Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2001

If you agree that "brain=behavior", why? what would persuade you otherwise? If you disagree with "brain=behavior", or are fence-sitting on the question, why? What aspects of behavior/human experience do you think would be difficult or impossible to account for in terms of the brain? And why?

So, maybe not "essays" so much as "notes". Your first or second thoughts on whatever you're thinking about, not your last ones. And don't worry about polishing, sometimes its what one didn't quite know one was saying that's most meaingful, to oneself and to others. Polish is for your web papers. Do, of course, as in all writing, try and be as clear (and concise) as possible, both for yourself and others. As for the "page or less" ... the "or less" is the operative part. Certainly no MORE than a page, and preferably less, perhaps much less ... whatever is appropriate to sketching what's on your mind.

That help? Hope so ... and that this proves to be a place where we can all learn from each other's reactions to what we're doing as we go along.

I wanted to address briefly the question about the relationship between brain and behavior raised already in class. While I'm inclined to agree with the position that "brain = behavior; there's nothing else," I do think it necessary to observe a slight injustice in the premises of our discussion. The comment was made that we will be looking for a suitable summary of observations, not "the truth." This condition seems automatically to ensure that the "nothing else" argument will win, since the alternative view, as I understand it, is that behavior is governed by an unobservable relationship between the brain and an unobservable mind. Our premise, then, is akin to saying, "Which do you like, odd numbers or even? You can only choose from the universe of odd numbers, though." Or, if you prefer, to saying, "Yes, there should be recounts, but only if there's enough time, which there isn't."

I hasten to add that I don't necessarily disagree with the imposition of this condition. Epistemological questions aside, opening the debate to "the truth" would likely make the problem intractable and beyond the scope of this course, and certainly beyond the scope of my limited reasoning abilities. Nonetheless, it's useful to be aware of the premises that may influence one's answers. I, for one, freely confess that my predilection for scientific rationalism is largely the result of a cultural bias. However, that makes me no less confident in my belief that behavior is contained wholly within the nervous system. Just why I'm confident in that belief I guess will be saved for the future...

Very interesting metalogical issue that David raises. And one we will get back to; it does have to do with the brain (of course, if brain=behavior then ... all thoughts do). For the moment, let's use David's "saved for the future" as an incentive for your own thoughts. If you need an incentive. Remember you can write here about anything that strikes you as interesting, puzzling.

The question for this week (if you choose to answer it):

If you agree that "brain=behavior", why? what would persuade you otherwise? If you disagree with "brain=behavior", or are fence-sitting on the question, why? What aspects of behavior/human experience do you think would be difficult or impossible to account for in terms of the brain? And why?

And yet I wonder, if the premise of evolution is descent with modification - the preferential survival of individuals best suited to their given circumstances - then does faith provide an evolutionary boon to our species? Or is it a behavior that poses no discernible aid or detriment, and is only hanging around because it hasn't been selected out of us? I don't really know what I think about the idea yet, but, no matter what it is, I can't wait to be proven wrong!

Our "mind" (as I see it at least) comes from these chemicals and the experiences that we have. So I guess if I were to pinpoint a place where the "mind" begins I would have to say that it is the hippocampus where learning and memory take place. It is intimately connected with the amigdala which would explain the fact that we are very emotional animals. I believe that we all have souls but these souls are just the collection of our thoughts feelings and experiences that we have encountered over the years. This is what I would consider a "mind". So I place myself in the camp that sits on a fence but I strongly lean to the Emily Dickenson camp. The mind exists in the brain. You may call it a soul, others might call it a memory, consciousness, or the hippocampus. I just call it the mind.

Hmm, so if (IF) separating the brain actually means separating the 'mind' (maybe not eveybody has the same definition of 'mind'), where does that put the brain (=) mind discussion ?? Just thought I wanted to share that question.

