Instinct Or Evidence?

[aener]

I was talking with a friend the other day, and although I know the example's kinda shit, no others come to mind.

I like to make music, and quite often have a rhythm in my head, but can't work out how to write it down in MIDI and get it sounding the same.

I had the idea that a program could be written to take an input (beatboxing in to a mic), analyse the frequencies, and for each "kick" it adds one MIDI note, and for snares etc...

A step further would be for the program to analyse the sound, and choose the sample in your library that most closely resembles the waveform).

I know without a doubt that this is possible - even without having any idea on how to go about actually programming it (short of that it'd almost certainly be a Max/MSP project).

(Edit: Forgot to mention I later found out there's already a program very similar to this. It's a VST called Drumagogue (unsure of spelling), and it replaces drum sounds in a clip with samples of your choosing. It doesn't create a MIDI file though. This is just for producers - I guess no-one else gives a rat's arse )

Specifically - I guess I'm asking if you can just... know if something's possible, or do you believe you can only know for sure it's possible when you've worked out how to do it?

On a more general basis, do you go on instinct to take a belief, or do you have to have the cold, hard ([plus optional] nitty, gritty detailed) facts before you believe it?

I think I'm a mix. Things that have a physical output, such as the example above, I'm very much the first. I quite often think "I KNOW that can be done" but not have a clue how to go about doing it. ...I guess that's just logic - knowing what's been done before and combining with other things.

With things like religion/belief systems, I'm very much the latter.

How about you?

Edited October 11, 2010 by aener

[Mark W]

Religious debate imminent.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Religious debate imminent.

Mwahahahaha...

[aener]

I hope not. That wasn't the intent at all.

[JD™]

Although I fear the religious debate is inevitable in here (for the sole reason that baiting such a debate is too much fun....), I'll try and offer a reply that you wanted to hopefully steer it away from that.

In short, I think that what your asking is something that will be answered differently by 2 different types of people: those who have a mind which will create/build/solve/invent and those with a mind to make use of/and otherwise go with the flow. That's a bad latter description, mainly because I fit into the first so I know it better.

I think that inventors, entrepreneurs and innovators will KNOW in their minds that something can be done, and either make it happen themselves or explain it to someone who can. The other set of people will just use the solutions available to them and no worry too much about the things they can't do. I'm sure there's at least another set of people too, but I'm distracted from this reply now so I'll leave it there for others to build on...

[Krisboats]

I think it's mostly circumstantial.

For the most part i'm more of a problem solver, though instinct plays no part in this (think you have the wrong idea of instinct), merely creativity, tenacity and a little bit of common sense. That said, there are times when i want to see for sure something will work before i'll accept it (maths equations, scientific theory etc). Although both scenarios are inherently different in that one is a physical task and the other is an academic theory.

[Fish-Finger-er]

That said, there are times when i want to see for sure something will work before i'll accept it (maths equations, scientific theory etc).

such as the fact that the plane actually wont take off?

[manuel]

such as the fact that the plane actually wont take off?

Instinct - Application of evidence/previous/fact/knowledge that happens in your brain at incredible speed. Its always based on things you already know or have experienced, but because it happens so fast you class it almost as another sense...

some peoples "instinct" is better than others, purely on their current knowledge, and general experiences.

Edit: pretty much the same thing...

Some people also believe in god.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Specifically - I guess I'm asking if you can just... know if something's possible, or do you believe you can only know for sure it's possible when you've worked out how to do it?

On a more general basis, do you go on instinct to take a belief, or do you have to have the cold, hard ([plus optional] nitty, gritty detailed) facts before you believe it?

Beyond certain very basic things such fear leading to a fight or flight instinct, I think it's pretty much impossible for anything to be considered instinct in the way I think you're getting at. Any kind of decision or belief in something has to have been based in some kind of teaching (either direct or passive) leading to a conclusion in your own head. It's impossible to instinctual know that licking your finger and sticking it into a live socket will sting a little but it only takes a child to observe caution in another child or adult to understand the notion that there's something there which you maybe need to respect/fear.

Not really wanting to cause a religious debate () I would also say that it is completely impossible to instinctively believe in God (or Santa or the Tooth Fairy for that matter). Anyone who does so has been introduced to the concept, most likely at a young age, and taken it from there. The only possible way you can look at it from an instinctive perspective is to consider that Human nature makes us quite an inquisitive species eager to learn and experience things. In that sense we are bound to question things around us- which is the basis of science and of course, at the opposite end of the spectrum, religion.

