Dietary instinct and palate pleasure

Let us put the equation: “Pleasure = Instinct” and look for its solutions …

Strange problem of mathematics which one does not approach in class of algebra, nor even in higher mathematics… However, this equation expresses a fundamental characteristic of all instinct: to be accompanied by a pleasure during its accomplishment.

It is true that the notion of instinct is a priori supposed to very mechanically explain animal behavior. Some wasps, for example, have the instinct to build a small vertical cell, closed below, where they deposit their larva. When the bottom of the socket is cut, the wasp continues to feed the larva, while the bottomless well eliminates all its efforts. We can therefore deduce that his instinct is purely automatic. But can we generalize at all instinct? Should we only call “instincts” completely automatic behaviors?

The lion has the instinct to hunt when he is hungry and sets out to hunt when he sees a herd of buffaloes passing by (especially the lioness, when she has to feed her young). He knows how to choose the weakest animal, especially the young ones who will not give him fatal horns. It does not attack if the bovids form a circle to defend their offspring. The hungrier he himself is, the more risks he will take. If he’s in bad shape, he’ll give up rather than launch a doomed attack. The predator’s instinct is therefore linked to all kinds of regulation loops which make it a highly complex process, difficult to reduce to a simple automatism. However, there is talk of a hunting instinct among predators.

Can we therefore speak of instinct in man? When we see an appetizing fruit on a display of early vegetables, and if we are gripped by hunger, we feel an urge to grab it and bite into it straight away. But immediately come a whole series of considerations involving our free will: if I do not have my wallet with me, to seize the fruit would be a theft, which is contrary to my morality. If I’m too hungry, I’ll take it anyway while the merchant’s back is turned, I’ll pay him another time. Or if I ask him, maybe he will give me a present? But if he looks surly, no need to ask him the question. Theft is punished with prison, should I take the risk or continue to have the stomach in the heels … If I know that I will soon be sitting at the table, I can better wait … If I realize that the fruit is a hairpiece, my desire disappears immediately …

We therefore observe in humans the existence of an automatism: a spontaneous tendency to obtain something to eat when hunger appears. The physiological need is accompanied by an automatic behavior, but this is modulated by various regulatory loops, so that it takes place only when the circumstances are favorable. There are many other tendencies in humans which react automatically to environmental stimuli, depending on the internal state, but always controlled or controllable by the effect of free will. It is therefore reasonable to speak of instincts, without however presuming that the behaviors are predetermined. Only the trend is predetermined.

We can therefore speak of instincts present in human beings, without assuming that these instincts exclude free will.

An automatic trend does not exclude learning either, on the contrary. For example, the baby of a few weeks already knows how to grab everything he finds and bring it to his mouth, then chew and swallow if he is hungry, or spit out if the object is unpleasant to him. This behavior is observed objectively, is described as a more or less automatic reaction to certain triggering patterns. This does not prevent the baby from learning not to do it when the object is inedible, stinging, burning, or when his mother forbids him to do so. The innate and the acquired mingle from birth.

It is the same in animals, but do we know what he experiences when realizing his instincts? To say that he experiences something is perhaps right in anthropocentrism: we explain the animal according to what man feels in similar situations. But be careful: to say that the animal does not feel anything is also a form of anthropocentrism, a way of appropriating the capacity to experience a pleasure or a satisfaction … content to observe that the animal which has realized its instinct finds a state of tranquility.

We don’t have the same brains as animals. Our much more developed cortex allows us to experience more pleasure, just as it seems capable of making us experience more pain… A kind of sounding board capable of amplifying sensations and bringing them to the forefront of what we call consciousness.

In any case, we experience pleasure and displeasure. The former are characterized by a desire to return to the situations that bring them, the latter by a desire to renounce the behaviors they negatively mark. Pleasure goes with “yes,” displeasure with “no.” Pleasure motivates the performance of a behavior, displeasure discourages it. It is clear that it is useful, if not necessary, for pleasure to accompany the performance of an instinctive behavior, and that displeasure penalizes its non-performance or poor performance. Thus, the first successful performance leads to positive conditioning; the memory of the pleasure encourages repetition and then refinement of the behavior; whereas displeasure leads to fleeing or modifying situations that prevent the instinct from achieving its goal.

In short, the interplay of pleasure and displeasure is essential for fulfilling instinct, which is itself essential for survival. This functional harmony stems directly from the laws of evolution: a species with an instinct detrimental to its survival would be eliminated in favor of better-endowed competing species. A species experiencing displeasure during a useful behavior would also be disadvantaged and eliminated. It is therefore logical (Jacques Monod would say it is a necessity) that instinct and pleasure go hand in hand and cooperate for the good of the individual and the species.

Hence the following heuristic for recognizing the different instincts in humans: behind each type of pleasure lies a type of instinct.

This formula may seem surprising and cannot, a priori, serve as a rule. However, it can lead us to recognize instinctive tendencies behind many behaviors that we believe to be purely voluntary. We are indeed inclined to engage in actions that bring us pleasure, and our analysis of the “pleasure -> decision to act” pairing is generally that of an act of will, governed by our free will. We tell ourselves: “This gives me pleasure, so I decide to…” The heuristic described above can, on the contrary, draw our attention to the fact that the behaviors we consider voluntary are actually determined by an instinctive tendency, because they are motivated by the pleasure that is naturally associated with instinct.

Regarding eating behavior: biting into a delicious fruit may seem to us a deliberate act, motivated by the pleasure we choose to claim. From the perspective described above, it is, on the contrary, an instinctive act, which the pleasure experienced positively validates.

The instinct to eat and the pleasure of taste are thus simply two aspects of the same phenomenon. They drive us to eat what is beneficial to us. We are conscious of pleasure and unconscious of instinct. But they work together for our health.

Unfortunately, this law of nature no longer holds true once some kind of artificial means allows us to experience pleasure from a food that wouldn’t provide it in its natural state. In the culinary context, we are often driven by pleasure to eat things that are not good for us and can harm us in the short or long term. Disguised food fascinates our senses, and our instinct works against it.

Hence the general belief that humankind has lost its instinct for food in favor of an insatiable gluttony…