Though it might be as farfetched to some as demons causing odd behavior, maybe the mind or soul or whatever non-biological entity there is, has to act through the body and brain. That could be why time taken before an action is related to the complicatedness of the issue, the mind/soul has to decide what to do and then send their decision through material objects. For example, lets say I’m the mind/soul and the computer is the material brain. If I have an 850Mhz Pentium III CPU, the opening of programs would be much faster then if I have a 200Mhz Pentium II CPU. Also, more complicated programs on the computer will take longer to open while less complicated ones will just pop up. The mind (me) acts at the same speed for both computers and the electrical signals are still the same but one of the computers will have the programs open faster. I suppose what I’m saying with all this is that I’m a fence-sitter. As much as I learn about the biology of the human brain, I still would like to consider other possibilities for our behaviors.

On the other hand, however, and in a more philosophical slant, my suspicion is that behavior cannot be entirely accounted for by gray matter and nerve cells. Although we may pin-point parts of the brain in controlling behavior, we may do so only by observing and not necessarily driving at the primary WHY of how it works. How can one explain in a scientific manner, for example, as the French philosopher Malenbranche had pointed out, how free will dictates human behavior? We call psychokinetics (the ability to move objects without physical contact) magical and supernatural, but in actuality, lifting my hand up in the air seems to me like pyschokinetics already! What part of science can explain to me how my DESIRE to lift my hand translate into nerves and muscles joining in the action? What exact physical entities make up thought and free will? Surely not the brain? Or do we have free will at all?

Therefore, the question posted is not easy to answer, but looking at both cases (brain = behavior, brain NOT = behavior) allows me to realize how both answers could be valid in some ways.

Brain-"the organ inside the head that controls thought, memory, feeling, and physical activity"

Behavior-"a particular way of acting"

What I found to be interesting was the fact that behavior was only a way of "acting", which implies that it is exclusively something observable. Not only that, but the brain is what CONTROLS the activity. If these defintions are acurate, is there any room for the two to be the same thing? Well, it doesn't look so good. Nonetheless, I think that those writing the dictionary probably do not have debates over such questions when compiling the book. As for me, I am still a fencesitter, but one that leans away from what the dictionary seemingly applies.

I do beleive that there is very srong connection between the brain and behavior, but I am not sure whether they are the same thing. It seems to me that if they are the same thing that it could easily explain why humans have to take time to react, why they dream, why there are physical signs of internal feelings like emotions, among so many other things. The only thing that I would question is the human spirit or soul. Is the soul linked to the brain and if so, is it the same thing or is it just connected to it in some way? These are questions that I do not have answers to. In fact, I only have a guess to most questions, not an answer.

Another reason I believe behavior comes from the brain is similarities between people. Even though everyone is unique, there are certain characteristics that people share. The more you are around other people the more you adapt to how they are. The brain is processing information subconsciously and altering behavior. It is Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest. The best behavior is recognized by the brain and incorporated into that person. I do not think it is any unobservable force working in the background. It is our own bodies working to be the best they can.

These are my views upon the subject. I am sure as the course progresses they will be altered, but in a way that could only be supporting what I have already said.

While it was amusing at the time, I agree, everything is chemistry. Everything observable at least. And as long as we're defining behavior as something observable I'm going to fall into the camp that says brain=behavior. The brain is chemistry, and if I learned anything in organic chemistry it was that there is nothing else. I don't pretend to understand all of the unobservable things that go on in a psyche. These things may come from some other source- God, soul etc. but they aren't observable. It would take a lot for me to believe that there is something else besides the brain. There would have to be some observable form of behavior that clearly came from some other source. Some source not confined by the rule and principles of chemistry and science. For now, I'm going to side with Dickenson et al. and say that there is nothing else besides that brain.

I understand that chemical reactions occur from synapse to synapse to trigger communication with the brain in order to produce behaviors. On the other hand, I believe that there is more than just the brain and behavior. If, as Crick stated, "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells...influence them" is true, then what accounts for external circumstances.

One issue is the body element. For instance, if one were reading sitting at a desk, one generally tends to read more effectively than if one were reading laying on a bed. Personally, reading laying on a bed creates sleepiness. This suggests that body position could influence our thinking, which then can alter our behavior. What if one had a leg or arm amputated? A bodily change such as this may cause a change in mental state leading the person to behave or act differently. Many other outside factors can influence a change in thinking. Even the clothes one wears can be a factor. Wearing a business suit can boost confidence and self-esteem, whereas wearing sweats can lead the brain to think one way and alter one's behavior to a state of nonchalance. In class, we tried to determine the stimulus that causes a cricket to chirp. For all we know, outer factors, such as warm weather and environment could have triggered the cricket to chirp.

