Hello There, Guest! Register


Login or Register to remove all advertising



1 user browsing this thread: (0 members, and 1 guest).

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theory versus biological facts
Author Message
jvkohl
Offline
Expert




Joined: Aug 2009
Sex: Male
Posts: 511



Post: #1
Theory versus biological facts
11-22-2011 1:29 PM

I like this approach (below) for modeling the development of behavior. It's obviously very technical, but the technical aspects must be addressed to get from theories to a model.
-------------------
In a model combining the measurement of data coming from many individual nerve cells with sophisticated optical, genetic and electrophysiological techniques, olfactory bulb neurons extract relevant information from multi-sensory input. (Blumhagen et al., in press) recently showed that neurons in the zebrafish cortex use a filter to tune in specifically on those parts of neuronal conversations that allow the precise identity of an odor.

Nerve cells in other brain areas apply other filters. It is now more certain the vertebrate brain uses sophisticated arrays of similar filters to ensure that all neurons receive appropriate messages. These sophisticated arrays of filters appear to play an important role in the perception and memory of odors and other stimuli. ~ adapted from Neuronal filters for broadband information transmission in the brain.

Perception and memory are functions of messaging among neurons in the brain's neural networks, which are linked to hormones and behavior. However, compared to messages delivered directly to the olfactory bulb, non-olfactory/pheromonal sensory stimuli from the environment of animal species does not appear to directly activate any hormone response associated with behavior. This absence of direct linkage indicates that the sophisticated arrays of filters suspected to be important to the perception and memory of other stimuli, are less important to behavior than is the filtering by the olfactory bulb.

If "mental modules" evolved to become more important to human behavior than is the direct link from odors to the olfactory bulb in the mammalian brain, a "mental module" associated with visual input might have evolved to become more important to human behavior than is the pathway from olfactory input to gene activation in cells of tissue in the organ of the organ system most important to human behavior (i.e., the brain). If not, the "mental modules" theory can only be another misleading misrepresentation of biological facts.

If, as it appears to be, the "mental modules" theory is simply another joke originating from cartoon Darwinists, evolutionary theorists who do not get the joke will continue to promote the "mental modules" theory as one that is important to the understanding of evolved human behaviors. Others who understand the difference between theory and biological facts linked to the evolution of human behavior can continue to laugh at the silly evolutionary theorists until all funding for their ridiculous theories is eliminated from grant consideration. Then we can cry with them, if we have evolved a "mental module" either for sympathy, or empathy, that is.

I have not yet read the manuscript, however, and it may indicate something not indicated in the news version, which might somehow support the evolutionary theory of "mental modules." This is, however, altogether unlikely, and I wanted to post this notice in case others are interested in following up on the latest information available from scientists.

James V. Kohl
Clinical Laboratory Scientist (ASCLS)
Medical Laboratory Scientist (ASCP)
Medical Technologist (AMT)
Author/Creator: The Scent of Eros
11-22-2011 1:29 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Login or register to remove all advertising

2Soon2Care
Offline
Serious Poster




Joined: May 2011
Sex: Male
Posts: 738

Reputation: 613
Rep Post


Post: #2
RE: Theory versus biological facts
11-22-2011 10:51 PM

Thanks James, sounds very interesting - Marvin Minsky's work on the Society of Mind theory didn't get very deep into the biology, and it is a dated but still relevant leap in theories of cognition and perception. Part of it remind me of your post, so there may be some similar paths of thought at work.

I'll spray anything apparently...
11-22-2011 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jvkohl
Offline
Expert




Joined: Aug 2009
Sex: Male
Posts: 511



Post: #3
RE: Theory versus biological facts
11-23-2011 5:24 AM

The problem for me with work that does not include substantial evidence from biology is that it's too easy to make unsubstantiated leaps. Theories of mind, from what little I know of them, typically fail to address unconscious affect, which I think is the underlying basis for most animal behaviors. Unconscious affects of pheromones on genes in cells of tissue in the brain that secrete the hormone that literally controls sexual differentiation and sexual behavior exemplify why Theory doesn't get us too far along towards explaining the development of human behavior, or how to change it.

Jaak Panksepp's recent review downplays the role of human cognition, placing it in perspective to what is known about the biology behind our development. Research is moving towards the understanding of molecular mechanisms that may leave the theorists in the cosmic dust. Biology is a seemingly safe haven from the dust storm of ?"information"? they generate.

I've heard Minsky mentioned, but have yet to look at his works due to the time constraints that limit us all. But thanks for mentioning him, as such mentions might one day hit the critical mass required for me to look beyond the end of my nose, which might be a good thing.

James V. Kohl
Clinical Laboratory Scientist (ASCLS)
Medical Laboratory Scientist (ASCP)
Medical Technologist (AMT)
Author/Creator: The Scent of Eros
11-23-2011 5:24 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wiserd
Offline
I'm so meta, even this acronym




Joined: Nov 2011
Sex: Male
Posts: 1,522

Reputation: 1516
Rep Post


Post: #4
RE: Theory versus biological facts
02-08-2012 9:37 PM

Jeff Hawkins book "On Intelligence" had a really nice, accessible theory regarding the cerebral cortex, which you may be interested in if you like Minsky. Given the topic, it's phenomenaly well written., at least for the first 8 or 9 chapters before it dives in to the seriously technical portions that I had trouble following. I don't know if Hawkins theory would be relevant to pheromones, though, since they probably work at a more primitive level.

[Image: Example.jpg]
02-08-2012 9:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Share This Thread
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Pheromones Versus Temperature Alpha Dream 1 1,447 01-22-2012 4:58 AM
Last Post: ohhmygod

Forum Jump:


Login or Register to remove all advertising

Current time: 08-15-2018, 5:56 AM
Contact Us Home Return to Content Lite (Archive) Mode RSS Syndication Forum Disclaimer