Easy Questions?

[Griffin NoName]

It's like those pictures which if you stare at in a certain way reveal naughty bits.

[Aggie]

How is instinct carried out as a process, from genetic information to automated behaviour?

[Griffin NoName]

The genetic information is in the brain cells which fire the relevant neurons for that and signaling to the body/being to behave in a certain way.

[Aggie]

I suppose I mean, how is it mediated from genetic information to "you shalt do this" i.e. spiders weaving a specific web pattern.

I have a vague idea of how it must work at a hand-waving level (genes code for proteins that trigger certain metabolic and neuronal processes), but what are the details, and is it similar for most complex instinctive behaviors?  DNA is the core software, but I'm under the impression that it would be a bit cumbersome to actually work directly with this code in the timespan under which behaviors are carried out.  It seems more likely that the sequences would code for hard-wired neural nets which convert specific stimuli to specific actions.  It makes sense that this should be possible, as much of our brain's processing structure (such as image processing) is hard-wired and based on structures that are not 'learned' (although the application of how to make sense of them probably involves a significant learning curve in more complex animals).

I've just never seen a detailed theory of this process completely laid out anywhere.... possibly this is because the details were not yet discovered back in my student days, and/or I never progressed far enough in Biology to be exposed to them (3rd year Animal Behaviour was about the closest I would have got to it).

It implies that behaviours are open to direct genetic coding once the field advances far enough...  one could hypothetically genetically engineer an animal to behave in a hard-wired manner in given situations.  It therefore should be possible to remove some 'free will' in animals or humans by inserting engineered-instinct programs relating to areas that are usually approached via learned behaviour.

It might also be possible to engineer animals to perform certain specific tasks in a non-learned manner, thereby eliminating the training curve required with more intelligent animals. We could, for example, program animals much less intelligent than dogs to perform as sniffers (provided they had similar abilities to smell). How about swarms of genetically engineered roaches or moths that seek out drug or explosive residues, then light up like fireflies in the presence of these compounds?  Much cheaper and easier than training a dog, and easy to produce in the millions.

[Swatopluk]

Some parasites/microorganisms already managed that trick and can change the behaviour of the host to the advantage of the 'guest' and detriment of the victim. In particular there are multiple examples of behavioural modicfication leading to increased predation by reducing risk awareness (so the predator can spread the organism further) and/or increased aggressiveness (so the victim spreads it more easily; most prominently: rabies).
I read just recently that there is one parasite/germ affecting humans that acts differently (in opposite manner) on males and females, making the one less risk-aware and the other more risk-averse (I forgot wich for whom).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Most of the mechanisms (as I understand them) work in the same random way as everything else, for instance, if different regions of the brain have more or less development you can see changes in behavior, which in turn can favor the success of the individual in a particular environment, so if a nervous, jumpy, ADHD-like behavior helps a bird survive predation, ADHD-like behavior is selected, that is, the specific behavior isn't encoded but the root causes in brain development are. Given that behavior is the result of a number of different [internal] pressures molded by experience, the original pressures can be defined from the start (ie, how separated identical twins tend to have the same ticks, likes, and outright behaviors regardless of environmental influence) as certain brain structures have more or less development, due to traffic, circulation, or other non understood form of stimuli.

The alternative (which I think is less likely) would be something like a ROM vs RAM kind of thing, that is, pieces of information (ie, memory) that cannot be overwritten by experience (like ROM memory in a computer).

[Swatopluk]

Some of these ROM areas must exist because some behaviours are a bit too specific. E.g. spiders of one species construct the same web but web designs vary greatly between species.

[Aggie]

I read just recently that there is one parasite/germ affecting humans that acts differently (in opposite manner) on males and females, making the one less risk-aware and the other more risk-averse (I forgot wich for whom).

Toxoplasma gondii perhaps?  I know it can lead to greater risk-taking in those infected with it, and many of the studies have focused on males (we tend to die when we take risks). It's theoretically possible to create a virus that re-programs those infected with it; rabies is a good example. I'm sure someone is working on one that increases consumer spending.