Therefore, I am not confident about where I stand. For now, I will just fence-sit to be safe. The brain is yet too complex to fathom with complete understanding.

For me, this statement raises another issue: whether the brain and mind are the same. Let's continue with the example of smoking. When a person becomes addicted to nicotine, he feels a craving for this substance. This sense of craving presumably comes from the brain. However, a person can overcome the urge to smoke through, as I see it, the power of a separate entity: the mind. Although the body (more specifically the brain, which directs the signal for the craving) asks for nicotine, one's mind has the power to deliver or not deliver the nicotine to the body through the choice of whether or not to smoke.

I guess this now makes me a fence sitter. If the "mind" has the ability to control behavior, then it is not simply the brain that impacts behavior.

In some cases, brain does control behavior. It has been shown that certain mental proccesses are linked with particular regions of the brain, and thus the brain will control how one acts. However, it is not always just the brain which controls one's behavior. Chemical reactions between synapses can only explain so much.

There are certain times when mental ideas are not displayed outwardly as behavior. We can think things without physically showing what we are thinking. Environment certainly affects one's behavior, but does it affect one's brain function?

I am a fence-sitter and believe that there can potentially be more to behavior than just the brain.

And yet, as was said in class on Thursday, there is no way of proving that there are no demons. The point I found interesting was that though the demons may exist, believing in the brain works better. Believing that the brain is the source of behavior treats illness and helps us understand conditions that were before a mystery. So, if science is a way of being less wrong, then it seems to me that medical success is a good measure of that. So, despite hesitations, I am going to put my faith in brain = behavior, not for its truth but for its ability to produce results.

I just started reading "Conversations with Neil's Brain", a book that very interestingly describes the surgical process of mapping the brain of an epileptic patient. While Neil is conscious and awake, a neurosurgeon probes exposed portions of his brain with an electric current, noting Neil's subsequent reactions. Last night, I started reading Chapter 2 of the book, titled "Losing Consciousness", and came across a thought-provoking quote that the author, William Calvin, cites from another book called "The Dreaming Brain":

"The music from these spheres from the galaxy within our head is our consciousness. Consciousness is the continuous, subjective awareness of the activity of billions of cells firing at many times a second, communicating instantaneously with the tens of thousands of their neighbors. And the organization of this symphony of activity is such that it is sometimes externally oriented (during waking), sometimes remarkably oblivious to the outside world (during sleep), and sometimes so remarkably aware of itself (during dreams) that it recreates the external world in its own image."

Could this be it? Is what we call "consciousness" simply the result of billions of neurons communicating with one another? Part of me wants to argue that there has to be more than this going on, but I have a feeling that as this course progresses, I will be more likely to say that consciousness very well could be defined this way.

I suppose what remains in question is under what circumstances the brain and behavior are malleable to one another and how each may develop as independent entities capable of informing one-another. I guess this is where the interdisciplinary approach comes in handy. It takes a little biology and a little psychology to appreciate how this equation is worked out. We know, for example, that stimulus deprived rats have a neural circuitry distinct from their counterparts raised in enriched environments. The plastic nature of the brain shows that its structure is not free from the external environmental/behavioral influences. Likewise, the behaviors that would seem to be a product of free will or experience, such as emotional disposition, are apparently tied to structures of the brain. The example that comes to mind is Phineus Gage, the soft-spoken, gentle steelworker who turned into a loud and intolerant brut after having a rod jammed though his frontal lobe. The underlying mechanism of emotion and reaction is seated in the bio-chemical processes of our brain, and our brain is dually molded by the information coming from the body and the external world.

