posted on Apr, 6 2004 @ 01:20 PM
To put it simply, instincts are for survival. Yes, they are essentially hard-wired, and must be in order to ensure that the subject doesn't have to
arbitrarily decide when to eat, drink, run, fight, mate, take shelter, etc. I know that unless I didn't feel hungry, I would never know when to eat.
I also could not, as a child, eat dirt or sour weeds growing in the yard if I didn't feel the instinctive urge to. These instincts, then, are
essentially just feelings which create desire, and which must be satisfied in some form.
Logic is something not only we use, but virtually all animals use. Logic is simply a method of reasoning based on known (previously experienced)
cause-effect relationships. Because all our actions are driven by desire, we can effectively use logic to satisfy those desires. But in satisfying our
desires, should we follow our instincts, or should we follow our logic? Or does our logic tell us that instinct is more reliable? It's up to you.
The primary difference between humans and other animals is that we not only apply logic, but we can also analyze and study it. That is, we can think
in abstract ways and study our own thoughts and behavior. Animals simply apply logic; some to a greater degree than others (i.e. a higher capacity for
So instinct can be seen as sort of giving us/animals a head start in the game of life. However, with humans, we can transcend our instincts. We don't
have to fight every time we feel threatened or angry. We don't have to mate or procreate every time we feel sexually excited (horny). We don't have
to eat every time we feel hungry..etc..etc.
There is an interesting relationship between experience and logic. Experience always comes first. And from experience we form our logic. And finally,
from logic, we form our beliefs. (One might say that when this belief becomes internalized, it becomes "faith.") Without experience, there can be no
conscious logical thought. Even a hunch/gut feeling is an experience, from which then we must draw on our logic to determine our next course of
action. Should we blindly follow the hunch, or not? Of course our logic is heavily colored by the collective of our life experiences. (This collective
experience does, of course, include the experiences borne from one's mental bent and capacities.) Every belief, then, is logical to the beholder of
that belief because every belief is a function of logic, which in turn is a function of experience. The crazy fellow down the block who believes in
unicorns didn't just decide to blindly believe in unicorns. To him, the existance of unicorns is very logical because it is based on his life's
If so, then who/what is doing the analysis? Is what we call the "subconscious" a part of us that can experience the future before our conscious mind
does? Does the conscious mind lag? It would appear so. It would certainly explain the metaphysics behind prophetic dreams and visions. It would also
explain deja vu. Somehow also, not only are hunches prophetic in nature, but they also tend to follow our desires and/or our needs. But who knows,
perhaps it isn't really our "subconscious" or any part of us. Maybe it's another intelligent "entity" that is impinging upon our conscious
faculties in order to guide us along a pre-determined "path." Or maybe it's our past-life experiences coming back to haunt us. I don't have a
clue. But it's all very intriguing, to say the least.