Instinct - Application of evidence/previous/fact/knowledge that happens in your brain at incredible speed. Its always based on things you already know or have experienced, but because it happens so fast you class it

Don't 100% agree with that, purely on the survival 'instinct' or fight or flight. Animals have instincts- I wouldn't consider a baby rabbit to be applying its previous knowledge of vehicles when it finds itself caught in headlights- it is acting purely on instincts in an attempt to survive. I daresay procreation is probably fairly instinctive too...

[Matt Vandart]

I instinctively believe in GOD.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Matt Vandart

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I instinctively believe in GOD.

And I instinctively knew about the theory of relativity the value of Pi and the basics of quantum physics. Honest.

[Matt Vandart]

And I instinctively knew about the theory of relativity the value of Pi and the basics of quantum physics. Honest.

Me too.

There is an interesting point in there somewhere.

As in these above mentioned things must have been some kind of instinctive thought surely?

Edited October 11, 2010 by Matt Vandart

[aener]

....

Yeah... I guess I didn't really think it through, just saw a possible thread-starter that didn't involve something been said a hundred times, and pounced on it.

Although, for the sake of argument; I meant instinct as someone further up said... about being a series of lightning-fast decisions (didn't read who wrote it - sorry . Edit: Mr. Johns!).

I agree with you on the "you have to be indoctrinated in to religion", but - and I suppose it's only disagreeing because we're using different definitions - I'd class something like trying to prevent someone stealing your laptop as instinctual. Yes - it could easily be broken down in to a whole host of decisions as to whether you act on it or not, but I'd class it as something different. Same as if you DID try to prevent it and he pulled a gun on you, you'd most likely "instinctualy" give it up, 'cause you decided your laptop isn't worth your life.

I dunno. Shit thread, I guess, if the starter doesn't have a clue what he's on about

Edited October 11, 2010 by aener

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

As in these above mentioned things must have been some kind of instinctive thought surely?

I would say... no. The observation of gravity, the bending of light around a gravitational field or the effective non-existence of electrons in the physical sense has nothing to do with instinct.

[Matt Vandart]

Potentially excellent thread

I would say... no. The observation of gravity, the bending of light around a gravitational field or the effective non-existence of electrons in the physical sense has nothing to do with instinct.

Ah but would one not instinctively know that something else was going on here, after all gravity is a made up concept.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I agree with you on the "you have to be indoctrinated in to religion", but - and I suppose it's only disagreeing because we're using different definitions - I'd class something like trying to prevent someone stealing your laptop as instinctual. Yes - it could easily be broken down in to a whole host of decisions as to whether you act on it or not, but I'd class it as something different. Same as if you DID try to prevent it and he pulled a gun on you, you'd most likely "instinctualy" give it up, 'cause you decided your laptop isn't worth your life.

I dunno. Shit thread, I guess, if the starter doesn't have a clue what he's on about

Certainly not a shit thread and I will try to stay off the religion side of things! The idea of someone stealing your laptop is completely enveloped in the 'theory' of ownership and possession- something which in itself isn't really instinctive. If we'd all been brought up to share everything we ever come into contact with the loss of something (or theft itself) wouldn't have any meaning. The presentation of a gun is another thing. We don't instinctively know that a gun is dangerous- it is just a shaped piece of metal until (at a very young age) you learn that they are dangerous and used to injure or kill people with. Once you have learnt that you will be fearful if anyone ever pulled one on you, invoking the fight or flight instinct.

[aener]

Certainly not a shit thread and I will try to stay off the religion side of things! The idea of someone stealing your laptop is completely enveloped in the 'theory' of ownership and possession- something which in itself isn't really instinctive. If we'd all been brought up to share everything we ever come into contact with the loss of something (or theft itself) wouldn't have any meaning. The presentation of a gun is another thing. We don't instinctively know that a gun is dangerous- it is just a shaped piece of metal until (at a very young age) you learn that they are dangerous and used to injure or kill people with. Once you have learnt that you will be fearful if anyone ever pulled one on you, invoking the fight or flight instinct.

Perhaps - but if animals are territorial, I wouldn't call possessiveness anything different.

Also - maybe knowing a gun presents danger isn't instinctive, but shying away from a recognised danger HAS to be... right?

