These questions used to get another forum I was on pretty stirred up. Figured I would post it here to see what you all think.


We know that animals, even humans, have what are called ' instincts '.

My questions are...

Where do you think those instincts come from?

Wouldn't there need to be some kind of genetic/cellular ' memory ' for there to be an instinct?

Without some form of memory, would there actually be an instinct in the first place??

Doesn't the knowledge have to come from somewhere???

Many scientists ( the vast majority in fact ) consider the idea of genetic memory to be utterly impossible. They say the instincts are " just there ".

But yet...science disputes the existence of a higher being because many people believe it's " just there ".

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

I don't want this to break down into a religious discussion. This is aimed more along the scientific ideas.

I just thought that particular reference was a good fit.

The topic of instincts in interesting indeed. I think that we just don't understand "instincts" and it is also one of those words that is kind of gellationous in its definition, but I'll take a stab.

I think that most behaviour is learned, and the learning mechanism is just misunderstood. Beauty for instance, is something that some people consider to be instinctual, but being raise on TV and seeing the same qualities over and over will drive a person to those qualities when paired with outside influence, what the mother/father look like etc. Behaviour in general is a tricky mechanism and not fully understood. There seems to be a chaotic mix of memory mechanisms that lead to most animal behaviour, so what about the other stuff that isn't so obvious, the "true" instinct.

Perhaps it isn't cellular memory so much as cellular comfort. Bodies are , geese I hate to use the word designed because it implies other things, but can't think of a better word so... bodies are designed for specific types of muscle movements and the release of hormones paired with the already complex memory mechanism perhaps simply leads to these "true instincts" being two similar beings comming up with the same logical solution to a problem.

I can't however, off the top of my head, think of any specific behaviour that can't be linked back to the memory mechanism other than reproduction and caring for offspring, and the "simplest solution" model seems to fit the picture decently for the most part. Or perhaps there is some form of communication that takes place in animals that we are simply not aware of whereby they are taught certain behavior.

Ok. But even humans have a " survival instinct ".

This isn't something that's actually taught in the vast majority of cases.

It the whole " fight or flight " deal.

But...how could it get there if it isn't taught?? It has to be passed on somehow.

I'm glad you think the questions are worth taking a stab at.

* Disclaimer *
Chances are, I am going to be the one playing " Devil's Advocate " most of the time in this thread.

I just like to question things. lol

However, I will not be combative about it and I would appreciate it if everyone stayed respectful in their replies.

I think that genetic/cellular memory, as an explanation for instinct, is the best that can be done when working within a “loose” materialist framework. The only other materialist option is the “stricter” materialist view that there is no memory involved at all. I.e. it is simply “the way things work”. Like when you remove heat from water, it turns into ice. That’s just the way the universe works. Water does not have any “memory of how to turn into ice”. (Although there could be some interesting, if esoteric, philosophical debates about that as well. )

And then there are the non-materialist explanations, pretty much all of which rely on some causative entity being directly or indirectly responsible.

Take your pick.

I think that genetic/cellular memory, as an explanation for instinct, is the best that can be done when working within a “loose” materialist framework. The only other materialist option is the “stricter” materialist view that there is no memory involved at all. I.e. it is simply “the way things work”. Like when you remove heat from water, it turns into ice. That’s just the way the universe works. Water does not have any “memory of how to turn into ice”. (Although there could be some interesting, if esoteric, philosophical debates about that as well. )

And then there are the non-materialist explanations, pretty much all of which rely on some causative entity being directly or indirectly responsible.

Take your pick.

cells have memory: But it’s not as simple as many portray, The individual cells probably remember their environment and affect surrounding cells in very profound ways that we have trouble understanding with today’s science.


cell biologist Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., author of Biology of Belief: Unleashing of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles: “The general public has been given the idea that cellular memory is like cerebral memory — that cells remember past history,” he explained. “It isn’t that at all. I believe that cells are connected by antennas to an identity; not a physical identity, but an energetic identity — just like a broadcast.” Lipton used the analogy of a television set with an antenna — TVs download programs, but the programs aren’t stored inside the TVs. When cells have an expression, they reflect a memory, but the memory comes from somewhere else. “Where?” I wanted to know. “We have no idea,” he answered.

I think the terms being used here are a little "loose". Genetic memory and instinct are not the same thing.

The sperm you produce at forty are one half the genetic material from each of your parents. This is the same genetic material you pass on at age twenty. Your experiences do not affect the genetics of sperm production. This is the aspect of "genetic memory" that science says cannot exist, i.e., sperm cannot pass on memories.

Instincts are neural hardwired programming built into your brain and nervous system as part of your species. It makes you hungry, seek meat to eat, desire to stay alive, etc. Instincts make up a very very small part of your nervous system. The instincts of a spider can cause beautiful webs to be spun, complex patterns of mating, and incredibly complex acts of prey stalking. As creatures become more complex, so do their instincts.

You will be attracted to women with a distinct curve to the hip because it indicates the ability to have children. You will be attracted to women with larger breasts because it shows the ability to feed your young. Certain pheromones produced by the female will cause hormone and adrenalin production which will shut done most of your conscious brain activity and allow you to be controlled.

