete empiricist and guy that defines Psychology (or at least his Psychology) in terms of behavior patterning and environmental/circumstances aspects ONLY -- i.e. these environmental.../behavior patterns aspects IS ALL .  I am a neo-Piagetian and believe that, with new technologies (e.g. eye-tracking and ancillary machine processing), we can literally discover the concrete bases (i.e. directly observable overt behavior patterns in situ), AT LEAST at the inception of each KEY new set of significant behavior patterns related to major cognition and major cognitive processes developments. I believe thus we can actually identify the bases of qualitative shifts in levels/stages [(i.e completing Piaget's theory (basically, his Equilibration TYPE 2 -- the "balance" between stages) by finding the primary bases of stage/levels qualitative changes -- and all most empirically:  in the end, I provide PIVOTAL concrete testable (verifiable/falsifiable) specific hypotheses TO PROVIDE THE real FOUNDATION of THIS NEW THEORY)].  To put it in other words, the Ethogram Theory tells and shows a way to find the concrete grounding (foundations) of abstraction and abstract thought itself -- these major cognition and cognitive processing phenomenon.

This, indeed, would be one "place" (quite literally) where some major bases of familiarity and recollection BEGIN.  To come to an understanding of my view/approach, a rather substantial amount of reading is involved and necessary ( a LOT of it with respect to its foundational differences with some modern baseless assumptions (replaced in EThogram Theory) and to, correspondingly, contrast it with modern approaches to research; the rest of the writing is to as clearly as possible contextualize where/how these KEY changes occur IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ... (the nature of and development of the Memories are also always involved) AND I OUTLINE THE NEAR-SPECIFIC NATURE OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES (which finally comes up in my writings, where I most-clearly "channel" biology).  800 pages: Two hundred of the pages come from the original 1985 treatise AND from two other major old papers AND, then, the other 600 pages are recent essays written in the last 2-3 years (necessary to put the Theory in context, as indicated, and then to get to rather specific hypotheses).

Anyway, here is how to get to my writings: [(someone's reading, understanding, and "belief in" this system may be essential for real progress in Psychology, and it finally becoming a true science (as empirical as any); it is "at your feet" and just a several select others, I place this Theory and all the related writings for a chance of beginning the seeking of much more clarity and of major advances in Psychology; THAT IS IMPORTANT)] :

See, AND READ:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286920820_A_Human_Ethogram_Its_Scientific_Acceptability_and_Importance_now_NEW_because_new_technology_allows_investigation_of_the_hypotheses_an_early_MUST_READ

and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329428629_Essentially_all_Recent_Essays_on_Ethogram_Theory

and

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)

Sincerely, with great respect, Brad Jesness

P.S.  The main reason for this P.S. is to direct you to the final 100 pages of recent essays (not among the 512 pages you already have been directed to); these are very worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf "

(end quoted of myself)

Do you now understand some major reasons WHY Psychology should CARE about Ethogram Theory?

Is not the concept of drive (the original german term "Trieb" is also translated as "instinct") merely a scientific metaphor, a construct? Is this term for a scientific discourse still useful? Would not it be more useful to speak instead of an instinct about neurobehavioural system of motivational states that are activated in relation to certain internal and external stimuli?

I have to establish a working evaluation of a nutrition couseling program in a village in Ghana. Because of time constraints it was suggested that I evaluate the effectiveness of the nutrition counseling by having a pretest immedicately before and a post-test immediatly after counseling. I instinctively think this is going to inflate scores and was thinking a longer interval may prevent this, but since this is my first research project I could be wrong. Any advice on testing intervals?

I have read that human lacks to fixed action pattern behavior. This is because humans no longer need to rely on instinct to survive. I wonder if any one disagree with that, and can provide a good example for this type of behavior in human.

Thanks in advance

Wafa

Between the ages of one and two a small child liked to sit at the corners of his house. He will bring a book to study, a toy to play or just goes there to sit.

Numerous generations of my ancestors faced the threat of earthquakes, some deadly. So, they lived under this constant danger.

If you are inside the house, the corners would be the safest place to be. Would this child be acting by instinct to protect from that danger? Even if his area has zero chance of an earthquake.

Biological Evolution

The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin its book On the Origin of Species (1859).

BEFORE DARWIN : Fixism and transformism are adopted by the scientifics to explain the living beings.