So in a sense, neuroscience is a fence sitters discipline. It seeks to reframe the questions of biology and psychology in terms of one another. It is safe and I believe it offers a useful perspective. Brain=behavior is a reminder that the project of both disciplines is to understand relevant problems. The underlying mechanisms of certain behaviors have been pinned-down using this methodology: we know how pain is received and perceived in the nervous system. Additionally, we know that learning alters the brain and that there is a critical period for language acquisition. With this in mind, I think a more appropriate phrase for the relationship between brain and behavior would be condition dependent. Sometimes it would be an inequality. Brain>behavior in drive states, pain etc. Behavior>brain in language acquisition. Working within the principle that one side of the inequality/equality influences the other; neuroscience seems to concern itself with the nature of the interaction or the terms of influence. I guess this interpretation makes me a fence sitter, too.

For me, this makes brain=behavior the preferred model to be rejected. To reject it, of course, we can try to find examples of behavior that are not explained by this model, not contained within the brain. And some excellent objections have already been raised! It seems that the two primary objections are (1) the existence of human spirituality and soul, and (2) consciousness. In short, we seem reluctant to accept that the material (neurons, neurotransmitters, and hormones) can create the immaterial (the soul, emotions, self-awareness). On the contrary, though, both objections are explicable within the brain framework.

In the first case, it must be noted that the relevant question is not whether a human soul exists, but whether the soul controls behavior. Hence I can be a spiritual person while still maintaining that brain=behavior, since I've seen no evidence that the soul itself controls behavior. Spiritual behavior is controlled by the belief in a soul, a belief that is contained wholly within the brain. Moreover, the belief is a response to specific emotions - themselves a purely biological experience - that are the direct result of human evolution. Fear of death is a wonderful motivator to stay alive, and spirituality is in large part a behavioral response to this fear.

Likewise, consciousness is simply an extension of adaptive abilities to reason and to apply past experience to predict the future. It is a significant step to move from understanding the world to understanding one's place in the world, but if we can understand logical planning in neurological terms, then we can understand consciousness in the same terms. I've been too long-winded already, so in sum, I think any such objection can be explained similarly; thus I'm left with "brain=behavior" as the best model I've seen to date.

There is plenty of physical evidence that begins to point towards brain equaling behavior. Experiments using functional MRI, fMRI, to study dyslexia show that there are areas in the brain that are not active in dyslexic children when they are reading. Technology's ability to view activity (oxygen levels) in the brain while certain behaviors are taking place lead me to believe that there is an obvious correlation between an action and the following "reaction" in the brain. If dyslexic kids are missing something (neurons, neurotransmitters?) in the brain, their behavior is affected... they have difficulty reading.

Is this convincing evidence for a one to one mapping of behavior to the brain? Nope. But, regardless of what model is deemed the "ideal" one, it will always be questioned. As well it should be. Neuroscience is about finding the answers to unanswerable questions. A paradox, true, but it means that the field will continue to exist for quite a while.

A lot of people have mentioned the existence of a mind and/or soul as a reason for being a fence sitter. Yes, it's perplexing. I believe the mind or soul exists within the brain. We feel, believe and have faith using our brains. All the information we have about our beliefs is stored in our brains. This is all easy for me to believe in. I get stumped, however, when I think about the question of life after death. Yes, the brain decomposes, but it's nice to think that the mind lives on in some capacity. So, there is the point of my confusion. Does being a hard core scientist who truely believes brain = behavior mean I have to give up my religious faith?

On the point that Gwen made I think that it is hard to think about our religious beliefs in connection with the idea of brain equally behavior. There is so much about our brains that we don't understand. I think beliefs have something to do with our behavior. The mysterious ways in which our brain runs through things during sleeping patterns always makes me sit and think about how I had certain dreams. I can usually remember my dreams when I wake in the morning and they are always so vivid. Connecting my dreams to things that happened during the day or were in the back of my mind really makes me wonder how our brain connects things into stories while we are unconscious.

I believe that brain does equal behavior. This does not mean that I give up beliefs because I think that somehow our brain is in control of everything. It really is mysterious. I am interested to hear what other people have to say on the subject.

I would like to believe that brain = behavior. A convincing argument for me has to do with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or tourrette's syndrome. In such illnesses, significant behavioral manifestations result from damage to or deterioration of the brain. The behavior can often be controlled through the use of medications which directly affect the brain. This appears to suggest that all behavior is directly related to the brain.