Most of the mechanisms (as I understand them) work in the same random way as everything else, for instance, if different regions of the brain have more or less development you can see changes in behavior, which in turn can favor the success of the individual in a particular environment, so if a nervous, jumpy, ADHD-like behavior helps a bird survive predation, ADHD-like behavior is selected, that is, the specific behavior isn't encoded but the root causes in brain development are. Given that behavior is the result of a number of different [internal] pressures molded by experience, the original pressures can be defined from the start (ie, how separated identical twins tend to have the same ticks, likes, and outright behaviors regardless of environmental influence) as certain brain structures have more or less development, due to traffic, circulation, or other non understood form of stimuli.

On an evolutionary basis, this makes sense, and I could see how these brain structures arise as physical units from genetic sub-programs over time.

The very specific ones still have me a bit boggled; I can understand for example how gross behavioural impulses (the urge to bite prey, for example) are mediated from stimuli to execution for animals who learn by experience (start with the base framework and then refine specific neural pathways for the fine motor skills), but in the case of a spider weaving a web or a caterpillar constructing a cocoon, these are not learned behaviours.  A spider cannot easily step out of a web and check to see that it's correct, so it takes a very closely coordinated series of motions to create the web.  The unit sub-tasks are easy, but there must be an algorithm for the process that determines if last motion was this, then next motion is that. Is the algorithm held directly in the DNA, or do the genes code for neural connections that constitute the algorithm?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

While I have no clue as to the exact process there are certain details that can apply, for instance, it is known that in insects most of the constructions have geometric or fractal properties, which would make sense as the instructions needed to create them don't need to be long or particularly complicated even if the result may be. As for the mechanism proper, there must be a trigger that sets the animal in the programmed task which in turn has to be manifested in the animal's nervous system, possibly in a ROM-kind storage.

While the mechanism mostly applies to primitive nervous systems, it is likely that some of that is retained in higher species (right now I'm thinking on birds nests) but I'm sure that some other more complex mechanisms are at play there (ie, compelling the animal to do something rather than an automaton following a hardcoded program, plus learning via parents/observation).

[Griffin NoName]

Why are the vast majority of recordings of Danny Boy (Londonderry Air) made by men when the song is clearly a love song by a female to a male (given that same sex relationships were illegal bla bla bla)?

eDIT

oh wiki on danny boy :  Some listeners have interpreted the song to be a message from a parent to a son going off to war or leaving as part of the Irish diaspora.

But still only some.

And

The 1918 version of the sheet music included alternative lyrics ("Eily Dear"), with the instructions that "when sung by a man, the words in italic should be used; the song then becomes "Eily Dear", so that "Danny Boy" is only to be sung by a lady". In spite of this, it is unclear whether this was Weatherly's intent.[

Oh yeah and

In Roy's (Orbison) version, the singer is Danny Boy who is recalling when his father (who has since died) said farewell to him.

Also

Notable recordings including some - long list - is missing Placido Domingo - Mario Lanzo - my two male version favourates, but does include Maureen O'Hara which is my best favourite female version.

But still. The words commonly used seem to me to be more evocative of female to a male.

[Aggie]

I agree with you, Griffin, but a good song doesn't need to be kept only to one gender.

Our choir performs it, but we're mainly female; the men in the bass section take up the melody for part of the song. I suppose one could take the perspective of the song being sung over the grave of the (woman) from whose perspective it is written, by a returned lover (just making this up... ).

[Griffin NoName]

Actually I have no big objection to a choral version with mixed gender. It''s so different to a solo.

I like your made up reason. The wiki's reasons seem made up to me anyway.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There is a Spaniard pop group called Mecano in which the songs were written by Nacho Cano (a man) and sung by Ana Torroja (a woman) making gender specific lyrics a bit odd, yet Ana's voice is so good that it doesn't really matter.

[Griffin NoName]

That  is true of Placido Domingo, at least for me, but does not really explain why the artists are by a huge majority male.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The music business has been male dominated as many others in the past but slowly but surely there are more and more female composers for both classical and popular music. I doubt at this point anybody doubts the ability from someone like Bjork to mention one contemporary name.