If I was particularly on your case, alphagruis, there was a reason for it.

You are very bad mannered and this trait of character of yours has the ability to migrate to others, so doing, putting an end to sensible conversation. Though, the funny thing is that your first posts on either forums (French and English) are intelligent and sensible. But for some reason, whenever someone does not blissfully agree with you, and contrary to GCB, you get contemptuous and often insulting. Being sarcastic with people (or something in that line of thought) never has a good effect on the level of conversation.  

As a scientist you have a pedagogical responsibility. If you don't want to assume it, I'm pretty sure you have better things to do.

I clumsily tried to tone you down by mixing my experience with texts and contradictions I get from your posts... That was a bad idea, badly expressed. I will try to find the time to express it in a better and clearer way, in the near future.

Nevertheless, GCB may be wrong when he's talking about instinct, which would also imply that I also am. But I certainly am of good faith and true to my experience. The matter of fact is I read and will continue the suggested readings you posted. So far, I find them very interesting, but nothing in those contradicts the possible existence of other dynamic mechanisms.

But please notice also that someone may be right on one thing and utterly wrong on another and this is actually the rule.
  

This could also apply to you...

I always ask myself 2 questions:

1- Am I having fun?

2- Do I have something to learn or gain?

When the answer is NO to both these questions, I leave...

So if I understand your rules well, I have to prove actual holes in your interpretation, but you don't have to prove the same in mine ?

See, I can understand what you say when you speak clearly.

As to flying, if I were you, I would refrain from trying that. You're too heavy...

I did not see Avatar, so I cannot comment. In my daily life, I'm probably doing the same thing you are, trying to make the best of it.

If Instincto was just another way of eating raw food, I wouldn't have bothered with it. I spent a 3 months leave of work in France to learn and practice Instincto, 20 years ago. It changed the way I see life forever, I'm just expressing that fact. Should I be worried it makes you think of Avatar?

Anyway, I'm not here to destroy any genuine effort in the right direction, but allow me to gently scratch some things on the way...

That said, I will go delight myself of this almost black caribou liver... Bon appétit!

Science is a way of conceptualizing the world, but intelligence is elsewhere, in living dynamical systems. The recent discovery concerning the existence of a dynamic regulation system of the genetic vocabulary, called epigenetic, demonstrates how intelligence is ahead of the concept.

I better understand now what alphagruis refutes in Burger, Instincto and Meta. He questions the conceptual tools used to describe them and he is probably right, especially about Meta. But contrary to alphagruis’s point of view, Burger’s experience came before the theory. He simply used the tools available to him at the time of trying to explain it and still goes on adjusting it, like they do in any science fields.

However, in rejecting the reality of instinct and by readily accepting the validity of Raw Paleo diet, all this supported on the recent discovery of epigenetic, alphagruis makes a fundamental logical error. Let me explain:

Epigenetic is a dynamic regulation system but, as demonstrated in the article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (Caring Mothers Against Strike Fatal Blow Genetic Determinism), it is qualitatively undifferentiated (garbage in, garbage out). It therefore lacks a dynamic quality control system (higher level).

Hence, if I understand him correctly, alphagruis claims that the actual state of knowledge, along with the trial and error method, is all man has to regulate himself qualitatively, at the very least for his feeding needs. Let me burst into laughter. That would be of boundless wittiness but for the pathos of such a statement.

Nothing is slower and less dynamic than conceptual intelligence. If we had to rely on it to survive as a specie, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it.

After recognizing epigenetic, like an illumination, as gene’s dynamic control system, alphagruis fails to recognise the same principle at work in the instinctive way of choosing food, a highly dynamic quality control system. At the same time, he puts his behind, heavy of contentment, on the static concept (like any diet actually) of paleo-crudivorism. (sorry guys)

I’ll let him get the error for himself ...

Personally I like Alice in Wonderland’s imagery; it perfectly describes the instincto point of view. A while ago, on the other side of the mirror, we already knew that the genetic researches looking to find the faulty genes for every illnesses (except in some rare cases) would fail.

Why?

Because by instincto logic and experience, we already possess a qualitatively dynamical food control system (coded, innate, like any other living dynamic control system) that manages with the genetic, epigenetic and environmental data it has at its disposal, from year to year, from season to season, from environments to environments, from seconds to seconds ... But, like an internal combustion engine carburetor (another kind of dynamic control system), it can only function properly under the conditions for and in which it was developed. To put it bluntly, genetic or epigenetic problems, weaknesses or errors have little meaning, to the extent that instinct is able to act properly and compensate for them.

Now, is instinct easy to use? The answer is NO.

Since none of us were born in an instinctive promoting context, it takes, under proper guidance and in best case scenario, a few weeks in order to reactivate the instinctive link to the environment (food in particular) and, since our civilized brain has a hard time letting go of what it thinks it knows, it probably takes a lifetime to really master its expression.

But this is the ONLY way out of the mess we generated, the only worthy legacy to our children, because it implies and teaches a fluid, non static way of looking and interacting with the world.

So, as you see, there are actually only two alternatives: the sorcerer's apprentice perpetual continuation of trial and error or the rediscovery of the hunter / gatherer’s instinct. But with a civilization of people like alphagruis, I would not bet on the latter’s resurrection chances.

Nevertheless, these recent epigenetic discoveries are another step toward the acceptance and recognition of the existence of living dynamic control systems (some of which are called instincts).

Unfortunately, the worst of applied science is still to come.

Hello all,

I'm a new guy on this forum. I know and am interested in Instinctotherapy and Palaeolithic diet since my stay in Montramé in the early '90s. Since English is not my mother tongue, I will ask you guys for some leeway.

I’ve been reading alphagruis (Gérard on Paléo Cru forum) for the last week, and came to the conclusion that for some (still) obscure reasons, he is denying to humans (and animals in general) an attribute that even motor vehicles have: the use of some kind of carburetor. Applied to humans and animals, he is simply denying the existence of instinct.

Just read the following description of a carburetor’s job and you will start to have an idea of the utility of a feeding instinct, and why it is important to rediscover it:

Under all engine operating conditions, the carburetor must:

•   Measure the airflow of the engine
•   Deliver the correct amount of fuel to keep the fuel/air mixture in the proper range (adjusting for factors such as temperature)
•   Mix the two finely and evenly

This job would be simple if air and gasoline (petrol) were ideal fluids; in practice, however, their deviations from ideal behavior due to viscosity, fluid drag, inertia, etc. require a great deal of complexity to compensate for exceptionally high or low engine speeds. A carburetor must provide the proper fuel/air mixture across a wide range of ambient temperatures, atmospheric pressures, engine speeds and loads, and centrifugal forces:

•   Cold start
•   Hot start
•   Idling or slow-running
•   Acceleration
•   High speed / high power at full throttle
•   Cruising at part throttle (light load)

In addition, modern carburetors are required to do this while maintaining low rates of exhaust emissions.To function correctly under all these conditions, most carburetors contain a complex set of mechanisms to support several different operating modes, called circuits.

Now, apply this to animals and humans and you will see that Burger’s claim may not be that stupid after all.

I will come back with my own experience in future posts.