-none and the VNO

[CptKipling]

http:/

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14674834 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14674834)


Study

about the relevance of the VNO in androstenone detection.

Discuss... ;)

[belgareth]

It brings up a lot of

questions.

There have been studies in the past demonstrating activation of the VNO when exposed to none. Does

that indicate the VNO/VND is only one of several potential pathways for detection of none?

Since none is

detected through senses other than the VNO/VND, how does the specific pathway effect the sexual excitation response

within the brain? Is there a difference? If so, what is it?

[CptKipling]

I only remember seeing evidence

for A1 dectection by the VNO, but I cold be wrong.

Perhaps the next obvious question is one addressing the

possibility of pheromonal pathways from the regular olfactory system.

My guess would be possibly, but another

possibility is some sort of conditioning.

[CptKipling]

Also, does -none have the same

effects on people who can't smell -none?

[bjf]

Also, does -none

have the same effects on people who can't smell -none?


Bruce has said it does. I haven't seen

any studies indicating VNO activities with none either.

My understand was that it is all olfactory, which

makes it kind of ironic that you don't have to smell it to be affected.

[DrSmellThis]

Nice post! Interesting.



The problem with such studies is that they are designed by people with no experience in perfuming, aromatherapy,

or wearing pheromones.

So they choose to expose subjects, for example, to ether alcohols and extreme, bizarre

smells like that instead of smells with real world relevance, just because detection threshholds are easy to measure

or some such reason.

Then they make conclusions about olfaction in general. Duh.

So such studies

lack the subtlety both to address questions precisely and also to detect phenomena of interest.



So, for example, the study's measurement methods are probably blind to various interactions between

pheromone activity and smell perception, and to the most important ones, if so.

But it does suggest again that

-none doesn't trigger the VNO, and therefore works through standard olfaction. We knew that from Erox.

But the

sensitivity/-none perception interaction testing was flawed for the reasons I mentioned.

[BDC_Concepts]

There needs to be a

distinguishing line between olfactory in terms of SMELLING something and being affected by it via the VNO. That is,

just because you can't smell it, doesn't mean its not having effect on the VNO. The study cited at a quick glance

demostrates that a small yet statistically correlation existed between those with better olfactory function and

detection of none. "Results suggest that the human VND does not play a major role in sensitivity toward odorants or

the perception of androstenone". Thats fine, no one ever said you would consciously smell it....

[CptKipling]

good point, the study doesn't

address whether or not the effects of -none are still occuring with a covered VNO. After all, we can smell A1 and

that also has an effect on the VNO, so why can't -none?

[jvkohl]

Findings from several different

mammalian species show that the VNO is not required for a response. Findings from many different mammalian species

show that the typical mammalian response to pheromones of the opposite sex is an increase in luteinizing hormone

(LH), which alters the LH/follicle stimulating hormone(FSH) ratio, which alters sex steroid hormone production,

which alters behavior. Since there are now human studies that show either an LH response or testosterone response to

pheromones from the opposite sex, the case for the functionality of the human VNO is becomming a mute point. Of

interest to some may be that homosexual rams do not show the typical LH response to estrus ewes. You'll be reading

more about this someday soon.

James V. Kohl

[BDC_Concepts]

What I would like to see is

the extent to which LH, FSH, and hence testosterone response is affected from exposure to opposite sex pheromones.

There is a wide array of applications for something that can be stimulatory enough to cause significant and

consistant results.:D

[bjf]

Some guys have expirimented with cops

when working out, but it doesn't seem like anyone ever stuck with it. Cops raise t-levels, btw

[DrSmellThis]

I want to address briefly three issues which were raised above: using copulins in

men's products, the VNO's role in olfaction; and classifying types of olfaction. None of these issues are new,

though they are often reintroduced on the forum in one form or the other; and so it would be nice to get everybody

on the same page a little bit, for that reason. I probably should have broke this into three posts, but "oh, well"

(guess I won't be getting as many "points";)). :)

* Copulins have other effects besides raising testosterone

for the user, so it's not a "clean" thing, and not simple to apply. I thought long and hard before adding a trace

amount of Jutte-like copulins to my L-S product, Pheros, which is a man's scent ("Not enough to suggest

femininity" was a goal there, and I looked at all available anecdotal reports in the forum before determining

amounts, which I'd be happy to share.). I think it makes the scent good for orgies, as Koolking and Sue use it, and

also supports virility to some small extent, as has also been reported anecdotally on the forum. That is not to say

there might not be a tradeoff of some kind. Available data suggests it's not always a good idea to add cops

indiscriminately to a men's product. We really explored the issues thoroughly on the forum back in those days

following the release of EW.

* Obviously, we've known for a while that the VNO is not required for

phero-responsiveness. That is not to say the VNO is boring, or a "mute' issue. The process may be very different

for the VNO path (e.g., well-defined patterns of brain activity) versus standard olfaction (e.g., LH/steroidal

changes have been identified here), which is more indirect and serpentine by comparison. The role of the VNO is

crucial to learn for constructing bigger pictures, such as the one I sketched in my A1 "analysis" post a couple days

ago. Phero-responsiveness is only partly a matter of LH and testosterone changes, for example. A1 lights up the

social cognition and attention areas of the brain when female subjects are in the presence of males. That is a much

bigger picture than the hormonal change picture; and more fundamental. The VNO works through direct perception by

brain cells, bypassing all that other stuff, as far as we know presently. It is time to enlarge our thinking and

integrate some things.

