Is There A Relationship Between "Anticipations" and "Instinct"?

If you want my opinion on the issue of the "prolepses" and as said by Epicurus, he did not mean only the insticts. Prolepses are in accordance with the enviroment too. BOTH insticts/dna/talents AND the enviroment are the prolepses. We may be born with some faculties, but there is the enviroment that has the power to change something that is innate in us. We are not be born with ready made patterns and ideas. We have the faculty to speak, but we must learn the words of a language that is going along with the things that we pre-receive (προλαμβάνω [pre-receive] is the greek verb for the word "prolepses') with our senses and feelings around us. All are going in accordance with the experiences and the phenomena of the reality and our brain accumulates knowledges from our infancy. IF we were as pre-programmed to think or act on something, from our born till our death then <<the swerve>> that means our autonomy and responsibility to change things in accordance to the phenomena of the reality, could never be happen! Thus, IMO the prolepses that means only insticts, goes hand in hand with the idea of an absolute determinism. In the phenomena of Nature, there is neither an absolute determinism nor an absolute indeterminism.

In the following photos we see the Synaptic plasticity of the brain.

When engaged in new experiences and learning, the brain establishes a series of neural pathways. These neural pathways, or circuits, are routes made of inter-connecting neurons. These routes are created in the brain through daily use and practice; much like a mountain path is made by daily use of a shepherd (e.g. Epicurus as a teacher) and his herd (e.g. friends and students of his school).

The neurons in a neural pathway communicate with each other through connections called synapses, and these communication pathways can regenerate throughout your whole life. Each time that we gain new knowledge (through repeated practice), the synaptic communication between neurons is strengthened. A better connection between the neurons means that the electric signals travel more efficiently when creating or using a new pathway.
For example, when trying to recognize a new bird, new connections are made among specific neurons. Neurons in the visual cortex determine its color, the auditory cortex identifies its song, and other, the name of the bird. In order to know what bird it is, its attributes, its color, song, and name are repeated many times. Revisiting the neural circuit and re-establishing neuronal transmission between the implicated neurons at each new attempt enhances the efficiency of synaptic transmission. Communication between the relevant neurons is facilitated, cognition made faster and faster. Synaptic plasticity is perhaps the pillar on which the brain's amazing malleability rests.

source: https://www.cognifit.com/brain-plasticity-and-cognition

Quote

The pig may have to yield some of its place as an Epicurean symbol if this keeps up.

Off topic, but I discovered recently that Samos was one of a handful of Ionian cities that used flying boars on its coinage. I've searched widely, but nobody seems to know exactly why. Predates Epicurus by centuries.

According to evolution humans brain has been evolved into three parts (see photo).

Whilst all humans have these three parts of their brain present at birth, they don’t develop for several years. One very important part of the brain – the orbitofrontal cortex does not develop until the child is three. This part of the brain is responsible for emotional intelligence, our ability to see the world from another’s point of view and manage strong emotions such as rage or fear. 

The development of this part of the brain and many others is not something that just happens naturally. It relies heavily on the interactions of others, namely the main caregivers of the child. Much of a baby’s brain is ‘plastic’ so early experiences have a formative effect on how they will go on to interpret the world and form relationships later on in life. Parental interactions help form the synapses and bridges that give the child healthy solutions to difficult situations. 

Luckily, there isn’t a complicated set of tasks or exercises that parents should complete to aid the development of their child’s brains. Nurturing and interacting is the key, teaching a child that their needs will get responded to in a caring, affectionate way, talking to them, showing them patience and even just eye contact are all important in helping your child’s brain develop. 

As parents, we won’t always get it right, we all get frustrated and snap at our children at times, but even the process of apologizing and things becoming OK again is very useful for our children’s developing brains. 

What if it goes wrong? 

Of course, not all children will have positive experiences in the first few years of life. For instance, children who have a depressed or anxious main care giver may experience less positive interactions than other children. 

We often hear from parents who are wracked with guilt that their post-natal depression has prevented them from bonding with their child. We have worked with children whose adopted parents are struggling with some of the issues that have arisen due to the child’s early neglect. Many parents are anxious that it might be too late for things to change, but we know that things can and do get better, if the right help is sought.

