kheredia's blog

Feedback loops typically include a sensor, control sensor, and an effector which executes the change in the body to return back to homeostasis

How normal feedback loop for blood glucose goes:

1. we eat sugar, blood glucose rises

2. Sensor; pancreatic beta cells sense this and release vesicle stored insulin

3. control center; pancreatic beta cells (still) - insulin travels to bloodstream to fat and skeletal muscle

4. effector: fat and skeletal muscle - stores glucose. has insulin receptors which bind to insulin when it arrives. GLUT 4 (glucose transporters) are signaled to enter plasma membrane to bring glucose via facilitated diffusion back into the cell

5. result: blood glucose levels fall back down 

Steve Lima is an animal behaviorist who was interested in testing a specific form of groiup defense in birds called the many eyes effect. The many eyes effect is described as a strategy animals living in groups use to escape predators. This is the assumption that animals watch their surroundings and are paying attention to the actions of others in the group. 

In Lima's experiment, he wanted to scare a single bird and observe if other birds in his study reacted to the response of fear from the bird he tested on. To do this, he used a long tube with a ball at the end of it and pointed it at the single bird, rolling the ball down the tube to create a scenario where the bird would lock eyes on a ball rolling at a fast speed towards it. The bird fled, frightened, but the other birds did not move. This suggested that in this scenario, the many eyes effect was not taking place.

Comparative psychologista work in a lab setting with controlled experiments. They are interested in the “how’s” of learning, in other words, proximate questions based on the genetics and development which influence behavior in animals. The type of experiment they would conduct involves rats and pigeons in the lab by testing their learning abilities.

Ethologists work in field settings observing nature. They are interested in the evolutionary history and the “why’s” of behavior, in other words, ultimate questions wondering about their evolutionary history and adaptive value. An experiment they might conduct would include observing why spiders live in groups and attempting to understand the value of that behavior.

In this project, I compared the differences between an original multi-panel figure I made depicting phytophagy, the insect consumption of plants, and the replicated version of it made by a classmate. The purpose of this experiment was to test how well the structure of my method’s section was organized by analyzing the differences between our models. I found that the figures were not identical, and contained dissimilarities with sizing, brightness, layout, directions of labels, and morphological differences. The indicated factors that characterized these differences were different leaves being used, weather differences, camera position, font size choice, label placement and size, arrangement of maps, scaling, and choice of software.

AI is becoming bigger player in our lives. From environmental, to healthcare to finance, it is starting to really take over certain branches of the economy. Moreover, because of this technology, these sectors have seen optimizations of processes that were never thought possible. With all things exists tradeoffs, with some of them being in the ethical space. How will we consider future generations without a job and without a “purpose?” What will we do in a case where the best solution is not one that benefits humans? Many more questions must also be answered quickly because technology is constantly evolving, and governments are struggling to keep up with all these changes. Although government regulation can sometimes cause stifling to innovation, at the very least some sort of basic control must be put in place or we risk future generations coping with very big problems that are small and manageable, for the time being. 

The future holds a world of excitable possibilities. With increasing technological advances, life is seemingly getting easier and people have much more time on their hands. At the forefront of technology, artificial intelligence or AI is rapidly gaining attention. AI is a machine or system that carries out tasks that if a human were to be doing that same task, the general public would view that person as intelligent. This branch of technology can have huge implications, such that in simply stating the definition, one can see how impactful it will be. However, there is a great deal of skepticism surrounding these systems, and rightfully so. Many have sighted ethical questions that must be answered before going forward with research into this fiel.  Moreover, respected individuals in the field have forewarned that one must carefully monitor the advances in this technology to prevent this system from escaping human control.

Imagine a world where AI is just part of everyone’s life. It has found a home in every sector and humans can no longer escape it. Let’s say that an AI entity decision is based on a plethora of learning algorithms, but unfortunately it has caused the death of humans. Who is at fault, the programmer or the AI? As AI begins to evolve and separate from human command, it is not far from reason to have them be responsible for their actions. In the same token, if the programmer never programmed this AI system, the deaths of humans would never have occurred. This specific question is asked frequently as the world of technology is left perplexed, unsure of what the correct answer may be

For Male infantile aggression in mice, scientists used a technique called the knockout method, by removing the receptor for the hormone progesterone. Males without the ability to sense the hormone in their system did not attack infants as opposed to unaltered males who regularly attacked infants. Blood tests showed similar levels of the hormone in this group of males and the control that did not endure the knockout of the receptor. The advantage to this method is that you can directly tell if a behavior is hormone controlled by removing the ability to detect the hormone in the specimen as opposed to only measuring hormone levels.

The less invasive method of only measuring hormone levels would not be beneficial for this type of experiment. This is because of the fact both groups had similar concentrations of it, which does not show a direct cause for why one set of males was aggressive and the other was not. By using the knockout method you can find the cause.

If i am a comparative psychologist, I am working in a lab setting with controlled experiments. I am generally interested in the “how’s” of learning, in other words, proximate questions based on the genetics and development which influence behavior in animals. The type of experiment I might be conducting would be with rats and pigeons in the lab. I would be testing their learning abilities and working with BF Skinner. I believe that animals are born with a blank slate based on my studies

If I am an ethologist, I am in a field setting observing nature. I am interested in the evolutionary history and the “why’s” of behavior, in other words, ultimate questions wondering about their evolutionary history and adaptive value. I might be in the field observing why spiders live in groups and trying to understand the value of that behavior with Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen.

For the purpose of organization, the comparisons between my original figure, Figure 1, and the replicated figure created by a classmate, Figure 2, were observed in 4 separate categories for distinctions: layout and label differences, then differences referring to the photographs in panels a, b, and c, respectively. When observing the layout of the figures for comprehensive differences, four large distinctions were present. I discovered that Figure 2 contained white borders separating each panel. This feature was absent in Figure 1. Furthermore, Without scaling the photos, Figure 1 in its entirety resembled a square, and Figure 2 exhibited the shape of a rectangle. This variation in shape indicated that both figures were not analogous, because Figure 2 panels were larger in size by length but not in width. The labeling on each of the panels were also different. The letters were smaller in Figure 2 and the white circles they were enclosed in were wider and closer to an oval compared to Figure 1. Ultimately, I detected a difference between the labeled arrows. The arrow tips were not the same size relative to the body of the arrow. In Figure 1, the arrows were slender with a wider tip while in Figure 2, the ratio of arrow tip and body was more proportional.