*For our purposes, I think about olfaction like this:

Types of Olfaction Relevant

to the Study of Pheromones

A. Conscious olfaction

1. Pheromonal conscious

a) VN pheromonal

olfaction
b) Non VN pheromonal

2. Non-pheromonal conscious

B. Unconscious olfaction (I'm not

implying that there's a clean break here between conscious and unconscious in the real world, BTW.)

1.

Unconscious pheromonal olfaction

a) VN pheromonal olfaction
b) Non VN pheromonal

2. Unconscious,

non-pheromonal

This means it makes sense to identify at least 6 kinds of olfaction for our

purposes, as just listed. These are the main types that have been discussed already in the forum, after all.

Given this, it should be easy to understand why there has been so much miscommunication about "olfaction", even

among serious researchers. As a partial solution, I am proposing that we all use the classification I just provided,

to make sure we are clear with each other, and avoid useless semantic debate. There are of course, other variables

we could use, such as aesthetic versus biologically functional olfaction, (-- which would here also

involve a very, very fuzzy line in the real world; but I think it can be a useful logical distinction, at

least.).
:type:

[nonscents]

Nice categorization, doc.



It was my understanding that A. 1. a) is the null set. I will state, not as proof of the previous sentence, but

merely as comment, that we currently have no language to describe A. 1. a). Your categorization begins the process

of creating such a language.

If A. 1. a) is truly a null set but added for the sake of completeness, we should

lay all our assumptions on the table and create
A. 2. a) VN nonpheromonal olfaction

and

A. 2. b) Non VN

nonpheromonal olfaction

Why prejudge the function of the VN? It may sense chemicals other than pheromones. Or, if

we choose to define the VN as the pheromone-sensing organ, then we may choose to broaden considerably our definition

of what pheromones are.

Given my claims above, we would also add B. 2. a) and B. 2. b) to allow for the

possibility of unconscious detection by the VN of nonpheromonal signals.

Examples:

A1a: null set

(hypothesis)
A1b: 'none smells like cat piss
A2a: null set (hypothesis)
A2b: the smell of baking bread
B1a:

paradigmatic VN detection
B1b: unconscious smell of cat piss in 'none(someone who's been around it for hours and

is no longer is consciously aware of it)
B2a: nonparadigmatic possibility of VN detecting nonpheromones
B2b:

unconscious smell of baking bread (someone who's been around it for hours and no longer is consciously aware of

it)

[DrSmellThis]

Nice post, nonscents! I agree

with your logic. The VNO might well be involved in biologically functional olfaction other than that of one

animal communicating to another (e.g., environmental smells indicating dangers or the presence of water). The

examples you gave are good ones. I guess I should have put the biologically functional/purely aesthetic category in

there, too (at least under conscious, though I guess it's theoretically possible for a smell to be detected

unconsciously just for the purpose of, say, making interesting dreams;)); since you've already brought up test

cases. Who says being obsessive/compulsive isn't good for anything? ;)

[DrSmellThis]

Is the VNO the "Rod of Olfaction?"
Exaltation, "Preconscious"

Olfaction, Visual Perception, and the Human VNO

Since at least one person,

nonscents, is interested in my classification scheme, :D I'm encouraged to continue the theoretical discussion,

making the picture even more complicated, in light of nonscents' comments. But hopefully the big picture

will get a bit simpler and clearer! Uh oh, here comes another long DoctorofScenTology post! Just look at it as a

free Psychology of Scent lecture, where you won't even get thrown out of the hall for drinking! :drunk: :run: :run:

:run:

Hey, wait, this is cool! Oh well, at least the hard core alcoholic nerds are still here! Cheers! :cheers:



Before anyone assumes things -- no, the "rod of olfaction" has nothing to do with Cyrano de Bergerac or

Pinocchio! But please do read on, nose drama fans! :) The title suggests that a motley crew of concepts are about to

be pulled together under a larger picture of olfaction; and so they will be.

Regarding nonscents' null set

thing, have you ever had the sense, when "smelling pheromones", that you "smell something but you don't"? I have it

often. I bet many of you have had this happen, too. Often, when smelling pheromones, I know I "smell"

something, but it seems indescribable, or "ghost-like".

It does seem to "piggyback" onto other smells I

can "consciously" detect. In other words, it noticeably changes something about the smells I am perceiving.

In perfuming this is called "exaltation," :box: With exaltation, a smell "glorifies" another smell without being

itself smellable. A smell that exalts another is a "selfless team player", making the smells it is combined with

more beautiful, without calling attention to itself. This is, not suprisingly, a primary attribute of musks, and is

doubtless also a primary attribute of human pheromones, which are components of human musk.

Why do you

think folks get increased compliments on their colognes when wearing pheromones? The reason is exaltation.

If

you focus on the pheromone smell itself, it seems like it's "not really there". But in another sense, it

is there, but just very hard to describe, and ghostlike (like a sight having an outline or shadow but

otherwise lacking qualities one can talk about).

The airborne pherochemical comes to "mean" something to

us -- that it, it is perceived -- and even moreso in conjunction with standard, conscious smells we are fully

aware of; as a smell modifier or "exaltant". But the pherochemical does not seem to be "consciously" smelled in the

way we customarily think of it, unless in it is presented in unnaturally high concentrations. But if pheromones seem

not to be "consciously" smellable, this might be the concept's "fault" more than the smell's.



Something like the process behind "ghost smells" might be a way in which we can smell airborne chemicals

consciously with the VNO.

