|
INTRODUCTION
Photo by Rachel Berman
|
|
There was a time not too long ago when I thought that the
universe, and the foundations of behavior lied in the most fundamental
matter from which it was comprised.
Studying chemistry meant getting a step closer to understanding the
universe. However, during my college years I started to go through
a sort of an evolution of the self. |
|
The first day in my Neurobiology and Behavior
class, my professor
held up a brain and asked what we thought of the idea that brain
and behavior are equal. Many spoke of religious beliefs and the notions
of the mind and the soul, which cannot be explained by the physical,
which is the brain. I remember feeling a sense of superiority; I was
a true scientist, I knew better. In fact, this was my first response
entry written in that class: |
|
"As was mentioned in class, epilepsy was viewed as a
form of spirit possession and during that time if anyone made the
assertion that the brain controls this phenomenon, that individual
would be deemed
“crazy.”
For someone like myself, who began to question the entire scheme
of the universe from the beginning of abyss to the present, that
was nicely laid out for me by my Rabbi, it is quite natural to accept
the “brain=behavior” model primarily for the fact that overwhelming
scientific evidence pinpoints the brain as controlling a wide range
of behaviors that were previously explained by some other concepts,
such as God.
Some people might be uncomfortable viewing complex behaviors, such as love,
as a mere series of chemical reactions because such thinking might "take away"
from the feeling. I do not think that the
brain=behavior link makes us any less human or unable to feel.
Nor does it make life any less exciting, simply understandable." |
|
|
Photo by Rachel Berman
|
|
Its funny I mentioned love when I wrote this entry because
almost three years after it, this was the very topic I was preoccupied
with. Whether it was because I thought that I experienced it and lost
it or because my intellectual life as a chemist was boring me, I had
a strange feeling of utter emptiness. I was looking for something...something
that would have meaning, something that would inspire me. |
|
The last thing in my life which inspired me was love. So
perhaps by learning about it I could somehow rekindle that inspiration
or make sense of what happened to me. The first thing which probably
emerged was my training as a chemist. I was going to define the system
in question and then study it. My advisor, , gave the best characterization
of this “syndrome.” He called it “intellectual schizophrenia.” I definitely
had two opposite sides to my intellectual inquiries. One had to do
with what I thought was proper science, the inquiry concerned with
the “right” answer. That is, anything a scientist says should be possible
to rephrase as a summary of well defined observations. The other part
of me was concerned with concepts which mattered to me. These were abstract
concepts such as love and art. What I had to do for the first time
in my life was to try to put the two together. |
|
Photo by Rachel Berman
|
|
I started out reading all sorts of ideas about love, and
there are so much! Poets, neurobiologists, and just about any person
on the internet had something to say on this topic.
I tried to narrow my search by looking at articles written by PhD’s.
Propositions stating that “The cerebellum [is] the principle structure
involved in mediation of an abnormal social behaviors of mother deprived
monkeys…” appealed to me. However, I realized two things during my
primary endeavors. First, just because someone has a Ph.D. may not mean
much about the type of research performed. Secondly, anyone identifying
a certain brain structure as the only determinate of a complex behavior
is not considering the context in which that behavior emerges. |
|
The first step to unifying the two sides of my "intellectual
schizophrenia" was to realize that love is a human concept, a characteristic
of a human language. When you give something a noun it carries the implication
that it is a unitary thing. This is the idea expressed in the
opening poem
. One reason science is able to shed light on things is because
it breaks them down. What I needed to do was to take the concept apart.
I had to rephrase my original question, which frankly now seems rather
absurd: What is love? |
|
If I was to be scientific about this matter at all, I
had to break it apart and learn about the pieces. So the way to make
sense of it was not to take it in isolation but figure out where it
sits in a broader context., Then try to make sense of the broader context.
Thus, the goal was to find small questions using “systems” in which pieces
of the concept of love emerge. These systems were not limited. In
fact, the first I choose was drugs. I was reading an article on
Ecstasy
, a drug which produces various feelings associated with
love, and decided to study the drug itself. Next, I had to figure
out what was solid in the chosen systems…maybe then I could form some
conclusions and relate them back to the broader context of this
...whatever that may be. |
|
|
There are essentially six parts to this project: |
|
|
Photo by Rachel Berman
|
Part 1
deals with the chemical effects on interpersonal
relations. Here the effects of Ecstasy are examined. Also, summaries
of the theories of pheromone release as related to synchronization
of menstrual cycle in human females, as well as the “love chemicals”
used by various insects to govern their social behaviors, are
provided. |
|
Photo courtesy of Corbis.com
|
In
Part 2
, I examine the contradictions that arise when one solely
considers the chemicals as accounting for effects of Ecstasy, as
well as Prozac, which is
examined in context of depression. I start out by pointing out our current
awareness of the state of depression, the medium of Prozac’s operation.
Also, I present some of the contradicting issues which arise from
implications of what we know and what we do not know about the state
of depression and the medium of its conduction - the nervous system.
I will make the argument that knowing chemicals and neurotransmitters is
not enough. Also, an alternative
hypothesis originally proposed by Peter Kramer in
Listening to Prozac
is explored. This is the notion that there are brain areas involved
in interpersonal relations. |
|
|
Isle of Alone Soul
Photo courtesy of Community Webshots
|
Part 3
is somewhat of a test of Kramer’s thesis.
That is, if we assume that there actually exist specific brain
areas concerned with interpersonal relations, a good thought experiment
would be to examine cases when a person is incapable of having such relations.
This is done through the exploration of a neurobiological disorder known
as Autism. |
|
|
Photo courtesy of Corbis.com
|
Part 4
entertains the notion that the evolutionary
sequences in human beings produced a brain organization which promotes
“the urge to love.” In this discussion, I examine the "problem
of altruism" in relation to brain organization: even if there was a
gene accounting for self-sacrificing behaviors, it would make sense
that the individual species possessing it would die out. Various
theories as to why this is not the case, such as the Darwinian reproductive
success model, are explored. Alternative ways of examining the
phenomenon of altruism as applied to human beings are proposed. |
|
Apparition of Face and Fruit Dish on a Beach by Salvador
Dali
|
In Part 5
, the dream state is used as a system through which the
standardization of dream symbolism as well as various theories of dreams
are examined. From the observations of this system, as well as our
previous inquiries in the first four parts, I develop a model
of the working of the brain which will be extended to the original
question about the nature of interpersonal relations. |
|
|
Vase Illusion
|
In
Part 6
, I present my conclusions about the workings of the
brain and implications for the broader picture of interpersonal
relations and the “urge to love.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Index
Introduction
Part1
Part2
Part3
Part4
Part5
Part6
|
|
|
