Is implicit memory an "instinct"?

[icakeov]

Does it make sense to say that implicit memory processes such as imprinting, priming, conditioned reflex, emotional conditioning and procedural skills are instincts? We do perform them instinctually.

And I don't mean the behaviors that are a result of doing these processes. I mean the processes themselves. Can "priming" even be classified as a "behavior" or a "fixed action pattern"? After all, it is a specific behavior to adapt to the environment's stimuli, whatever it may be. And it is consistent. And inherited.

 

[atyy]

Don't worry too much about terminology, which is not very fixed. Just make sure people know what you are talking about.

 

[icakeov]

Cool, thanks :)

 

[rootone]

You mean that if a person falls down because of hitting an unseen rock or something with their foot, then there is an instinctive response to put their arms out - since a broken arm is better than broken neck?

 

[icakeov]

I meant more, if that happens and they happen to be descending down a specific steep and wet path, then instinctively, that person will retain that "image" or "feeling" of a steep and wet path, and if ever they find themselves in a similar situation, the arms will be more steadily ready to go out. Or might "fire" out without there even being a rock. The process of learning that experience, the process of creating that "conflation", in a way, that "behavior", can be classified as instinct, right?

 

[jim mcnamara]

A definition of instinct:
an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli. Example: bees building honeycomb
Definition of reflex:
an action that is performed as a response to a stimulus and without conscious thought. Example: Jerking your hand back from a hot surface.

So you are asking: can a reflex morph into a fixed pattern based on experiences?
I'm not sure that is a good question - you can see why. I hope. Maybe you want to stipulate what your definitions are.

 

[icakeov]

Not morph as much conflate. The reflex is still there.
So this example would fall into the category of "conditioned reflex" (def. an automatic response established by training to an ordinarily neutral stimulus.)
Basically, my question is whether we can say that that process of conflation is an "instinct"?
I guess where the question falls apart is that there is no specific "behavior", rather than a process happening in the brain that is not really a "behavior", but the process does directly involve the reflexive behavior (the hand jerk). And then there is the emotion involved in it too, which creates the conditioning.
So the behavior of the hand jerk, the emotion of pain, stimulus of seeing a hot surface all conflate together thanks to this innate pattern. If it wasn't for that "instinct", the conflation wouldn't happen.
Perhaps it wold be more fair to ask if conflation is an instinct. It is clearly an innate process, but would it make sense to call it an instinct?
Hope that's clearer.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

I don't have a source, but I took a sociology class in college. Humans have no instincts. Instincts are defined by at least 3 criteria:

1. They are present in every member of the species
2. They are not learned, but present from birth
3. They are unalterable

 

[jim mcnamara]

I was hoping you would find something similar to what @Kevin McHugh presented.

This is why I wanted you to look at what your primary definitions or rules were. But again, this area is fuzzy IMO, largely because instinct often is interpreted to mean other things in common parlance. But. Science works better here. Thank you @Kevin McHugh.

If you use google scholar for 'sociology: instinct definition' you get something like Kevin produced. 'psychology: instinct definition' is a little different.

IMO, what you appear to be trying to define may be classical conditioning: For six weeks - if you ring a bell, then put out dog food, your pet will associate the sound of the bell with dinnertime. At the start of the seventh week, try no food, only ringing the bell. The dog comes a-running anyway. Pavlov's dogs - a famous study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning

Anecdotal 'homey' examples: We fed our cat small tins of cat tuna. The cat would never come when called. I think she actually hid somewhere instead. However, every time I used the can opener no matter what I opened, I was tripping over the cat a few seconds later. Even if there was a tin of food on the floor. You can guess how I called the cat when I really need to get her inside.

I used the same technique to get my trailer-shy horses to accept the horse trailer: Put hay and feed on the trailer ramp. After a while I moved it further into the trailer. The horses absolutely fell in love with the trailer.

 

[icakeov]

Perhaps "instinct" is the wrong word to describe where I am going with this because it has so many different definitions.
The word "innate" might work better?
And yes, I am referring to classical conditioning and also any other inherited ability to create "implicit memory".

