[Chemistry4me]

I think I’m getting in way over my head here... (I’m just a lawyer who is interested in science). What I once read was that if you push a little kitten close to the edge of a table, the animal will react by retreating, as a result of pure instinct; however, if you bring a baby close to the edge of a table, he won’t react at all, he will fall...

When you put a baby into water, it'll hold its breath, thats instinctive. Will cats do that? I don't know, but someone would have tried it.

[Chemistry4me]

But I think I'm sidetracking, basically does instinct = emotion or instinct ≠ emotion?

[yor_on]

Do you think other animals have emotions?
We think they have instincts, don't we.

In Spain they used to say that dogs didn't have any soul an (?) therefore couldn't feel any pain.
Like when I grew up.

Instincts is a way of surviving, emotions tells us about what and how we feel while doing so.
Sometimes they take the 'overhand' and make us do things not related to surviving.
Do emotions do the same to other animals?

[Chemistry4me]

Do you think other animals have emotions?

Yes, just why I think that, I'm not sure at the moment because I do not have valid reasoning to back it up. But what do you mean by animals? All animals? Like ants and worms and bugs all included?

[Chemistry4me]

It will be very interesting if we could 'hear' what a male dog is thinking when he sees a female dog. Does he have emotions? Or does his instincts tell him 'me want my b****' [] in the crudest of voices? []

[Mr. Scientist]

I don't think emotions may necesserily equate to instinct. Though they may have very close relationships, studies of brain activity will show there is more to emotions than there is, dorment, mind-less ponderings of instinctive natures.

[Chemistry4me]

Our instincts are falling behind the animals because of all this technology that we live in today...

[Mr. Scientist]

Well, if animals don't experience emotions like we do, then they must have more powerful instincts. In fact, their entire daily drive [may] be straight down to pure instinct.

[GregBucket]

Backing up a bit, let's see... I think we're examining whether emotion is a part of the instinctive structure.  Whether, let's say, emotions are the various ways that various instincts presents themselves to us.

I don't know what feeling pain has to do with having a soul, but my dog feels pain.  He caught himself in the fence yesterday trying to get out.  He was trying to get through the fence to be with my sons.  Whether he 'wanted' to do that because his instincts told him to stay with his pack, or whether his emotions told him that he would not be happy unless he could get to the boys, I don't know.  In fact, that's the point here. What I'm really asking is if those two things are one and the same; the emotional carrot-on-a-stick is simply the way that the instinct presents itself.

Ants and worms?  Why include them in 'animals'?  Let's simplify for the moment and stick to mammals that we're familiar with, unless someone has a comment about something else.  Like birds, maybe.  Wait and see.

As for crude voices, why the adjective?  And why assume that the dog, or we humans, are really 'thinking' when lust is the issue?  The instinct to procreate is one of the most basic, and comes on dogs and us frequently.  The emotional upshot of the instinct is something we call 'lust' in ourselves when we're being crude, or 'amorous' when we're feeling more delicate.  We, or our dogs, might feel 'frisky' or 'lonely' or any of many other degrees that all lie along a spectrum of 'lustful'.   I use the word 'feel' very specifically there- it's an emotional state that manifests because the instinct to procreate is brought on by a stimulus.  In the case of Chemistry4Me's dog, the stimulus might be that he has seen, or more likely smelled, a female- possibly one in heat.  (Being in heat is a physical state of being ready to procreate, and the male's reaction to the scent would have evolved as an instinctive reaction, I guess.)  In the case of a human, the stimulus might be that a woman is wearing an attractive outfit, or has made eye contact or any of many signals to attract others.  Or, it might be that the male lives in the U.S. and is deluged by sexy images all day every day, and his libido is constantly firing off instinctive signals that equate to 'Me want my b****."

Hm... Mr. Scientist makes a very interesting point- Are instincts dormant or mindless?  That sounds like a fruitful line of thought.  I would have guessed that instincts are not only not dormant, but are real to us every day, as emotions.  I would have also guessed that instincts are intrinsic to 'mind', an inseparable part of what allowed us to evolve and survive until our brains added their 'higher' levels, and not 'mindless' per se.

