Ethology...

[Morkonan]

I've always been interested in Comparative Psychology. Branching out from that a bit, I've developed a good bit of interest in Ethology. I've read several popular, and more esoteric, works on Ethology and have endeavored to learn more as I am able.

Are there any ethologists here or comp psychs, even zoologists interested in this field? Naturalists? I've been looking for some good source material and current studies and I'd like a few pointers from those currently practicing or familiar with recent developments. Neuroethology would be just as interesting as well, if not more so.

I realize it's a shot in the dark and the only response I might get will be <crickets>. But, I may as well give it a shot.

[Ummon]

Ethology is interesting but when it comes to these issues I prefer an approach based population biology, genetics, mathematical modeling and comparative anthropology.

Stong cognitivists love ethology because it provides them with simple, experimentally open constructs and subjects to investigate. But mathematical modeling has the advantage of allowing a direct access to the underlying regularities without getting lost in endless systems of simplifications which are always uncertain (human behaviour is not as simple as that of animals, the variables we identify not always real ones, etc.).

I am trying to organize what is latent behind my answer not to risk being unclear, or exceedingly lost in details, but I find it difficult. I suspect the ambition to turn psychology into a hard science of the positivist kind, one with clear-cut and operationally defined concepts and dealing with predictable situations, is the worst problem of the field, because of the many levels of the issues we deal with and also, the inadequate knowledge of the neurological substrate (which is though getting better).

I have always felt that qualitative predictions rest on a mathematical theory and they offer more potential regardless of our level of knowledge of details. They do, infact: complex systems often become less predictable when we improve our knowledge of their fine structure.

[Morkonan]

..Stong cognitivists love ethology because it provides them with simple, experimentally open constructs and subjects to investigate. But mathematical modeling has the advantage of allowing a direct access to the underlying regularities without getting lost in endless systems of simplifications which are always uncertain (human behaviour is not as simple as that of animals, the variables we identify not always real ones, etc.).

The one thing I'm always careful of is jumping on a bandwagon and attributing the entirety of human behavior as explainable by one segment of a discipline. IMO, as you say, ethology is interesting but it doesn't contain all the explanations of human behavior.

I am trying to organize what is latent behind my answer not to risk being unclear, or exceedingly lost in details, but I find it difficult.

Take your time. Use whatever terminology or subject matter you wish. If I do not understand a particular point, I'll look it up. If I don't understand the context, I'll ask questions.

I suspect the ambition to turn psychology into a hard science of the positivist kind, one with clear-cut and operationally defined concepts and dealing with predictable situations, is the worst problem of the field, because of the many levels of the issues we deal with and also, the inadequate knowledge of the neurological substrate (which is though getting better).

I agree, to a point. Advances in imaging techniques and understanding of the structure of the brain do help immensely. But, that science is still in its infancy. For that matter, so are the various cognitive approaches towards understanding human behavior. We have a long way to go.

I have always felt that qualitative predictions rest on a mathematical theory and they offer more potential regardless of our level of knowledge of details. They do, infact: complex systems often become less predictable when we improve our knowledge of their fine structure.

I can understand the application of game theory, in small doses , to a certain extent. But, what I find interesting is the initial development and evolution of behaviors. In particular, social behaviors. We can certainly see how such behaviors could have positive influences and be selected for simply due to the structure of a social group. To me, that is what is the most interesting of all factors: The possible evolutionary influences of the social group on human behavior and possible parallels in the behavior of social animals. It is, in my mind, a bit more than simply a matter of degrees of separation. There are many intellectual tools animals do not seem to possess. But, it does appear that there are certain cognitive abilities amongst animals that are similar to human abilities but are simply not used in the same way. An animal may appear to make complex judgment decisions regarding its own social status and its relation to others within a group yet, that animal may not exhibit an understanding of a sense of self in other behavioral situations. Is it simply our interpretation of an observed behavior or is it really the animal's application of that behavior which is different than ours?

How do complex systems become less predictable when we improve our knowledge of their fine structure? I seem to recall having heard this before but, could you explain that a bit further?

[Ummon]

The one thing I'm always careful of is jumping on a bandwagon and attributing the entirety of human behavior as explainable by one segment of a discipline. IMO, as you say, ethology is interesting but it doesn't contain all the explanations of human behavior.

On the other hand, it lends itself to mathematical description: see for example search patterns.

Take your time. Use whatever terminology or subject matter you wish. If I do not understand a particular point, I'll look it up. If I don't understand the context, I'll ask questions.

I agree, to a point. Advances in imaging techniques and understanding of the structure of the brain do help immensely. But, that science is still in its infancy. For that matter, so are the various cognitive approaches towards understanding human behavior. We have a long way to go.