Kevin's 3 points go along with what I've been attempting to describe, for example:
1. They are present in every member of the species - every dog/cat/horse/human can be classically conditioned.
2. They are not learned, but present from birth - dogs/cats/horses/humans don't need to learn to perform classical conditioning, it is innate in them.
3. They are unalterable - you cannot turn the process of classical conditioning in dogs/cats/horses/humans into something else, for example, turn it off, it will work every time.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't have a source, but I took a sociology class in college. Humans have no instincts. Instincts are defined by at least 3 criteria:

1. They are present in every member of the species
2. They are not learned, but present from birth
3. They are unalterable

Hmmm... not sure if I agree with this. It's not surprising that sociology dogma would say humans have absolutely no instinct.

What about all the reflexes children are born with that allow them to nurse from birth, and eventually walk?

http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=newborn-reflexes-90-P02630

 

[jim mcnamara]

A reflex is an instinct? Or are more complex motions instinctual?

Anyway, your point returns to my fuzz comment. @Pythagorean can you define reflex versus instinct?

 

[Pythagorean]

A reflex is an instinct? Or are more complex motions instinctual?

Anyway, your point returns to my fuzz comment. @Pythagorean can you define reflex versus instinct?

I was using the given definition in the post I replied to. Which is somewhat consistent with the definitions I think of:

Instinct is any behavior that is not learned but is either present at birth or arises out of morphologcal development.

Reflexes are a specific type of instinct pertaining to muscle behavior, while instinct can refer also refer to more general behavisors love hunting or pouncing or social cues and mechanisms.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Okay. So if we apply your definition then are reflexes learnable? I would say no. You are simply grouping reflexes under an umbrella of 'instinct'.
By defining them as a subgroup of instinct. And you imply that instincts I guess are supersets of reflexes or derivatives hardwiring in the brain. So neuroplasticity changes everything. Instincts are the result of pre-wiring that gets rewritten. Example: becoming fluent in a new language.

I have always believed instinct had the potential to be an awful, poorly defined word. I see a lot of reinforcement for that notion in this thread. Had hopes we could get that word un-fuzzed.

I pass. Someone else can work through this one.

 

[atyy]

Perhaps "instinct" is the wrong word to describe where I am going with this because it has so many different definitions.
The word "innate" might work better?
And yes, I am referring to classical conditioning and also any other inherited ability to create "implicit memory".

Kevin's 3 points go along with what I've been attempting to describe, for example:
1. They are present in every member of the species - every dog/cat/horse/human can be classically conditioned.
2. They are not learned, but present from birth - dogs/cats/horses/humans don't need to learn to perform classical conditioning, it is innate in them.
3. They are unalterable - you cannot turn the process of classical conditioning in dogs/cats/horses/humans into something else, for example, turn it off, it will work every time.

But why restrict your argument to implicit memory? It is true that explicit memory is difficult to define for animals, but in terms of the brain areas involved eg. hippocampal-dependent memory (in humans, the hippocampus is needed for some forms of explicit memory), then plasticity processes in the hippocampus seem just as mechanical as those in the amygdala or cerebellum.

 

[icakeov]

Totally @atyy! Implicit memory was just on my mind, but explicit memory would automatically get the same treatment!

 

[Kevin McHugh]

A spider is the perfect example of instinct. Every species of spider spins a unique web. Nobody had to teach the spider to spin the web, it knew from birth. It cannot spin any other web. These points illustrate instinct very well. All else is learned (condtiioned) behavior.

 

[icakeov]

Right, and similarly, no body has to teach an animal to perform a conditioned reflex, it is innately done. And just like every species of spider spins a unique web, every species of animal learns a unique variation of a conditioned reflex, or procedural skill, etc.
This thread, I am realizing is becoming more about calling the process of learning an instinct. Both implicit and explicit.
After all, even spiders seem to have this instinct:
http://www.livescience.com/34775-spiders-learn-snag-prey.html

 

[atyy]

Of course, if we go very strictly by Kevin McHugh's definition, then long-term explicit memory is not an instinct, since it isn't present from birth (at least not for me, I don't seem to have any memories from when I was 3 or 4 years old)

 

[OCR]

Lol...