Instincts and genetic memory are a bit like apples and oranges.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Not being a materialist, I didn't spend much thought on whether or not the genes had the capacity to store and pass along enough information to account for instinct. But from what you've said it is obvious that they don't.

Of couse, not being a materialist, I don't subscribe to the "Instincts are neural hardwired programming built into your brain and nervous system as part of your species" theory either. But that's neither here nor there.

Thanks for setting me straight on the "genetic memory" issue.

The definition of instincts needs to be classified here or at least your version of it.


Instincts to me are the hardwired reactions we are born with. They would have to come from some kind of cellular type of memory because they occur over and over in the same species. Most animals show these instincts from birth. Fear of certain dangerous things is instinctual, grouping together is instinctual, basic survival is instintual, etc... making it cellular or passed from generation to generation via DNA.

It is funny we were talking about kinda the same thing last night. My dog instinctively knows how to shell nuts. No one taught her she just knows. So that shows us that wild dogs must have ate nuts in the wild, her ancestors.

Well, that may be true, but some scientists feel just the opposite.

I just watched a course on the human genome and in that course the professor absolutely suggested that some instinctual memory is indeed inherited via DNA.

DNA is the blueprint of our brain. And that very blueprint includes "structure" and that structure implies a certain base of knowledge which has indeed come to be via the evolutionary process.

So the idea that instincts are inherent in DNA is not shunned by all scientists by far. For some neurobilogogists and geneticists it's a principle that is accepted as a 'self-evident' given.

I don't think anyone can show conclusive prove either way. But the presentations I've recently seen by a neurobiologist and geneticist seem suggest that at least some scientists see this as an obvious "given".

I think the bolded sentence is an excellent working definition for instinct. It is concise but yet broad enough to cover all the bases.

However, the next sentence does not necessarily follow. As has been pointed out in previous posts, there are at least two other options that are both just as valid from their own philosophical bases.

One is the strict materialist view that there is no “memory” involved at all. That the “hard wired reactions” are simply a subset of the way the universe works. Water does not contain any memory of how to turn into ice. It simply does so because that’s how it works. Likewise, one could view instinct as simply an action/reaction phenomenon that is not dependent on any “memory”.

Another is that “life” is somehow “imbued” with instincts but some outside agent. (The label applied to that external agent is irrelevant.)

But in any case, I think the bolded sentence is a good working definition from all viewpoints.

Well done Dragoness.

Thanks but the only outside influence in this process is the environmental influences over massive amounts of time that imbed these instincts into our DNA to be passed down to each following generation.

As I said, that’s certainly a valid conclusion from the viewpoint of the materialist philosophy. And there are a lot of people who subscribe to that particular philosophy.

I was simply pointing out that there are other philosophies wherein that is not the “only” outside influence.

As I said, that’s certainly a valid conclusion from the viewpoint of the materialist philosophy. And there are a lot of people who subscribe to that particular philosophy.

I was simply pointing out that there are other philosophies wherein that is not the “only” outside influence.


That's quite interesting Sky.

We'd need a pretty hardcore definition for 'instinct' before we can really delve into the topic.

Howe much of 'personality' is intinctual?

Why are some people intuitively drawn to become painters, or musicians, or healers, or teachers, or scientists, or social leaders, etc.

Can those underlying urges be considered to be part of their 'instinct'. If not, then from whence do these urges come?

Why are humans so diverse in their innate desires?

This alone is suggestive of something more going on than pure materialism and genetics. At least for me it is.

But if they are implanted or whatever into out DNA, as you suggest, then wouldn't that, in and of itself, indicate some form of genetic memory?

Metalwing said:Looks to me like the bolded sentence there is the key.

Metalwing is saying that experience does not effect DNA and Dragoness is saying it does.

Personally, I have doubts about experience having no effect whatsoever on DNA, which would seem to be a necessary conclusion from Metalwing’s statement.

And the simple fact that Dragoness is talking about a much longer timeline (hundreds of thousands of years of evolution) than Metalwing (a single instance of fertilization of an ovum) points to an inexact comparison between the two.

Imbeded and yea there is a type of tracking element in the DNA that keeps very important information. Deemed important by the passage of time with the same results occurring in certain circumstances. I don't know that I would call it a memory as we see memory. I would call it the guides for the memories instead.

Well..I think that one thing that is happening is that people are getting too hung up on the word " memory ".

I am not referring to memory as in, " I remember ".

It's more along the lines of things that are pre programmed into us which, there are a whole lot of scientists simply doesn't happen.

I am sure there are some ( as referenced earlier ) scientists that say otherwise. But they are usually considered to be out in left field by their more mainstream counterparts.

hello all.This made me think of a documentary I watched that addressed this subject.Rabbits that had been raised for many generations in captivity were exposed to different shaped pieces of backlit cardboard with no reaction untill one with the shape of a hawk.the hawk shape made them cower or try to get under something.This seems to clearly indicate information passing geneticly,since these animals never had the chance to learn of hawks by experience.

Very interesting experiment. Of course the conclusion doesn't take into account the possibility of a non-physical agent being responsible for the reaction. But from within the framework of a materialist philosophy, it makes perfect sense and is really fascinating. Thanks for the contribution. And welcome to the forums