Yes, you heard me right! I said smelling consciously with the

VNO! It's heresy!

But first, can we really get away with calling the smelling that happens in

the case of exaltation "conscious olfaction"? Maybe we can! :) On the other hand, maybe we should call it

"preconscious" olfaction instead -- to borrow a term from psychoanalysis -- to distinguish it from both

"unconscious" and "conscious" olfaction. For psychoanalysts, "preconscious" means potentially conscious:

presently accessible by consciousness; but not presently grasped by our conscious minds. One way of

thinking about this is to say that whatever we choose to focus on becomes fully conscious, compared to

other things in our field of perception that we are not presently focusing on, which are preconscious. If we have to

have a term for it, this might be the best one.

Honestly, though, it would probably be more precise to just

enlarge our notion of what it means to have "conscious smells:" to include things that are more off in the

background and not so rich for us, and fill in the "null set" talked about by nonscents!

Since we don't have

too many words for olfaction, as nonscents noted, we can borrow some concepts from the study of vision, which has

given us words out the wazoo! (wish I had a smiley for this one!! :D)

In particular, the nature of "cone" and

"rod" vision might throw some "light" on our situation. :p Those of you who studied the eye in physiology will know

what I am talking about, but I'll summarize the eye information for those of you who haven't seen it.

Smelling

pheromones is partly similar to seeing a faint star in the sky better when not looking directly at it.

Most of us have had this experience. If not, try it! It's easy to notice! If you kinda look out of the side of your

eyes on a clear night, you'll see more stars! In vision, this phenomenon results from the difference between "cone"

and "rod" vision, relative to the structure of the eye. Cones detect color well, and shades of light/dark poorly,

while rods detect light and dark very well, but are color blind.

The human eye is structured so as to have many

cones, but few rods at the part of the eye in the middle of the back; which is struck by light when we

consciously focus on something we see. Things in the middle of our field of vision are literally more colorful,

then, due to cones! Slightly further out is a subtle halo of less colorful brightness, due to the greater number of

rods away from the middle of the back of our eye. Pay close attention to what all you can see right now, and

you'll get it. Painters from the school of realism, take note!

So cone vision is more directly connected to

focal consciousness (the part corresponding to the "figure" as opposed to the "ground", as

Gestalt psychologists say) than rod vision. Rod vision is better at night, contributing to survival capabilities or

biological functioning; but is unable to detect richer, more aesthetic aspects of sights, i.e., color.

Still, rods help keep us safe from background threats to our survival.

Um, my point being?! :rolleyes:



I am suggesting here that perhaps standard olfactory detectors might similarly be more connected with focal

(figural) olfaction, whereas the VNO is more connected with the background for other smells we focus on; and

less connected with focal olfaction.

The VNO may well be the "rod of olfaction"! :cool:



"Biologist types" invariably assume that the VNO works entirely beneath consciousness. Why? Is it because they

assume animals behave entirely according to instinct? It's not clear that even this taken-for-granted assumption is

necessary. Indeed, maybe it's premature to conclude that the VNO is not an instrument of conscious

perception! After all, rods can be used in conscious vision, but just don't yield as rich of information. Do

you see the distinction I am trying to make, between something that is unconscious, and something that is

preconscious; or conscious, but in the background with pared down qualities? :blink:

The similarity between

rods and VNO receptors seems uncanny. Though my theory about their similar functioning has not been confirmed by

research, we've not had a chance to know all this until now, due to the exclusive focus on non-human biology

when it comes to VNOs! Biologist types have been doing all the talking! But rats, pigs, and fruit flies aren't so

kind as to share their experiences directly with us. People can! :D So it is time for regular people, and

psychologists, to speak up. IMO, that is what makes this forum better than typical scientific conferences and

research papers on pheromones in so many respects. :rasp:

Just as there are two different kinds of cells that

detect light, for color and light; there appear to be at least two different kinds of cells that detect airborne

chemicals.

As with the case of biologically functional rod vision, the VNO contributes to survival by

helping us "smell" things we normally couldn't, for the the sake of biological fitness. But the "smells" in

question are barren of describable aesthetic qualities that conscious smells normally possess.

Why?

Quite a few molecules are required for the smell areas of the brain to flesh out a smell's multifarious qualities.

But the VNO specializes in faint signals, where just a few molecules of an airborne chemical are enough to trigger

the biologically desired reaction. This is like having good night vision to a nose. VN olfaction doesn't seem to

process jumbles of complex information nearly as well as standard olfaction, however. The VN system seems more

easily overwhelmed.

In vision the multifarious qualities that make something we see appear rich are called

"colors", of course. In olfaction we have no word for it -- which should tell us how out of touch we humans have

become with our noses! :sick:
Perhaps because we aren't as intimate with our senses of smell these days as we

could be, we typically don't recognize all our smell experiences as smells at all!

That doesn't mean we

couldn't learn to recognize them, as the CptKipling's article suggests. But I am talking about conscious

recognition through the VNO, not through "standard" olfaction, like I said. The problem with this idea,

theoretically speaking, is that I've had the "ghost smell experience" with -none, -rone, and -nol; as well as the

known VNO activator, A1. But the former three -mones are not thought to activate the VNO. Hmmmmm...

Maybe this

suggests that there might even be a third type of smell receptor, or at least that we don't yet understand standard

and VNO olfaction too well. Or both. :) Or, more parsimoniously: Maybe these other pherochemicals are

converting to something on our skin that is detected by the VNO!? We already know -none can be converted to

A1, and that -nol can go back to -dienol. Perhaps that's part of the answer.