I beg to differ, imaging merely informs us as to which neurons are firing or brain areas are perfused. This means very little. Though I might suggest to start:

Linked

And then:

Toward a Unified Theory of Developement

I can understand the application of game theory, in small doses , to a certain extent. But, what I find interesting is the initial development and evolution of behaviors. In particular, social behaviors. We can certainly see how such behaviors could have positive influences and be selected for simply due to the structure of a social group. To me, that is what is the most interesting of all factors: The possible evolutionary influences of the social group on human behavior and possible parallels in the behavior of social animals. It is, in my mind, a bit more than simply a matter of degrees of separation. There are many intellectual tools animals do not seem to possess. But, it does appear that there are certain cognitive abilities amongst animals that are similar to human abilities but are simply not used in the same way. An animal may appear to make complex judgment decisions regarding its own social status and its relation to others within a group yet, that animal may not exhibit an understanding of a sense of self in other behavioral situations. Is it simply our interpretation of an observed behavior or is it really the animal's application of that behavior which is different than ours?

Evidence suggests that this is the issue with first and second level consciousness, and it is structural, not apparent, as you know.

Game theory is hugely surpassed (when used alone, that is).

How do complex systems become less predictable when we improve our knowledge of their fine structure? I seem to recall having heard this before but, could you explain that a bit further?

Because of the nature of such predictions: they are based on models which simplify the system to its essential variables. This causes efficacious anticipations inside a window of time, but then the results diverge.

If we improve the number of variables, accounting for less-than-important factors, they will add noise, and although there are tools which are efficacious in taking them into consideration, the added disorder will reduce the window of predictability because of deterministic chaos.

And chaos is present in those systems, ubiquitously, contrary to what many try to assert.

I hope I answered in a sufficiently understandable way!

[Morkonan]

Thanks for the book recommendation!

I'm going to order these. Can you suggest any particular book you believe it pivotal in understanding the subject from your particular point of view?

I have to leave to take care of something but I will respond in greater detail later. Thanks for the response!

[Morkonan]

On the other hand, it lends itself to mathematical description: see for example search patterns.

By "search patterns" do you mean a correlation to foraging patterns, for instance? If so, does it imply a particular pattern is incidentally a result of evolutionarily reinforced behavior? (I would assume that would be along the lines of your proposal.)

I beg to differ, imaging merely informs us as to which neurons are firing or brain areas are perfused. This means very little. Though I might suggest to start:

Yes, it only reflects the electrochemical process associated with the behavior. But, could not comparisons be made, where applicable, between different brain structures amongst species? That would seem only logical and this comparison has been made, or inferred, several times. If we believe, for instance, that a mammalian brain shares characteristics between species, wouldn't comparisons in this area be valid at possibly further describing behaviors? Would apparent evolutionary differences in such structures also contribute to an understanding of species behaviors and, possibly, cognitive differences as well? I suppose, in simplest terms, is there a non-physical component to consciousness? (I don't mean some fantastic or mythological component. I mean "phenomenal.")

..I hope I answered in a sufficiently understandable way!

Yes, you did. That refreshed my memory. There seems to be an extension of the battle between Behavioral versus Cognitive views of behavior in regards to animal and human behavior that some are reluctant to give up. For myself, I refuse to ally with any particular side in the argument. I think we must apply what principles seem to produce a modicum of success and predictive value. But, as you suggest, that predictive value could be illusory. As it is, I have begun with an interest in the evolutionary influences on animal behavior, similar to Phier's suggestion of ESS except with a focus on how that behavior or, in my opinion, that "system" of interactions possibly influences the development of higher order intelligence. I suppose my interests there could be simply summed up as the development of evolutionary stable systems but, it doesn't fully explain certain cognitive differences. For that, at least for me, I have to go further.

[Morkonan]

A topic which drifts substantially from the one in the OP but, nevertheless, broaches on the subject of consciousness. My apologies if this appears too far off topic:

I used to be of the opinion that quantum interactions were not substantial enough to contribute to physiological processes. However, I believe that I was wrong in that assumption. Evidence shows that physiological responses occur due to quantum interactions. In some animals, a single photon is enough to illicit a physiological response. (However, that response may not be enough to reach a threshold level where a signal and, thus, cognition is involved.) My prior, Schrodinger'esque view held that the unpredictable nature of the quantum could not be of significant influence and that, using the electrochemical view, only the aggregate nature of quantum effects could be influential.

I remember seeing a reference to this in one of your posts though, I did not comment on it at the time. (I DO pay specific attention to certain forum member's posts, yours being included in that list of what I consider to be notables here worth reading.

