View Full Version : -none and the VNO
CptKipling
07-20-2004, 09:29 AM
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
07-20-2004, 09:36 AM
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
07-20-2004, 09:50 AM
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
07-20-2004, 09:51 AM
Also, does -none have the same
effects on people who can't smell -none?
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
07-20-2004, 04:57 PM
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
07-20-2004, 06:59 PM
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
07-20-2004, 07:31 PM
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
07-20-2004, 08:09 PM
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
07-20-2004, 09:40 PM
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
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
07-21-2004, 01:11 AM
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
07-21-2004, 07:30 AM
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
07-21-2004, 11:23 AM
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
07-21-2004, 05:38 PM
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:
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
07-21-2004, 10:17 PM
Thanks much, bjf.
nonscents
07-22-2004, 06:19 AM
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
07-22-2004, 09:20 AM
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
07-22-2004, 03:05 PM
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
07-22-2004, 08:01 PM
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
07-22-2004, 09:05 PM
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
07-23-2004, 01:19 PM
What is the vibrational theory?
Do you have any good references? It sounds interesting, and definitely appeals to the physicist in me.
DrSmellThis
07-23-2004, 02:20 PM
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
07-23-2004, 08:01 PM
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
07-24-2004, 03:27 AM
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
07-24-2004, 09:25 PM
...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
07-24-2004, 10:46 PM
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
07-26-2004, 01:03 PM
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.
<<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
07-26-2004, 02:18 PM
"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
07-26-2004, 06:25 PM
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.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.