[Matt Vandart]

Certainly not a shit thread and I will try to stay off the religion side of things! The idea of someone stealing your laptop is completely enveloped in the 'theory' of ownership and possession- something which in itself isn't really instinctive. If we'd all been brought up to share everything we ever come into contact with the loss of something (or theft itself) wouldn't have any meaning. The presentation of a gun is another thing. We don't instinctively know that a gun is dangerous- it is just a shaped piece of metal until (at a very young age) you learn that they are dangerous and used to injure or kill people with. Once you have learnt that you will be fearful if anyone ever pulled one on you, invoking the fight or flight instinct.

I disagree with this point.

Very young children will share everything up until a certain stage and then everything belongs to them.

They completely stop sharing for a while, or will do so very grudgingly.

This can also be seen in animals which certainly instinctively have a very strong tendency towards possession especially for food and mates.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

shying away from a recognised danger HAS to be... right?

Yup, I'd go with that- the instinct for survival.

I disagree with this point.

Very young children will share everything up until a certain stage and then everything belongs to them.

They completely stop sharing for a while, or will do so very grudgingly.

This can also be seen in animals which certainly instinctively have a very strong tendency towards possession especially for food and mates.

Surely the fact they 'share eveything up until a certain stage' proves possessiveness isn't instinctive but something which is learnt as they observe how their parents/brother/sister or whatever act towards objects.

Regarding animals, you hit the nail on the head- food and mates. The two things to ensure survival and their genetic continuation- two things which I would say are instinctive for pretty much any living thing.

[aener]

Yup, I'd go with that- the instinct for survival.

Surely the fact they 'share eveything up until a certain stage' proves possessiveness isn't instinctive but something which is learnt as they observe how their parents/brother/sister or whatever act towards objects.

Regarding animals, you hit the nail on the head- food and mates. The two things to ensure survival and their genetic continuation- two things which I would say are instinctive for pretty much any living thing.

Dayum.... Yo' good!

[Matt Vandart]

I understand what you are saying but from my observations it is too much like a switch to be from observation.

One day they wake up and everything is theirs and thats the end of it.

However I still think certain things are instinctive, more intellectual things shall we say

Gravity is a perfect example.

Instinctual behaviour can be more complex than just food and sex anyway

Edited October 11, 2010 by Matt Vandart

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

However I still think certain things are instinctive, more intellectual things shall we say

Gravity is a perfect example.

A few billion beings prior to Sir Isaac may disagree with you there! And again, as a small baby anything you grab (or see someone else pick up/drop/fall) will result in the realisation that things fall downwards. I would say you have learnt that through observation, not through and form of instictive knowledge. However, if you startle a baby (not something you should really do I know) and it does that whole 'shitting itself' face and tries to get away, I would say is an instinctive struggle for survival. It's just a shame that human babies are a bit shit!

Instinctual behaviour can be more complex than just food and sex anyway

I'm not convinced. I'd say food, sex and survival/preservation of yourself and your young are some of the few true instincts which exist.

[Matt Vandart]

A few billion beings prior to Sir Isaac may disagree with you there! And again, as a small baby anything you grab (or see someone else pick up/drop/fall) will result in the realisation that things fall downwards. I would say you have learnt that through observation, not through and form of instictive knowledge. However, if you startle a baby (not something you should really do I know) and it does that whole 'shitting itself' face and tries to get away, I would say is an instinctive struggle for survival. It's just a shame that human babies are a bit shit!

LMAO!!!!!!!

Yes so as you cannot measure gravity (I know I'm in your field here) or observe any physical force with your eyes it must be instinct that tells you something is going on here that I cannot see/measure.

[aener]

Instinctual behaviour can be more complex than just food and sex anyway

Agree very strongly with that. But...

I can't think of a worse example than gravity.

Surely at absolute birth we don't know that things will fall towards the ground if there's nothing supporting/suspending them.

That's just something we learn very quickly, because it's so prominent in our surroundings.

Would it be more appropriate to call behaviour instinctive, and knowledge not?

If it is, then that blows what I was thinking when starting this thread out the water.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Yes so as you cannot measure gravity (I know I'm in your field here) or observe any physical force with your eyes it must be instinct that tells you something is going on here that I cannot see/measure.

But you can observe a cause and effect. Someone lets go of something, it falls down. You have just learnt about gravity. You don't need to understand the forces at work or the strength of the force to observe what happens. I'm pretty damn sure I wasn't born knowing that anything with mass accelerates towards the centre of the earth at 9.81ms^-2...

Edit: aener beat me to it.