But for now, this phenomenon must

remain a mystery of smell, "in some sense" (pun intended).:think: But never say "alas" if you have a lass. :p



:type:

[bjf]

Is

the VNO the "Rod of Olfaction?"
Preconscious Olfaction, Exaltation, Visual Perception, and

the VNO

As at least one person is interested in my classification scheme, :D I'm encouraged to

continue the theoretical discussion, making the picture even more complicated, in light of nonscents' comments. But

hopefully the big picture will get a bit simpler and clearer! Uh oh, here comes another long

DoctorofScenTology post! Just look at it as a free Psychology of Scent lecture, where you won't even get thrown out

of the hall for drinking! :drunk: Hey, wait, this is cool! :run: :run: :run:

Oh well, at least the hard

core nerds are still here! Cheers! :cheers:

Regarding nonscents' null set thing, have you ever had the

sense, when "smelling pheromones", that you "smell something but you don't"? I have it often. I bet some of you

have, too. Often, when smelling pheromones, I know I "smell" something, but it is indescribable or

"ghost-like".

It does seem to "piggyback" onto other smells I can "consciously" detect. In other

words, it noticeably changes something about the smells you do perceive. In perfuming this is called "exaltation,"

:box: In exaltation, a smell "glorifies" another smell without being itself smellable. A smell that exalts another

is a selfless team player, making the smells it is combined with more beautiful. This is, not suprisingly, a primary

attribute of musks, and should also be an attribute of human pheromones!

But if you focus on the pheromone

smell, it's "not really there". In another sense, it is there, but just hard to describe and

ghostlike (like a sight having an outline but otherwise lacking qualities).

Well, something like this might

be a way in which we can perceive airborne chemicals consciously with the VNO. Yes, you heard me right!

Smelling consciously with the VNO! It's heresy!

The airborne pherochemical "means" something to us

-- that it, it is perceived -- even moreso in conjunction with standard, conscious smells we are fully aware

of; as a smell modifier or "exaltant", but does not essentially seem to be "consciously" smelled in the way we

customarily think of it, unless in unnaturally high concentrations.

This might be "the word's fault" more

than "the smell's."

We can almost call the smelling of exaltation "conscious olfaction".

Maybe we

can. Or maybe we should call it "preconscious", to borrow a term from psychoanalysis, to distinguish it from both

"unconscious" and "conscious." If we have to have a term for it, that might be the best one. For psychoanalysts,

"preconscious" means potentially conscious: presently accessible by consciousness; but not

presently grasped by our conscious minds. One way of thinking about this is to say that whatever we choose to

focus on becomes fully conscious, compared to other things in our field of perception that we are not

presently focusing on, which are preconscious.

Honestly, though, it would probably be technically best,

eventually, to just enlarge our notion of what it means to have "conscious smells" to include things that are more

off in the background and not so rich for us, and fill in the "null set" talked about by nonscents! But for now,

enough of us remain out of touch with our worlds and ourselves in this way to call it something "lesser" than

conscious. ;)

Since we don't have too many words for olfaction, as nonscents noted, let's borrow some

concepts from the study of vision, which has given us words out the wazoo! (wish I had a smiley for this one!! :D)



The "cone/rod parallel" from the science of visual sensation and perception might throw some "light" on the

situation. :p Those of you who studied the eye in physiology will know what I am talking about.

Smelling

pheromones is partly similar to seeing a faint star in the sky better when not looking directly at it.

Most of us have had this experience. If not, try it! It's easy to notice! If you kinda look out of the side of your

eyes on a clear night, you'll see more stars!

In vision, this phenomenon results from the difference

between "cone" and "rod" vision, relative to the structure of the eye. Cones detect color well, and shades of

light/dark poorly, while rods detect light and dark very well, but are color blind.

The human eye is

structured so as to have many cones but few rods at the part of the eye in the middle of the back

which is struck by light when we consciously focus on something we see. Things in the middle of our field of vision

are literally more colorful, due to cones, then! Slightly further out is a subtle halo of less colorful brightness,

due to the greater number of rods away from the middle of the back of our eye. Painters from the school of realism,

take note!

So cone vision is more directly connected to focal consciousness (the part corresponding

to the "figure" as opposed to the "ground", as Gestalt psychologists of perception say) than rod

vision. Rod vision is better at night, contributing to survival capabilities or biological functioning; but

is unable to detect richer, more aesthetic aspects of sights, i.e., color. Still, rods help keep us safe from

background threats to our survival.

My point being?! :rolleyes:

I am suggesting here that perhaps

standard olfactory detectors might similarly be more connected with focal (figural) olfaction, whereas the

VNO is more connected with the background for other smells we focus on; and less connected with focal

olfaction.

The VNO may well be the "rod of olfaction"! :cool:

Maybe it's premature to

conclude that the VNO is not an instrument of conscious perception! After all, rods can be used in conscious

vision, but just don't yield as rich of information. Do you see the distinction? :blink:

We have

not had a chance to know all this until now, due to the exclusive focus on non-human biology when it comes to VNOs!

Biologist types have been doing all the talking! But rats, pigs, and fruit flies aren't so kind as to share their

experiences directly with us. People can! :D So now it is time for regular people, and psychologists, to speak up.

That is what makes this forum better than scientific conferences on pheromones in so many respects. :rasp:



Just as there are two different kinds of cells that detect light, for color and light; there appear to be at

least two different kinds of cells that detect airborne chemicals.

