New Research Suggests that Diversity in Dogs Comes from the Wolf's DNA

Lee Charles Kelley

I rarely post anything that doesn't have a sound scientific basis.

poodleOwned

Actually LCK , on subjects that i know a hell of a lot about you often get the sense really wrong. So wrong in fact that i let it slide. It can be very difficult to start with what you say and get it back to something that is closer to the truth. I definitely don't think it is deliberate, i just guess that the theory base in my area is not there.

Yeah, I'm starting to see that. Particularly with this latest post. (I'm still not 100% clear on what your area is.)

Lee Charles Kelley

Are you discussing FAPS as a form of genetic memory? Because if not, to classify them as a form of memory doesn't make sense. At least not to me. 

poodleOwned

Actually read only memory and a state machine can give equivalent results. In our little world we go with what costs less and which does the job. They are quite different. A state machine responds to stimuli and uses a varity of prewired gates. Commonly we use AOI (AND OR INVERT) structures or the inverse. Memory is a subtly different structure and often needs energy. It can be wired so that it mimics a state machine. In this case a stimulus adressess a space in memory which contains the response.

See, I don't understand that at all. Are we talking about biological organisms? 

Okay, I just did a quick check on Wikipedia for what a state machine is, and I can see that this is an area that I know almost nothing about, and would absolutely love to learn more. This is utterly fascinating to me.

So when I was talking about FAPs I was talking about genetically-derived behaviors in dogs and wolves. And I don't think that's what you're talking about at all, unless there are theoretical or architectural correlations. I'm not sure I could understand much about your field without dozing off when the equations come along, but if you can point me toward an idiot's guide in this area, I'd love to read some more about it.

Lee Charles Kelley

in real time,

poodleOwned

The nearest we have to real time measurements would involve intrusive sampling via either blood samples or salivia samples. Then you are down the rocky road that behavourism visits.

Well, I don't know. From what I recall, in the Fiorello study, they didn't say anything about serum dopamine levels, but when and why certain dopamine neurons were firing. Gallistel sums it up this way:“Another perplexity is that the electrophysiological characteristics of dopamine neurons revealed by single-unit recording in monkeys responding for natural rewards do not seem consistent with the hypothesis that the dopamine neurons carry the rewarding signal in brain stimulation reward. In the monkey, dopamine neurons do not fire in response to an expected reward, only in response to an unexpected or uncertain on, and, most distressingly of all, to the omissions of an expected one (Fiorello et al, 2003).” Gallistel then goes on to mention experiments done where electrodes were planted directly on to dopamine neurons in the rat's brain, so that when the rats pressed a lever, dopamine neurons in their brains were immediately stimulated.

It sounds like in both cases they're talking about brain stimulation, which means it’s taking place in real time.

poodleOwned

Now i am not an expert in a lot of what else you say but sometimes i am a little open mouthed at what you do say. I remember the example of the dog and chicken. I thought it was common practice to do what you found exceptional, at least it is here.

Here being where? In Australia or on this board? And since the original incident happened in 1993, and since I've been discussing it on one board or another since then, it's not surprising to me, that in some quarters at least, it's not thought to be exceptional by someone, somewhere. But you're the first person I've ever come across who doesn't think this was a completely novel idea.

poodleOwned

Your Hypothesis  that oxytoxin is the reason for pack drive in Wolves seems self evident and quite old  to me. So it may not be your hypothesis. Again, it is a hell of a lot fo work to back reference this.

I researched the idea long after it first occurred to me, and have done so recently, but still haven't found any evidence that anyone else has been saying anything about oxytocin in wolves. That doesn't mean that someone else hasn't posed the idea, of course, but I've found no evidence of it.

And you're right; I may not have been the first person to propose the idea because it does seem self-evident.

I'm very happy to have had this chat! I feel like I'm on a whole new adventure with what you've given me!

Thanks,

LCK

Skinner is far from open-minded? I thought he was just following the scientific method, with no prejudices, such as any pet theory (if you'll pardon the pun) emotional motivations links to experimental physics. Did that require a disciplined mind? Surely, it did. But not closed. For one must be able to catalog the observations. And, though it may the fledging new theories, he was right. He didn't need to wait on neurobiology or biochemistry to catch up. Given the conditions, the experiments were valid and the theory still holds, today.

