[jerf]

Even in humans, which are relatively short on instincts as animals go, you can see cases where the "instinct" and the "behavior" are not the same thing. Humans have a suckling instinct, which allows us to drink at birth. But it's not an instinct that says "ok, here's how human reproduction works, and here's how milk is produced, and you need to drink from things that look like this and then when you do these things, your hunger will be slaked"; it's an instinct that says when you are tickled here in this manner, turn a bit and start some muscle contractions which result in sucking. They don't cry to say "hey, I need to suckle"... they cry because they feel bad. They don't know "understand" the bad feelings or know how to make them go away. But a combination of a few basic instincts and the environment combine over time to teach them how to eat for the first time.

Many other animals have much more complicated instincts, but even then you can often see the instinct starts as something very simple. A fawn "knows how to walk" at birth, but, look at video of a fawn at birth. I say it's a lot more like "a fawn knows to recognize it is falling and trigger an only-modestly complicated reaction to stab the closest leg out in that direction", a neural circuit so simple with a bit of effort you could almost assemble it by hand in some sense. A little bit of control circuitry on top gives it a small amount of mobility.

I think one of the reasons "nervous systems" are so evolutionarily successful is that they do give that mechanism to go from simple instinct to a much richer learned behavior, and it's obviously a combination of many things to get to that point. It's amazing how some of these things work on not necessarily all that many "instincts".