Similarly, the VNO contributes to

survival by helping us "smell" things we normally couldn't, for the the sake of biological fitness. But the

"smells" in question are barren of describable qualities that conscious smells normally possess. In vision these

qualities are called "colors", of course. In olfaction we have no word for it -- which should tell us how out of

touch humans have become with their noses! :sick:

Perhaps because we aren't in touch with our senses of

smell these days as we could be, we typically don't recognize the experiences as smells at all. That doesn't mean

we couldn't learn to recognize them as such.

The problem with this, theoretically speaking, is that I've

had the experience with -none -rone and -nol, as well as the known VNO activator, A1; but the former three -mones

are not thought to activate the VNO. This suggests that there might even be a third type of smell receptor, or at

least that we don't understand standard and VNO olfaction too well yet.

So for now, this phenomenon must

remain partly a mystery of smell.:think:

:type:


Great post, DST

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks much, bjf.

[nonscents]

Hey Doc. How serendipitous! I

was just driving to work from the gym an hour ago and the VN-consciousness discussion was percolating

mentally.

As I recklessly passed a car, it dawned on me suddenly, to make this discussion more vivid I need a

model. Yes, I've got it! I will make an analogy between olfaction and vision.

I get to my desk; turn on my

computer . . . and . . . read your post.:cheers: Well, I guess it was inevitable.

I have not had the experience

of exaltation as you describe it. Therefore my categorization is much more rigid than yours allowing no examples of

conscious VN sensing.

Let me state outright that I am not emotionally invested in what I am saying here. My goal

is to tease out the intellectual implications of the little we know. I would like to have the various positions

formulated clearly so that we can, as clearly as possible, confirm and falsify them. If my position is falsified I

will be happy because my knowledge has been increased and my ignorance diminished.

Part of the sociology of

science is that the objective truth is that over which there is intersubjective agreement. There is a lot of

intersubjective disagreement over ethical and moral issues so we say that these issues do not fall under the rubric

of science. "The thermometer reads 50 degrees Celsius" is a claim over which there can be intersubjective agreement

and can be useful in scientific inquiry.

I would argue the VN olfaction is analogous to visual perception of

auras. Some people claim to have a kind of "second sight" in which they perceive other people's auras. These

aura-seeers recognize that the auras are not visually perceived in the same manner as normal objects are visually

perceived.

I do not perceive auras. It is my understanding that most people do not perceive auras. The goal of

those who wish to obtain the imprimatur of science for auras is to find some means to make auras intersubjectively

accessible (Kirilian photography?).

In my categorization VN olfaction is like aura perception. And that is

precisely the big attracton of pheromones for so many here. Many are attracted by the fact that they can influence

other people in a way that is other than conscious. Many people enjoy the possibility that pheromones give them a

secret (read: "other than conscious") power to influence others.

Pheromones are of such interest for the same

reason that NLP and hypnosis are: they hold out the possibility that we can change the behavior of other people

without them consciously understanding why.

If I were strongly wedded to the view that VN sensing must be

nonconscious I would explain DrST's experiences as follows:

1. First he smells sandalwood essential oil and is

conscious only of normal olfaction.
2. Then he smells sandalwood essential oil to which a pheromone has been added.

Now he is conscious through normal olfaction of sandalwood and he is conscious of something like: increased (or

descreased) sweating, increased (or decreased) heart rate, increased (or decreased) muscle tension, change in mood,

etc.

So, in scenario 2, where we are positing the activation of the VNO, there is a consciousness of a

difference. But the consciousness is not of a (meaningful) olfactory difference. Rather, there is an association

between the sandalwood-pheromone mixture on the one hand, and the physiological changes on the other.

If I were

strongly wedded to DrST's position I would argue against my own position as follows:

Look, nonscents, I know

you personally, and you have always been ideologically opposed to radical behaviorism which eliminates consciousness

from psychological explanations. Well, in this case you have fallen prey to what is essentially a behaviorist

conspiracy. The fact is that much of what we know of pheromones comes from animal research and the human research

comes out of laboratories with a strong behaviorist bias. So the research looks at stimulus-response correlations

where the stimuli are atmospheric exposure to pheromones and the responses are measurable physiological reactions.

There really is not sufficient evidence to prejudge VN sensing as preconscious.


:type: OK, crises are

exploding all around me. That's enough speculation for now.

Thanks for your continued provocation and refining

of my thinking, DrST. :box:

[DrSmellThis]

I agree -- very

serendipitious!

Well nonscents, it's a pleasure to read your posts, which show a grasp of some concepts of human

science. It's obvious you have some background in it!

(I did notice, however, that you used the word

"preconscious", when I think you meant to say "unconscious" or "non-conscious.")

It's interesting that many who

"teach aura perception" instruct you not to look directly at the place you expect to see the aura. Perhaps rod

vision is somehow involved in the experience?

The experience of exaltation is intersubjectively verifiable, in

the case of musks, with experience. You learn to smell exaltation through working with smells and perfumes, but

anyone can smell the effect. Due to this intersubjectivity of sorts, it's really not questioned in the traditions

of perfumery. Part of the huge depth and mystery people experience when smelling a musk might be due as well to the

smell being larger than stereotypical, standard olfaction can process. The multifaceted smell presumably evokes a

reaction in which we bring more of our sense of smell vividly into play than we typically do in mundane life.