Lee Charles Kelley

(I'm still not 100% clear on what your area is.)

I am doubly qualified as an Electronics engineer, and have a Maths Stats degree. I can't translate this easily to US quals. Both degrees are four years with what we call honours here. Can some one translate to US terms?

 See, I don't understand that at all. Are we talking about biological organisms?

It is belived that both systems may exist in biological models. An example of a state machine is the various reflexes that we have that respond to stimuli. They may well be implemented in memory or other types of cells.

Lee Charles Kelley

So when I was talking about FAPs I was talking about genetically-derived behaviors in dogs and wolves. And I don't think that's what you're talking about at all, unless there are theoretical or architectural correlations. I'm not sure I could understand much about your field without dozing off when the equations come along, but if you can point me toward an idiot's guide in this area, I'd love to read some more about it.

 A good place to start is a book on basic digital electronics. Oh the maths is a thing of beauty. With intense discipline you get over it!

Lee Charles Kelley

Well, I don't know. From what I recall, in the Fiorello study, they didn't say anything about serum dopamine levels, but when and why certain dopamine neurons were firing.

This study contradicts several others that have been publishe before and since. I am Being lazyso  you could refer to  a paper on the internet.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/1 as a start which pretty much flatly contradicts the paper that you have stated. I don't know myself, i would normally go to someone that is very conversant in this field and get their opinion. The hardest thing in a strange field is to work out who is who and who is worth listening too. An example is that despite my dogs success i am dam sure that at one or two clubs around town my opinion would count for nothing and some fog horn of a trainer with bad attitude and poor results would hold sway. Human dynamics are just plian weird!!!

It has some lovely concise maths in it.  The hassle is that dopamine neuron firing detection is done by using probes embedded in the brain. I would love to see a trail alongside the main trial that established the effect on behaviour of these probes.

Lee Charles Kelley

And since the original incident happened in 1993, and since I've been discussing it on one board or another since then, it's not surprising to me, that in some quarters at least, it's not thought to be exceptional by someone, somewhere. But you're the first person I've ever come across who doesn't think this was a completely novel idea.

I was taught it by a dutch trainer in 1992 . In every other aspect he was a total Koehler head which i was at the time . Yeah we don't get born with brains and compassion.

Lee Charles Kelley

I researched the idea long after it first occurred to me, and have done so recently, but still haven't found any evidence that anyone else has been saying anything about oxytocin in wolves. That doesn't mean that someone else hasn't posed the idea, of course, but I've found no evidence of it.

When i find time, (soon) i will find some references.

poodleOwned

 I am doubly qualified as an Electronics engineer, and have a Maths Stats degree. I can't translate this easily to US quals. Both degrees are four years with what we call honours here. Can some one translate to US terms?

 A good place to start is a book on basic digital electronics. Oh the maths is a thing of beauty. With intense discipline you get over it!

This study contradicts several others that have been publishe before and since. I am Being lazyso  you could refer to  a paper on the internet.

http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/80/1/1 as a start which pretty much flatly contradicts the paper that you have stated. I don't know myself, i would normally go to someone that is very conversant in this field and get their opinion. The hardest thing in a strange field is to work out who is who and who is worth listening too. An example is that despite my dogs success i am dam sure that at one or two clubs around town my opinion would count for nothing and some fog horn of a trainer with bad attitude and poor results would hold sway. Human dynamics are just plian weird!!!

It has some lovely concise maths in it.  The hassle is that dopamine neuron firing detection is done by using probes embedded in the brain. I would love to see a trail alongside the main trial that established the effect on behaviour of these probes.

I'll give it a try. You had what we call a double major. With honors means stellar grade average. EE is approximately a bachelor's degree, here. Math stats, might be a BS in mathematics, here. But the effect of both degrees together might be what it takes to be an AI ("artificial" intelligence) engineer or scientist. Computer engineering on steroids.

You will probably have more frustration, too, in trying to discuss these concepts in mathematical and scientific terms with various people who lack either of those in their education or in the pursuit of their work. As for seeing the trails, that is what the fMRI was showing, in so many words, and that is what Dodson was concerned with, especially if it was paired with observed behavior.