Delving away from the main topic at hand here, what would you say forms a basis to support a view of quantum effects having a significant role to play in consciousness? Are there references available for review concerning that?(Or, do you believe that they are not material or such consideration at this point rests entirely within the realm of unsupported assumption?)

[Ummon]

By "search patterns" do you mean a correlation to foraging patterns, for instance? If so, does it imply a particular pattern is incidentally a result of evolutionarily reinforced behavior? (I would assume that would be along the lines of your proposal.)

Yes, of course.

Complex, Archetype, Symbol, in the Psychology of C.G. Jung

Revisiting Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses, bumblebees and deer

Yes, it only reflects the electrochemical process associated with the behavior. But, could not comparisons be made, where applicable, between different brain structures amongst species?

In part, I think.

That would seem only logical and this comparison has been made, or inferred, several times. If we believe, for instance, that a mammalian brain shares characteristics between species, wouldn't comparisons in this area be valid at possibly further describing behaviors? Would apparent evolutionary differences in such structures also contribute to an understanding of species behaviors and, possibly, cognitive differences as well? I suppose, in simplest terms, is there a non-physical component to consciousness? (I don't mean some fantastic or mythological component. I mean "phenomenal.")

Well, there may as well be a quantum component to consciousness.

From Neurons to Notions

Sir Roger Penrose: The Collected Works

Yes, you did. That refreshed my memory. There seems to be an extension of the battle between Behavioral versus Cognitive views of behavior in regards to animal and human behavior that some are reluctant to give up. For myself, I refuse to ally with any particular side in the argument. I think we must apply what principles seem to produce a modicum of success and predictive value. But, as you suggest, that predictive value could be illusory. As it is, I have begun with an interest in the evolutionary influences on animal behavior, similar to Phier's suggestion of ESS except with a focus on how that behavior or, in my opinion, that "system" of interactions possibly influences the development of higher order intelligence. I suppose my interests there could be simply summed up as the development of evolutionary stable systems but, it doesn't fully explain certain cognitive differences. For that, at least for me, I have to go further.

Well, I am all for psychoanalysis, infact. They said everything for first.

Delving away from the main topic at hand here, what would you say forms a basis to support a view of quantum effects having a significant role to play in consciousness? Are there references available for review concerning that?(Or, do you believe that they are not material or such consideration at this point rests entirely within the realm of unsupported assumption?)

It is impossible that quantum phenomena do not influence the macroscopic functioning of the brain. But I have to refrain from further references. Someday I have to publish my ideas.

[Phier]

I've got a completely useless Ethology degree around here someone..... ah there it is.

I've really focused more on ESS as an explanation for most animal (and human) behavior.

ESS = evolutionary stable strategy.

[Morkonan]

I've got a completely useless Ethology degree around here someone..... ah there it is.

I've really focused more on ESS as an explanation for most animal (and human) behavior.

ESS = evolutionary stable strategy.

I understand and agree, to an extent, with ESS. But, I don't necessarily agree that it is as simple as that. There are times when ESS seems to say "It is what it is because that is the way it is." That isn't completely satisfactory for me. I suppose I am guilty of desiring to know the actual cognitive roots of certain animal behaviors, if any. I would like to crawl inside their heads and look around, so to speak. Are our own behaviors nothing more than ESS or have we developed such complex social systems that certain memes have taken on an evolutionary life of their own?

For me, delving into ethology is simply another tool I can use to try to understand "behavior" in general. That behavior doesn't have to have correlates with human behavior either. I think it's just as important to understand the differences as it is the similarities. At what point does Evolution move from the natural world to the more muddled cognitive world? Or, does it?

A couple of general points:

There are a lot of kooks out there that look at animal behavior and declare "That's just like my Aunt Emma! Therefore, animal behavior is just like human behavior!" Well, I'm not one of those.

There are many degrees of separation between animal cognition and human. At least, in my opinion. My interest isn't necessarily using animal behavior to explain possible evolutionary origins for human behavior so much as it is attempting to understand animal behavior in its own right. Yes, I think there are some applications there between the two that could be valid but, they are very loosely defined.

I am enthralled by "systems." Any general process that has a number of contributing components which yield a result is something I genuinely find intriguing. If it is not well understood then, so much the better. To me, "behaviors" fit well within that category and animal behavior (and perhaps, cognition) is, at least, something that can be studied. It's a bit more difficult to do, ethically, with human beings.

[Ummon]

The second one of those is pretty exhaustive and state-of-the-art (while the former is divulgational as you see).

To add more I would need to enter the details of what is basically, the original study of a decade. Unpractical and in a way, unadviseable.