Regarding individual pheromones, the raw individual chemicals which combine together (with other smells) to make a

musk smell, it might be a little more difficult to intersubjectively verify. But still, I think it's

recognizable as the same or similar phenomenon, and as such, intersubjectively verifiable. It wouldn't be

that hard to test, although it would be challenging (but not hopeless) to isolate and elimenate the associative

effects you propose as possible confounds. ("Confounds" are secondary, nontheoretical causes of an observed effect

that can screw up your ability to interpret data in the way you'd like to.).

[einstein]

Interesting you both pick vision

analogies, considering we may have lost VNO processing to tri-color vision processing.

I can't say I agree with

DST's vision analogy of rods and cones to VNO and main olfactory. I much prefer the comparison to aura reading.

Everybody can consciously see with thier rods, with the exception of Vitamin A deficient people. No training is

required for this. Most people cannot see aura's without lots of practice and training. I would guess most people

couldn't see them even with training, but we can't know since very few people try.

Enough of my useless

opinions. My real reason for posting is to give my opinion on the richness of smells. With color vision, we have 3

different pigments in cones. One type in rods. This is why we don't see colors in dim light when our rods are

most active. All the colors we do see are from the different sensitivities of our cones to different photon

energies (colors) This means the whole range of colors we see is from our brain processing only 3 color signals.



With smells, using the lock-and-key model, we have thousands of kinds of receptors. Smells are even richer than

colors, just without any resolution. Its more difficult to track down the source of a smell than it is to track the

source of a photon.
We don't consciously percieve which receptors are being activated by a smell. When we smell a

lemon, there are numerous kinds of receptors activated, we don't recognize each individual one, we recognize the

combination as lemon. Similarly, if we see an orange light, we don't think that its "red" at a certain intensity

and "green" at a lower intensity, we recognize the combination as "orange".

Just about every smell we can

identify is a "color" of smell. Usually we identify them by one certain source that produces a smell of that

"color" For example, smells like roses, or strawberries. There are enough different kinds of receptors to produce

different combinations that almost everything has its own "color", while with light there are so few combinations

that many things have the same color.


Uh-oh, DST is viewing this thread as I'm typing. He's probably got

something posted before I get this one finished. Hopefully he doesn't say anything that'll make mine look

stupid.....

[CptKipling]

Just a quick note that is far

from ground braking:

The lock and key theory for olfactory chemo-sensing has been questioned a few times. From a

lay-man's logic point of view, it seems highly implausible that there would be thousands of receptors coded to

detect every single chemical we can smell. The Molecular Vibration theory works on the basis that there is some way

for the nose to differentiate between the differences in vibrations between different chemicals.

[DrSmellThis]

Thanks for the additional info

on rods and cones, Einstein. I agree that smells are more complex than colors.

My theory is certainly just

speculation to be explored at this point. I'm trying to flesh out the function of the human VNO based on actual

olfactory and usage experiences with purported pheromones, since this type of experiential data has not yet been

mined or added to the mix. Only we can do this at present.

BTW, I'm not sure I understand the aura reading

analogy. What is aura reading being compared to, exactly?

Thanks for the note Kip. I agree the lock and key

thing is too cumbersome and simplistically mechanistic. There is almost no way it can be sound as it is. It smells

fishy! That is not to say it is time to completely forget it. The vibrational theory still needs more development

and data to support it.

[einstein]

What is the vibrational theory?

Do you have any good references? It sounds interesting, and definitely appeals to the physicist in me.

[DrSmellThis]

The theorist is

biophysicist, Luca Turin!

Though a biography, this is the most popular reference, and the book you

probably want to start with, The Emperor of Scent, by Chandler Burr:



http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/disp

lay.pperl/0-375-75981-6.html (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/0-375-75981-6.html)

[jvkohl]

The theorist is biophysicist, Luca Turin!

Though a biography, this is the most

popular reference, and the book you probably want to start with, The Emperor of Scent, by Chandler Burr:



http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/di

splay.pperl/0-375-75981-6.html (http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/0-375-75981-6.html)

I reviewed the book for Human Nature

Reviews

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/burr.html

Luca contacted me to let me know that he

had published in "Nature" early in his career, so some of my comments must be taken back. However, his theory was

pretty much discredited by presenters at the last Association for Chemoreception Sciences conference--and their

findings should soon be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It's always great to learn about other

theories/models, but I think it's also prudent to take what already is known and use extend the mammalian model of

olfaction to humans and to human behavior. For example, the VNO debate has not been fruitfull--still no evidence of

a connection to neuroendocrine function, and social environmental sensory input (e.g., olfaction) must alter

neuroendocrine function to alter behavior. That makes VNO research less likely to provide more than questions about

why we still have some sort of VNO. In contrast, putative human pheromones have been shown to alter levels of

luteinizing hormone--just as pheromones do in other mammals (and this is a direct link from the social environment

via gene activation to neuroendocrine function).
Those who are interested in reading more about this can check

out my technical papers or my book--there are a lot more facts than speculation--and the facts are all

referenced.

JVK

[DrSmellThis]

I'm glad the review didn't

simply trash Turin, like many would have.

I agree that both approaches are important. Science could never go

anywhere new without theory and speculation. All good research is theory driven. One can only get so far summarizing

the known facts and using deductive reasoning from there. On the other hand folks here seem continually hungry for

new research studies.