DARWIN : On the Origin of Species (1859): (Introduction ; CHAPTER I. Variation under Domestication. CHAPTER II. Variation under Nature. CHAPTER III. Struggle for Existence. CHAPTER IV. Natural Selection. CHAPTER V. Laws of Variation. CHAPTER VI. Difficulties on Theory. CHAPTER VII. Instinct. CHAPTER VIII. Hybridism. CHAPTER IX. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. CHAPTER X. On the Geological Succession of Biological Beings. CHAPTER XI. Geographical Distribution. CHAPTER XII. Geographical Distribution—continued CHAPTER XIII. Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs. CHAPTER XIV. Recapitulation and Conclusion. Darwin has published a large number of books and articles on geology, biology, ect ..

Today, evolution (Synthetic Theory of Evolution) is based on a very large number of specialty : Paleontology and other Earth sciences, taxonomic, Molecular biology, Ethology, Ecology, Physiology, Cel. Biology, ..........

TODAY, HOW RESEARCHERS SEE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IN THE LIGHT OF INNUMERABLE DISCOVERIES OF MODERN SCIENCE?

Biological Evolution

The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed by Charles Darwin its book On the Origin of Species (1859).

BEFORE DARWIN : Fixism and transformism are adopted by the scientifics to explain the living beings.

DARWIN : On the Origin of Species (1859): (Introduction ; CHAPTER I. Variation under Domestication. CHAPTER II. Variation under Nature. CHAPTER III. Struggle for Existence. CHAPTER IV. Natural Selection. CHAPTER V. Laws of Variation. CHAPTER VI. Difficulties on Theory. CHAPTER VII. Instinct. CHAPTER VIII. Hybridism. CHAPTER IX. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. CHAPTER X. On the Geological Succession of Biological Beings. CHAPTER XI. Geographical Distribution. CHAPTER XII. Geographical Distribution—continued CHAPTER XIII. Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs. CHAPTER XIV. Recapitulation and Conclusion. Darwin has published a large number of books and articles on geology, biology, ect ..

Today, evolution (Synthetic Theory of Evolution) is based on a very large number of specialty : Paleontology and other Earth sciences, taxonomic, Molecular biology, Ethology, Ecology, Physiology, Cel. Biology, ..........

Today, how researchers see the theory of evolution in the light of innumerable discoveries of modern science?

From experimental experience, it is known that when a plane wave or collimated laser beam goes through an objective (circular aperture) with larger NA, it turns out to be a smaller spot size.

It seems like that the less diversity of k-vectors give larger spot size.

I still have no idea about its physical meaning and instinct understanding, although that the Fourier Optics gives the mathematical graph of interference by spectral frequency versus intensity.

From experimental experience, it is known that when a plane wave or collimated laser beam goes through an objective (circular aperture) with larger NA, it turns out to be a smaller spot size.

It seems like that the less diversity of k-vectors give larger spot size.

I still have no idea about its physical meaning and instinct understanding, although that the Fourier Optics gives the mathematical graph of interference by spectral frequency versus intensity.

I am a Master of Research Student trying to learn about the proper way of conducting research. I am currently using a mixed-method approach for my methodology. My supervisors asked me to explain my sample size and the response rate. I was advised to interview 4 managers and distribute 50 surveys to their employees. Do we actually go for a sample size by instinct? How can I find out if it is correct? Would examiners find my sample size problematic? Thank you for your opinions.

Reflection is thought unnecessary by the vast majority of humans today, both in science and out of it, both at RG debates and out of it. Can we continue to grow in intellectual stature without reflection? Why do we feel only we have the best answers or that we have a special dispensation for intellect? Is this not a direct outcome of narcissism? Are we willing to pay the price to prove our contention or maintain our narcissism?

I have word association data and would like to work out potential relationships between categories. I'm envisaging output that shows which categories might sit together in space and which are far apart. However, I am not particularly handy with SPSS so have no natural instinct for the kind of analysis I should be doing. Someone suggested multidimensional scaling but I'm not sure this would work for me. Each of my participants have a number of categories assigned to them (because of the words they stated), they have not specified how similar or different they think a number of categories are. I hope my question makes sense. I would be very grateful for any input. Thanks, Katharine

I feel uncomfortable working with truncated distributions at their truncation point. A truncated probability distribution can be very useful in modelling populations that are known to be finite for working with the bulk of the model. If there is very little data beyond a point, truncation is a simple and effective way to deal with the "finiteness" of the distribution. But a jump discontinuity of a density function to zero does not sound right. In fact, why would a jump discontinuity (jd) to zero be more justifiable than any other jd in a density function.