We can read more here on this link and many other links: https://www.clinical-partners.co.uk/insights-and-n…as-three-brains

Just FYI: Modern brain research has debunked the 3-part human brain. All mammalian brains (and possibly others, sorry, can't recall off the top of my head .... pun not necessarily intended) contain all those parts to varying degrees. See the work of Dr. Barrett and others.

https://how-emotions-are-made.com/notes/Triune_brain_myth

https://drsarahmckay.com/rethinking-the-reptilian-brain/

https://thebrainscientist.com/2018/04/11/you…a-lizard-brain/

Quote from Cassius

Would your Greek beavers build dams even if separated from their parents and other beavers at birth?

Aristotle that maybe he had observed the greek beavers and many animals may would give you the response to your question.

IMO beavers are not able to build dams IF they will be separated from their parents and IF in their enviroment they will not have interactions and meetings with other beavers to learn from them how to build their dams and how to co-exist with them.

Don does Dr. Barett mean that all the neurologists (including the founding member in Athens Garden mr. Christos Yapijakis) are based till our days on a wrong theory? Oh gee!

Quote from elli

Don does Dr. Barett mean that all the neurologists (including the founding member in Athens Garden mr. Christos Yapijakis) are based till our days on a wrong theory? Oh gee!

If they're using a triune brain model, yep, they're using outdated information.

Quote from Cassius

Ok Godfrey you started this. What would you say to Elli's Greek beavers who need training in building dams?

I would think that beavers would need to learn to build dams. But one of Don's links explains that they don't, so if that's correct then as good Epicureans that should be our basis for going forward.

Meanwhile, I got around to reading the links that I attached earlier. It turns out that one is pretty useless, but the other describes some of the history of this debate (although not specifically beavers). I've attached the paper from the second link here. Better minds than mine have wrestled with this for a long time!

So I guess the bottom line is "damned if I know!" (Sorry, I couldn't resist. )

If they can figure it all out on their own, well...

Leave it to beavers, ay?

Quote from Cassius

And now we add to the list of fact issues: "is the brain triune like the godhead?".

Developing a method for dealing with fact disputes apparently is something we'll need to figure out!

Doing some additional reading, I found that the triune brain myth is more akin to Plato's analogy of the mind as the charioteer and the two horses. It's more of an analogy. However, it is also misleading in portraying how the brain is actually structured and how it evolved.

See also:

https://medicine.yale.edu/news/yale-medi…ill-compelling/

"The triune brain is a combination of Plato’s tripartite psyche and Aristotle’s and Darwin’s phylogenetic scale, tattooed onto the human brain. Plato wrote that the human psyche consists of three parts: rational thoughts, passions (which today we call emotions), and appetites like the drive for hunger and sex. Rational thought was in charge, controlling the passions and appetites, an arrangement that Plato described as a charioteer wrangling two winged horses." https://web.northeastern.edu/affectiveandbr…euroletters.pdf

The triune brain in antiquity: Plato, Aristotle, Erasistratus. "This paper investigates its origins and suggests that it is perhaps now time to move on." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20391097/

and, finally, probably the best scientific paper title I've ever seen: "Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside"

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721420917687

Quote from Don

"Plato wrote that the human psyche consists of three parts: rational thoughts, passions (which today we call emotions), and appetites like the drive for hunger and sex. Rational thought was in charge, controlling the passions and appetites, an arrangement that Plato described as a charioteer wrangling two winged horses."

This quote from the paper I referenced got me to think that it may be tempting to see the three Platonic parts of the psyche as comparable somehow to the three legs of the Epicurean Canon somehow. However, that temptation or any permutation of it should be resisted at all costs. That - or the idea of the triune brain analogy - sets up a false hierarchy.

I think we've discussed elsewhere that the "parts" of the Canon work in concert, each influencing the other. That's, personally, what I find so elegant about seeing Epicurean parallels in Dr. Barrett's work and that of her colleagues. Sensations influence affect which influences concepts which influence how sensations are processed which... And translated into Epicurean terms: sensations influence the two pathē (pleasure and pain) which influence prolepses which influence how sensations are processed... It's not a 1:1 correspondence but I think it has promise and it aligns with the most current brain research.

Where does this leave us in the instinct question? I don't know if you can separate "nature vs nurture." One influences the other. They're inextricably linked. It's even been found that the environment has an effect on the expression of some genes. Cues in the environment can activate certain genes and these can be inherited by offspring. That's, as I understand, a recent finding. See, for example, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-018-0113-y