I'm all for knowing mammalian pheromone research. Bring on the studies. We need more

posts of recent studies. Sometimes the habitual reliance on non-human research to explain humans can go too far,

however. For example, why would one think every human behavior is, and must be, caused by an endocrine change? Is it

really necessary to claim all of psychology can be reduced to hormones? Is it even remotely possible? How about one

example of a complex everyday human behavior that is caused only by hormones? That's a pretty radical and

unnecessarily contentious claim, unless I am missing something. How can we be sure that isn't reductionistic and

simplistic? What is the neurological evidence for this? Is there a particular reason to ignore 100 years of

psychology psychiatry and neurology research, and limit ourselves to extrapolating from non-human mammalian

research? Must the different branches of science ignore each other and be at war? Am I totally misreading the

statement? I hope so.

Regading the VNO, I agree the debate is boring! I'm not yet really interested in any VNO

debate, as there really isn't enough info to debate, especially given Pherin's secrecy. Instead, I'm just curious

to know more. I don't see any reason to be either optimistic or pessimistic about it. There is really not any

research that suggests it is not functional either, and Pherin's research is pretty suggestive, from what we know

of it.

We here in the forum are practitioners rather than journal/conference publishers. Therefore we are free

to speculate, and even need to to get where we want to go. There is no conflict here between a lit review of

facts and educated speculation or theorizing. Both have their place and should be able to build on each other. Many

here have already read the most prominent papers/books on pheromones, and are wanting to go from there. one of tghe

biggest needs is new studies that address more interesting (from our point of view here) questions.

It would be

interesting to see on what grounds Turin is discredited.

[jvkohl]

...why would

one think every human behavior is, and must be, caused by an endocrine change?

Any interaction

between the social environment and biological function MUST be preceded, minimally, by a neuroendocrine change. Some

of the neuroendocrine changes are not directly measured, but the influence of the neuroendocrine change is often

very clear when associated with an endocrine change.



Is it really necessary to claim

all of psychology can be reduced to hormones? Is it even remotely possible? How about one example of a complex

everyday human behavior that is caused only by hormones? That's a pretty radical and unnecessarily contentious

claim, unless I am missing something. How can we be sure that isn't reductionistic and simplistic? What is the

neurological evidence for this? Is there a particular reason to ignore 100 years of psychology psychiatry and

neurology research, and limit ourselves to extrapolating from non-human mammalian research? Must the different

branches of science ignore each other and be at war? Am I totally misreading the statement? I hope

so.


Your reading more into the statement than what I can directly address, but most of your

questions might well be reduced to a scenario that you propose is not caused only by hormones--a complex behavior,

or a simple one. One caveat, neurotransmitters are hormones, and hormones--especially the steroid hormones alter

neuroanatomy. A similar statement "There is no non-olfactory biological basis for visually perceived physical

attraction" also elicits the questions that you pose. Yet, no one has ever offerred a non-olfactory biological basis

for visually perceived physical attraction. Instead, I am asked for examples of biologically based complex behavior

that are not driven by olfaction. My Neuroendocrinology Letters paper addresses all the issues surrounding my

statements.

Unfortunately, I will be traveling for the next three weeks, so will not be able to participate

in the Forum for a while.

JVK

[DrSmellThis]

Mr. Kohl, I appreciate your

post, and hope you and other knowledgeable people with an interest in attraction, olfaction and pheromones will

continue to participate, and increase participation, in this forum. As Turin demonstrated, there is something to be

gained in "dialoging with collective practical experience" regarding olfactants such as pheromones, essential oils

and perfumes; especially as applied to romance, attraction, and other social situations.

I along with many folks

here have been familiar with your interesting paper; and also your theory of pheromonal conditioning of visual

attraction. I honestly don't find the paper to address these particular issues here, however, and am confused about

some of the quasi-psychological statements you made.

If you're saying you know why humans do what they

do, and that the answer is hormones; and you want people to understand your claim, or even potentially

come to believe it; then you ought to be able to produce an example of hormones causing some everyday

human behavior. I don't know of any such behavior, personally. The burden of proof, or the burden to suggest

something better, is not on those who happened to be there when you proclaimed this; because no one else here had

claimed they know why humans do what they do.

If you had just said that hormones are an influence on behavior,

BTW, I would have agreed and moved on. That would be consistent with what we know in psychology.

Also as regards

why people do things, what do you mean by "a neuroendocrine change?" For example, are you referring to specifically

to neuroendocrine cells; to everything having to do with the fields of neurology and endocrinology, or to something

"in the middle"?

I'm not sure it's so easy to say, "caveat: neurotransmitters are hormones." Of course, it's

just semantics in a way, but my understanding is that a neurotransmitter is not merely a kind of hormone, even

though there have been those who said this in the past. Noted differences between neurotransmitters and hormones

include site of action, site of production, place of storage, medium of action (bloodstream, etc), distance of

action, complexity of action; and specificity of action. Some do say there is a large overlap between the two kinds

of chemicals. There is undoubtedly some overlap. But I've heard it said in this case that there are exceptions in

both logical directions (Not all N are H, and vice versa.).

I'm willing to set aside for the moment the

semantics issues and definitions if you want. But even if we can just agree that every behavior has "biochemical

messenger" correlates (There are many other biological correlates to every behavior, BTW, and even many other kinds

of biochemical correlates in particular.); that premise does not imply all behaviors are caused by certain

specific sets (and amounts) of neurotransmitters or hormones, (or by behaviors' other biological correlates for

that matter). Correlation does not imply causation, for one thing. This even holds in cases where correlates are

sequential, and where correlations are exceptionally strong.