We could eventually map the learning process, discover which chemical compounds are present in learning, both in negative and positive consequence, even what compounds are present in particular states of mind but I don't think we will know another creature's motives, except by observation. And that is why Skinner could do what he did, regardless of the state of neurology and biology thinking. What those branches can do is explain some of the nuts and bolts. But the overall effect is still behaviorism. Even in humans. And it is easy to forget that humans are animals, as well. Perhaps that is offensive to some, though it is not my intention. But, if it smells like an animal, sounds like an animal, eats and defecates like an animal, sleeps and dies like an animal, there's a good chance it's an animal.

And maybe I am just a dense, thick-headed animal (I wear a hardhat to protect the building from me) but I don't see the reason for disregarding Skinner's work in the pursuit of computational theory of animal cognition and/or brain function. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. The only reason I can think of to desire that is of there is a tendency or chance of behaviorism not supporting something in computational theory. And one must remember that computational theory is just that, a theory without evidence to support it, as opposed to behaviorism which is based on nothing but observed data. Computational theory requires faith, for lack of a better description, and behaviorism doesn't. Behaviorism is already established, in whatever limited degree one allows it. But computational theory, as presented by Gallistel and the words of a supporter, are "certain" that some bright and inventive scientists will come along and discover the evidence needed to support that theory. And that's why it is faith. A belief in things unseen, even if the face of evidence seemingly to the contrary. And, it seems to me, that some in the developement of computational theory are not really aware of how a computer works on a basic level, such as flip-flop circuitry, or even compiler functions, such as the early solid state breadboard computers that were programmed in hexadecimal.

Hi

I think that you make some of my arugements in a more compact way than i ever have any hope of doing.

ron2

And maybe I am just a dense, thick-headed animal (I wear a hardhat to protect the building from me) but I don't see the reason for disregarding Skinner's work in the pursuit of computational theory of animal cognition and/or brain function. I just don't see them as mutually exclusive. The only reason I can think of to desire that is of there is a tendency or chance of behaviorism not supporting something in computational theory. And one must remember that computational theory is just that, a theory without evidence to support it, as opposed to behaviorism which is based on nothing but observed data. Computational theory requires faith, for lack of a better description, and behaviorism doesn't. Behaviorism is already established, in whatever limited degree one allows it. But computational theory, as presented by Gallistel and the words of a supporter, are "certain" that some bright and inventive scientists will come along and discover the evidence needed to support that theory. And that's why it is faith. A belief in things unseen, even if the face of evidence seemingly to the contrary. And, it seems to me, that some in the developement of computational theory are not really aware of how a computer works on a basic level, such as flip-flop circuitry, or even compiler functions, such as the early solid state breadboard computers that were programmed in hexadecimal.

Computational theory is this broad sea of work, and it is to my dismay that i don't share this optimism at all.

I have made an observation that it MAY BE that in time evolutionalry selection pressures may apply and that the way we compute in machines may approach the way that mammals brains work.

Meanwhile we do have a proven body of work that mostly works . We should use it to our advantage.

 The more obvious irony of LCK's latest hunch that animal mind is better explained with neural computational theory is that once booted-up inside a dog's head, it appears to operate utterly irrationally, unable to perform logical reasoning.

Of course, Lee could counter argue with his thesis that, in fact, the neural network is never booted-up in dogs BECAUSE THEY ARE UNCONSCIOUS!

 I have real problems getting across some simple concepts. I am a fairly analytical person by nature. Give me a whiteboard and a marker any day of the week and an audience that can go into the Maths world.

Here is a simple arguement. When we talk about behaviours in a behavourist context, we are taking about the net result of neural networks, and neurochemical systems doing their thing. It is a kind of averaging, a higher level and understandable abstraction (as i have refered to it before) that serves our purposes and gets our results.  The data is pretty clear. As a statistician the underlying maths is complex, but we abstract it to a higher level so that life science and social science people can infer from the data that is presented to them. There are packages and tables that let you work out confidence levels all that kind of drama. Now imagine if you had to work out the math everytime you wanted to work out a 95% conficence level? You would never get done.