I know the basics of entropy, and something tells me that (sharp) truncation in a density function has a low entropy when selecting a model. I don't know if the Akaike criterion would favour a smooth, yet nonanalytic function above a truncated distribution or not? I don't know if discontinuities has any effect on the Akaike information criterion (it does add parameters).

Also, from a formal point of view, a truncated distribution does consist of two separate analytic functions: the "support", and the part above or below which it is zero.

I am stating what I think the answer is, but is a truncated distribution not a bad choice for a model where the region of truncation is of importance? And is my suspicion correct that entropy maximization does not favor truncation?

"The only real, valuable thing is intuition" A. Einstein

"...trust... your gut instincts. If you feel something is wrong, it usually is" Anonymous

And I am sure that even Popper would agree that you should pay attention to your intuition is it relates to something being WRONG.

Can someone tell me whether any other species make drawings or effigies of themselves (or of things in their environment)? I am aware that many species recognize familiar patterns. But do any other species advertently "make" patterns - to induce responses unnaturally (to compel recognition)? Thank you for any help.

Dear research peers,

Is it true that quality of research standards at global level and developing countries (like India) have been deteriorated due to political interference? If yes, what steps, according to you, must be followed by scientific community to preserve true scientific instinct and sanctity among young researchers and scientists?

Thanks!

As a mathematician trying to understand the way the Signal-To-Noise ratio works in Digital Signal Processing, I have the following observation:

A signal is recorded, suppose I recorded a class lecture. When I insert this recording in audio-software which shows the recorded sound waves over time, I am able to determine the amplitude of the teacher's spoken voice and the amplitude of (static class) noise when the teacher is silent for some time. Suppose my recording indicates that the amplitude of the sound waves when my teacher speaks is at 50 dB and 20 dB when he is silent. For a signal-to-noise ratio I would instinctively divide 50 over 20, obtaining a ratio of 2.5. Or maybe more instinctively, the noise is 40% of the total incoming sound (noise-to-signal). Is my intuition failing me because the scale of sound (dBs) is not linear?

From one source I read that I could interpret determining the signal-to-noise ratio as [Teacher+Noise in dB]-[Noise in dB]=[Signal-to-Noise in dB], which would result in a 30 dB signal-to-noise ratio in the above mentioned example. Can anyone confirm if this is correct?

We seem to have reached sharp divide in the direction of thinking on low-impact living. Coming from a background of organic farming, the 'traditional' position of directly consuming plant protein in a near-natural state seems to be rapidly being overtaken by an instinct to look for high-tech solutions. It is hard not to see this as 'reverse homeopathy' - more of what is causing a problem will cure it. My very rough calculation is that we can reduce the global cattle herd by 80% if we only maintain enough animals for dairy production. There is still some meat production from a dairy herd, which would leave meat on the table for those prepared to pay the resulting high price. My thought is that a direct solution to the methane problem, such as this, would have a far greater impact on carbon dioxide emissions than cultured meat could ever give us.

Are our ethical and moral rules simply a human manifestation of the instinct to survive? Is morality simply a ritualised set of behaviours centered around survival of the group or species?

Robert Heinlein suggests:

Is he right?

It is not an expression of the wisdom of the "wisest" (Homo sapiens) and this evolutionary killing instinct having millions of years of history, need to be irradiated if we really qualify to be the wisest. Or else if the dangerous weapons used as IBM the life will be wiped out from earth surface by the Kalki Avtara (incarnation) to destroy the Evil Creation as per Hindu mythology.

lots of previous research to state that men prefer less make-up but this may be because the experiments included perceived personality traits in to the question of instinctive sexual attraction

I propose the following hypothesis:

In Saint-Peterburg, Yuri Yankelevich has done a lot of research about pre-hearing of musicians. On which level does this happen? 

(recent edit: separating the original notes into separated distinct questions to put process of thoughts in a list)

There is an evolution of species from genetics, bone structure, environmental influences on biological needs (i.e. Darwin's finches) but what about the instinct or choice to build or nest shelters?

What would cause a built instinct to build in a specific matter for offspring?

What would the evidence be of humans?

Apes don't dig shelters but nest, did humans nest?

What environmental change cause nomadic and moving colonies of apes to solitary nomadic humans who could not survive without some instinct. Caves were used but what inspired them?

Why not some other evolutionary instinct?

If we went to caves, then what inspired our neolithic ancestors to build domes?, straight walls? geometric and mathematical sciences?

Why do we have the same standards but the evidence does not go far enough back to discuss our ancient architecture?

You can also consider the work and survival rate needed to build. Maternal or Paternal instinct to make a shelter?

Is there any research similar that I could receive?