To wonder whether your idea could be sound might

be fun speculation, however. I'm willing to go there with you for the sake of interesting discussion. We'd have to

define carefully what it means for some thing to "cause" a behavior, though. Then it might be possible on

some level to identify one "thing" as the cause, since human behavior is so complex.

So what then of the

position that thoughts, beliefs and intentions relative to memory, present perceptions, and imagination are the most

important causes of behavior? Besides accounting for the big picture in psychology, this narrative theory dovetails

nicely with the whole field of neurology, including such cutting edge areas as plasticity and neural networks.



Each human action is a unique event. Any successful candidate for any true cause of any behavior must account for

that behavior's uniqueness. That is one of the main reasons reductionistic explanations of behavior (e.g., hormonal

mechanism) don't work. That uniqueness can only be found in the psychological life story of person making the act

in question. A life story is the only possible medium with which we can make sense of an individual, momentary act.

The story literally defines the act. So non-narrative theories of psychology are failed candidates for

consideration as potentially successful theories. Other theories fail to pass muster. Even chains of biochemical

events in brains can only make sense in their narrative context where human actions or experiences are concerned,

and can therefore only be defined in narrative terms (though in this case the narrative would have biological

aspects).

Of course, there is a relevant history to the discussion of why we do what we do. The history of this

discussion is the history of psychology. However, since you have openly expressed unfamiliarity with,

disinterest in, and contempt for the whole field -- and not merely some radical take on it -- on a number of

occasions; I'm confused as to why you raised the subject of human behavior in general (as much as I love to

discuss that subject). Isn't that trying to do psychology?

[einstein]

Reductionist principle could

still work. Create a map of the locations and momentums of every atom in all 12 trillion neurons, 100 trillion

glial cells, and every other chemical and ion inside the head. Run an extremely complicated computer simulation to

calculate thier trajectories, of course taking into account heisenberg uncertainty, and you will get an answer of

what most likely happens next (anytime you invoke quantum physics you can only end up with a probable answer.) The

past experiences of the individual are taken into account by the current layout of the neurons.
Its not

practical, earth will have been swallowed by the sun before the first round of calculations is done, but that

doesn't mean reduction won't work.

Note, this assumes a materialistic universe. The mind-body problem is a

classic philisophical debate, I could go on for hours. Science usually takes the materialist position, but not

always. One theory of quantum physics suggests that the ethereal mind affects the physical body by influencing how

the wave function collapses in a brain event.

This conversation has gotten away from how the VNO works, but I

found a few articles that might be relevant.



http:

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11976349&dopt=Abstract (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11976349&dopt=Abstract)



http:

//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10049231 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10049231)



http:/

/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9762865 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9762865)

They all

apply to moths, and I'm not sure how well moth anatomy can be applied to humans. But if I read these abstracts

right, it takes a certain combination of nerves to be stimulated for a pheromone to be registered.

[bjf]

<<But if I read these abstracts

right, it takes a certain combination of nerves to be stimulated for a pheromone to be registered.>>

Another

piece of the mystery uncovered?

[Mtnjim]

"Reductionist principle could still

work. Create a map of the locations and momentums of every atom in all 12 trillion neurons, 100 trillion glial

cells, and every other chemical and ion inside the head. Run an extremely complicated computer simulation to

calculate thier trajectories, of course taking into account heisenberg uncertainty, and you will get an answer of

what most likely happens next (anytime you invoke quantum physics you can only end up with a probable

answer.)"

The only problem with this is that the very act of observing the event will change it.

[DrSmellThis]

Reductionist

principle could still work. Create a map of the locations and momentums of every atom in all 12 trillion neurons,

100 trillion glial cells, and every other chemical and ion inside the head. Run an extremely complicated computer

simulation to calculate thier trajectories, of course taking into account heisenberg uncertainty, and you will get

an answer of what most likely happens next (anytime you invoke quantum physics you can only end up with a probable

answer.) The past experiences of the individual are taken into account by the current layout of the neurons.
Its

not practical, earth will have been swallowed by the sun before the first round of calculations is done, but that

doesn't mean reduction won't work.

Note, this assumes a materialistic universe. The mind-body problem is a

classic philisophical debate, I could go on for hours. Science usually takes the materialist position, but not

always. One theory of quantum physics suggests that the ethereal mind affects the physical body by influencing how

the wave function collapses in a brain event.
...assuming there are no non-atomic forces that influence

behavior -- it wouldn't even have to be "spiritual" things, per se; there is so much happening in the

universe...and assuming nothing outside the skull is a force influencing behavior. You'd have to account for the

orgainiztion of all that through time, too, without meaningful labels to make sense of anything (due to that lack of

narrative elements). But, SURE! Sounds great! :) Actually, I found your post very interesting. If you were right

about all this your position would not be reductionist, except of course that it maps the individual animal

separately from the environment.

Fortunately it's not necessary to take a position on mind/body stuff to have a

narrative psychology. It could go either way and still work. For example, there are non-atomic and/or sub-atomic

elements of nature that could well be involved in mental phenomena. That would help explain plasticity, parallel

processing, networks; and non-locality in neural function without getting too spiritual. Neurochemicals, on the

other hand, may be too slow and limited (especially when thought of as part of an extremely long linear progression

of an impulse from one neuron to another, weaving around everwhere to form a thought or other useful

"micro-impulse".) to be the "hub of mentality". That is similar to the situation with the lock/key model of

olfaction. It just doesn't seem to work. Being the only well developed, bad theory out there is a dubious

accomplishment.