I know this discussion is off-topic for this thread, but human biology floats my boat. Also, the rumor is that the mod 'round here never puts people on temp-ban for derailing. :D
Steersman wrote:At least more or less as from a brief search in Wikipedia for “subconscious†and “instinctiveâ€, those terms seem to be rather nebulous to say the least, whereas I was looking for something a little more concrete in terms of physiological or neurochemical explanations.
Mmm, well, just because you would
like a term or explanation that's more concrete doesn't mean that (at this point) a more concrete term or explanation would be
accurate. ;)
Steersman wrote:And while I’m a long way from having much of a comprehensive handle on all, even any, of the processes involved, my impression is that
mirror neurons are an important part of an explanation of a broad range of phenomena...
A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primate and other species including birds. In humans, brain activity consistent with that of mirror neurons has been found in the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex. ...
Now whether those neurons are part of the central nervous system, the somatic nervous system (SNS), or the autonomic nervous system (ANS), ...
Hmm, now, where in the nervous system are the premotor cortex, the supplementary motor area, the primary somatosensory cortex and the inferior parietal cortex? :whistle:
Not that there couldn't be input from the peripheral nervous system; the enteric nervous system (a big part of the autonomic nervous system) is sometimes called "the second brain", and there are people (possibly reading too much into that term) who claim it has a big influence on our subconcious; I'm skeptical of those claims. I know of no evidence that people who have had a complete transsection of the spinal cord fairly high up, or people who have had most of their bowel removed, act or react any differently in interpersonal interactions than everybody else.
Steersman wrote:...
it seems apparent that they are part of a
feedback control system that
couples visual perceptions into at least the SNS if not the ANS as well. And while their detailed operation and consequences seem to be an open research topic, I think it is fair to characterize, at least to a first approximation, both humans and the societies they create as “coupled systemsâ€, a topic on which there is a great amount of science, engineering, and mathematics that provides, I think, useful guideposts and avenues to approach those phenomena.
Guideposts to explore, yes. Guideposts to explain, not so much (at this time).
Could you elaborate, how is visual perception coupled into "at least the SNS if not the ANS as well"? (Ignore the obvious like pupillary constriction & dilation, and saccades, unless that's what you meant - I think it's not.)
Steersman wrote:And one of the better illustrations of those coupled systems is provided by the following YouTube video which shows some 32 metronomes which start out unsynchronized, but which eventually become synchronized – as
some have argued happens with the menstrual cycles of
some women living in close quarters ...
Errr....the sci am blog post
you linked there argues that while some argue that, they're mistaken:
Writer for Sci Am online, an academic anthropologist whose area of interest is evolutionary medicine of women’s reproductive physiology, wrote:
But the study of human menstrual synchrony has suffered from three major problems: first, whether a mechanism exists that can produce menstrual synchrony, second, methodological issues with existing papers and third, statistical artifacts in how one analyzes synchrony.
That same Sci Am writer wrote:
Instead, frankly, I find the absolute lack of synchrony evidence in non-human primates as well as in well-controlled human studies pretty darn compelling.
Yep, that same Sci Am writer wrote:
What about all that great anecdata, like what I describe in my opening story? Strassmann is the one who actually states the issue most accessibly:
“Popular belief in menstrual synchrony stems from a misperception about how far apart menstrual onsets should be for two women whose onsets are independent. Given a cycle length of 28 days (not the rule – but an example), the maximum that two women can be out of phase is 14 days. On average, the onsets will be 7 days apart. Fully half the time they should be even closer (Wilson 1992, Strassmann 1997). Given that menstruation often lasts 5 days, it is not surprising that friends commonly experience overlapping menses, which is taken as personal confirmation of menstrual synchrony†(Strassmann 1999: 579).
Steersman wrote:– because of the coupling provided by the common platform on which they reside. And which I’ve argued provides a useful analogy to the behaviours of humans in groups, and their very problematic tendency to group-think and mob behaviour: can't fix the problem if we don’t understand the causes. ..
Big jump, IMO, from simple mechanical devices literally sharing a physical platform, to complex biochemical devices sharing a common design. Your mileage, though, apparently varies. Course, that's in a car that's still just a sketch on a drafting table... :)