Of course, maybe this is the basic supposition that I've gotten wrong, and the reason the theory wouldn't hold up.

[Chemistry4me]

I don't know [], all this discussion is making me even more confused than when we started... [] [:I] [:I]

[GregBucket]

You're invited to blame all confusion on me if you like.

Cartoonists write better inside little balloons. 

Big boxes throw us off.

[Chemistry4me]

Cartoonists write better inside little balloons. 

Whats going on here [] [] Are you a cartonist?

Big boxes throw us off.

And I thought the last sentence was crazy [] [] []

[GregBucket]

Yep.  Cartoonist.

Yep.  Crazy.

[GregBucket]

Okay, got a little sidetracked there.  Yes, I'm a cartoonist.  It's a fun job.

Now, to try to get us back on track and simplify things. 

The theory (and if I remember right, a good theory is supposed to have three things going for it.  Something to do with making a prediction that can be tested and such.  Maybe we don't have a theory here yet, maybe it's just a hypothesis) is that humans have a broad spectrum of instincts.  Emotions are the way that our instincts present themselves to our conscious minds.  Humans also have lots of brain (lots and lots) devoted to higher functions.  Instinct and Reason are not always in agreement.  Reason (higher brain function) might tell us to take a chance when instinct (extremely basic and powerful brain function) tells us not to, or vice versa.  That conflict is often sized up in literature as 'good vs. evil'- the little devil and angel sitting on our shoulder.  For example- If a particular subject is not of a monogamous turn of mind, it's because his or her instinct prompts him or her into pursuing sex with people other than his or her spouse.  Reason will tell him (or her, you get the idea...) that this is not a good idea.  Being human and having the choice that a rat or dog does not, he might decide in favor of reason, and instinct, unfulfilled, will nag at him.  If he were to give in to that instinct, his reason would then nag at him.  This is the downside to having a complex mind developed evolutionarily over great lengths of time.  The conflict- and the meaning of emotion- has been written about, studied, made the subject of poetry and philosophy, and has inspired great art in every realm- and so we instantly reject the idea that emotion has anything to do instinct.  Instinct being a word that we have traditionally used for 'lesser' animals and rejected for ourselves and our high romantic notions of our emotions.

I would like to point out that I'm not advocating giving in to any emotion (instinct) just to shut it up.  What's the point of having a more complex brain than a dog if one acts no better than a dog?

Oof.  That ought to upset enough people to get the conversation back up and running.

[Chemistry4me]

So now the word 'reason' is introduced into the arguement

What's the point of having a more complex brain than a dog if one acts no better than a dog?

Exactly

[Chemistry4me]

Have you actually got an answer from the Naked Scientists yet? Is it going to be on one of the podcasts?

[GregBucket]

Yep.  Reason was mentioned back in the ninth post, and a few time since.  Was I not supposed to mention reason?  I think it's valid to say that reason comes from higher brain function and instinct from lower, or more basic, brain function.  I could be wrong.  Also, I have no earthly idea what the vocabulary about this stuff is supposed to be.  'Higher' and 'lower' and 'brain function' are probably antiquated terms, as used by scientists back when they wore powdered wigs.

As for the podcast, here's all I've heard so far:

Thank you for the question you sent to us.  We are e-mailing you to let you know that it has been added to our list for inclusion in a forthcoming edition of The Naked Scientists Podcast.

In the meantime we have also published the question, on your behalf, on our discussion forum.  So far, it has received 4 comments from other forum members.

To see what they're saying, follow this link:

If you want to join in the discussion, you can use our quick registration system to obtain your own username by following the link below

We hope you find the answers helpful.

Thanks for supporting the Naked Scientists.

  The Naked Scientists Team

I suppose that means there's a chance it'll crop up on the podcast someday if they can find someone with an interesting answer.  Till then, we get to speculate as only amateurs and enthusiasts can, I reckon.  'Reckon' means I reasoned it out, I think.  At least, I think I think it.

[Emilio Romero]

I think freely that reasonable emotions are instinctive, or the other way around on the contrary [] []

[GregBucket]

Absotively, yes.
Well spoken.

[Chemistry4me]

What do you meam by reasonable emotions, I am very interested to find out. []