Well, Neural networks look simple, and are when they work  but are fiendishly difficult to make work for humans. They do things that we hoped that they would not do. The theory is poor. When something goes wrong i ring myself up to find out how to fix it   Topographically they look very simple. BUt funny things like chaos theory come into play. As for networks of Neural networks.... It is for this reason that their use has often been avoided for even mildly complex systems.

 While i am completely engrossed in the possibilities, it is outside the range today of pretty much any dog trainer.

Well how does the system boot? Sounds almost theological to me, and for that , i take my leave. :)

Well, at this point in time, AI has something that we don't have sure knowledge of. A direct creator specifically guiding certain principles.

As opposed to non-radial adaptation, which is how I believe most evolution occurs. A species does not evolve something in response to the environment. A lucky mutation survives and passes its genes along. And that bothers a lot of people. They need a narrative, a story of the world, which gives them peace and a place in it and an understanding of what's happening. Sheer, blind luck scares most people out of their minds. For example, that is why a number of people invent fantasies to construct a 9-11 plot on the part of our government because that's easier to understand than the real conspiracy, which was that 19 guys of middle eastern descent got in past our defenses and hit us hard. Sorry to digress a bit. But people need that narrative.

Creatures are the way they are because certain mutations helped the creature survive better than previous evolutionary steps. Mountain gorillas are actually more evolved than humans. They are totally suited to their environment. But that leaves them vulnerable. They don't manipulate their personal environment to the extent that man does and a climate change would decimate them. Man is an evolutionary cul-de-sac. We are weak, slow, and naked (lacking a thick fur pelt). But we have opposable thumbs, an active forebrain, we are omnivores, and we are the most vicious species on the planet. Because of our tool use, we can kill better and more than any other apex hunter. We even kill ourselves, with ever increasing efficiency, which could be our undoing. And why? Because a mutation of neanderthal or something similar to neanderthal survived changing conditions better than the more evolved neanderthal, who was more suited to his environment. Neanderthal was shorter, didn't walk nearly as upright, was stronger than we are and faster than we are.

And I have digressed but yes, PO, behaviorism is an abstraction of the component actions and influences but it still holds true in practice. Which was one of my points. It's not going to matter so how much how dopamine is dosed, The overall effect is still behaviorism. And Skinner was saying as much as that by saying that he could progress with his studies in advance of any discoveries in neurology and biology.

What you are alluding to is something in the pursuit of chaos theory. A friend of mine did his doctoral thesis in physics on the application of chaos theory to the 3-body problem by Poincare'. The 3 body problem states that if you know the initial conditions of separate bodies, you can predict the outcome of a collision. The problem is in knowing what the initial conditions are, which is where chaos theory comes in. As yet, no one can account for the various "chaos" influences in a human or a dog, for that matter. But, as surely as a computer, various chaotic inputs will get processed through the FAP and/or reasoning of a being and result in a response.

poodleOwned

 

Lee Charles Kelley

And since the original incident [praising a dog to extinguish a behavior like scavenging] happened in 1993, and since I've been discussing it on one board or another since then, it's not surprising to me, that in some quarters at least, it's not thought to be exceptional by someone, somewhere. But you're the first person I've ever come across who doesn't think this was a completely novel idea.

I was taught it by a dutch trainer in 1992. In every other aspect he was a total Koehler head which i was at the time . Yeah we don't get born with brains and compassion.

 

Lee Charles Kelley

I researched the idea long after it first occurred to me, and have done so recently, but still haven't found any evidence that anyone else has been saying anything about oxytocin in wolves. That doesn't mean that someone else hasn't posed the idea, of course, but I've found no evidence of it.

When I find time, (soon) I will find some references.

It's quite interesting to find out that someone else may have already been using the "anti-scavenging" technique I came up with! Learning about this only re-affirms its potential validity to me. (I was interested in Koehler for a while myself around 1991, but this doesn't really sound like a Koehler-style technique.)

Thanks for offering to check out any research on oxytocin and pack evolution. I would love to hear of anything on this subject. I don't have much interest in "owning" any of these ideas. (Not unless there are potential patents involved!) I see ideas as things floating around in the ether, waiting for someone, anyone, to notice them.

LCK