The cat would never come when called. I think she actually hid somewhere instead.
You can guess how I called the cat when I really need to get her inside.

Shes got you well trained, too... exactly like the three males we have.[COLOR=#black]..[/COLOR]

I have always believed instinct had the potential to be an awful, poorly defined word.

Yes, I agree... and, from an old thread, but worth a repeat.

I've watched our 3 cats make jumps many, many times... observation tells me, more is involved then just "instinct"...

This example seems to show that...

 

[icakeov]

Agreed @atyy , strictly speaking, it wouldn't be an instinct, and neither would be theory of mind, which I imagine would be directly connected to working and explicit memory. At the least, they are innate in a way where they do eventually inevitably emerge, just not right at birth. That is probably because other, more "simple", instinctive systems have to first develop before systems like explicit memory can kick in.
Another good example is imitation I think, where S. Jones argues that imitation also doesn't seem to kick in until we are about 2 years old, and that "the ability to imitate is not an inherited, specialized module, but is instead the emergent product of a system of social, cognitive and motor components, each with its own developmental history".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865075/
I just wonder whether, if a baby didn't get certain developmental feedback in its nurturance with its parents, that it would actually struggle to imitate. I just saw a friend post this today, not necessarily a conclusion drawing clip, but interesting nevertheless:

Thanks @OCR for the links too. Cats are awesome! Btw, the "repeat" link, is it supposed to be a link to a previous thread? It is just a google search link at this point. Could you update it, I'd love to check it out.

Thanks again! :)

 

[Graeme M]

icakeov, are you simply asking whether the capacity to learn behaviours that leverage reflexive actions is in itself an instinctual capacity? Do we have an instinct to learn?

 

[icakeov]

@Graeme M That's right

 

[Graeme M]

That's clear enough then. If instincts are innate biological capacities then I would say the answer is yes. But I don't know that for a fact, so I look forward to the thoughts of our learned fellow forum members.

A question of my own for everyone else. Broadly speaking I got from this thread that instincts are behaviours (complex series of actions to achieve a goal) that are fixed, present from birth, and present in all members of a species. Reflexes are actions (not behaviours? so presumably the components of behaviours?) that occur without conscious thought.

I assume reflexes are also present from birth. Also, many learned behaviours happen without conscious thought (that's why athletes or ballerinas practice isn't it?) and must make use of reflexes as well. Does that mean that instincts might more accurately be described as innate collections of reflex actions applied in certain situations (ie in response to particular stimuli)? That is, instincts are composed of reflexes?

 

[icakeov]

Yes, reflexes are definitively behaviors and so are instincts.
The reflex signal doesn't really go through the brain, the loop is short and quick. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflex_arc )
Instincts are more complex because they involve brain processing. (Or if they don't, at the least they have more complex and longer behaviors patterns, with the simples form called "Fixed Action Patterns") So I would say instincts are not a sub group of reflexes. They are just separate.
The processes that I am asking about in this thread seem to fail to be classified as instincts, so far, merely because they don't emerge right off birth, but develop at some point in an organism's life.
That's where I am at with all this so far.

At the least, all of the processes above can be called "innate". :)

 

[OCR]

Btw, the "repeat" link, is it supposed to be a link to a previous thread? It is just a google search link at this point. Could you update it, I'd love to check it out.

Thanks again! :)

Btw, the "repeat" link, is it supposed to be a link to a previous thread?

Lol... No, I must have messed that up, somehow...

It was just supposed to define "repeat"... click it now, it should work.

Also, it was really just for that one particular post I had made...

Could you update it, I'd love to check it out.

You bet, here you go...[COLOR=#black].[/COLOR]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-you-think-there-are-things-forever-beyond-our-grasp.825623/

Thanks again!

You are more than welcome, and yes... "Cats are awesome!"

 

[icakeov]

Perfect, thank you! :)

 

[OCR]

Perfect, thank you! :)