I have also read that there is evidence that even emotions which many people have a hard time believing come only from the brain, such as love, are directly related to levels of certain neurotransmitters (such as serotonin). However, I suppose I then must question whether the emotion brings about the change in neurotransmitter or the change in neurotransmitter brings about the emotion. It seems an impossible task to try to form any real conclusions about this. In a way, it is analogous to proving the existence of a soul or a higher power/deity.

While I understand that there are input/output functions, gated ion channels and synapses in the brain I can't get it out of my head(brain or mind I'm not sure) that they account for everything experienced. There are behaviors that are not explained by the brain or that can have alternative origins. So for now, until I'm proved wrong, I'm going with the brain does not equal behavior. If it makes you(or me) feel better you can call me fence sitting strongly leaning.

So.....Is there really a mind? I'm sure that we all know the answer to that question after class on Thursday (if you can't prove it, then you really don't know), but I can't help but feeling, in a manner admittedly incongruous with my prior discussion, that there must be a way to link this concept of a mind to the brain so that the brains does equal behavior. Somehow, through all of those neurotransmitters and ion channels, the senses of our own autonomy and experiences must be explicable. Could it be possible that the mind exists within the brain, much like the true wizard in the Wizard of Oz? Somewhere within the sensory organs and nerves, there is a human element (not to say that animals can't possess this element, but just to narrow down the discussion) which, while requiring these tools of perception to operate, represents the true ability of humans to conceive of thoughts and ideas they have never seen before nor could ever truly grasp the magnitude of (i.e. God, the heavens, etc.). In looking at Emily Dickinson's poem, it could be said that she is right in her opinion that the brain is greater than the sky because it can contain the sky while the sky cannot contain it, but that perhaps the only reason that the brain is greater is because it contains the mind. Afterall, without the mind, what would the brain see? An endless sky, sure, but how would it ever understand or even remotely create for itself the concept of endless, since it can obviously never prove it to itself? The mind is the only answer, but only with the aside that it must act with the brain, as we know through research that it is what perceives stimuli. In ways that I'll let you ponder for yourselves, I think that these ideas could apply to religion and the concept of "life" after death, as well.

Well, I feel like I have rambled on for a while, and perhaps done nothing but establish myself as a fence-sitter with a lot to say, but perhaps this will spark a discussion on the idea of the mind, and where those who don't believe brain=behavior think that this missing piece is at work.

But I continue to ask myself, what of intuition? Or just "having a feeling" about something? Suspicion, hate, anger, love? The last usually being considered to be an emotion that is difficult to describe exactly. How can these be explained in terms of brain and behavior? I have no answers to these questions, but I wouldn't want to rule them out. I still want to believe that there are just some things that will remain intangible and unexplainable. Science can't provide the answers to everything

I assume the brain is only the grey matter and paraphenalia inside the head. What about the body's vibratory emisssions of emotion into space outside the body? Of course these emotions are behavior caused by the brain, but they also cause our behavior. And when they are in space outside the body, they are no longer in the brain.

An example of these outer reaching vibrations is what a severely depressed person fills her or his surrounding air with. It seems to be a physical matter, albeit invisible to the eye, that reaches out from the person and behaves first, as chosen by the depressed person and then secondly, in concert with the other vibrations floating around. These depressed emotions fill the air with toxins that can destroy the feelings of peace and joy that others perhaps may be emitting or they might be influenced by the ambience and behave in a way that will cause less stressful behavior from the people that enter the room.

I believe that these free floating vibrations, ever changing actions in harmony or discord, are part of what can be refered to as the collective mind(outside the body and impressed inside the body also). In space and body, they harbor the ancient and the new (vibrations)of the subjective, genetic human beings. Of course, they are vibrating with all the rest of the subjective and objective jazz of the universe. So mind or brain, its just different physical vibrations. It seems to me though that behavior is caused by more matter than just the brain.

Do our personalities come from our parents? It's true that kids seem to take after one parent or the other and how much of this is genetic and how much is learned behavior, I don't know. I do know that no two siblings are exactly alike. They have a similar genetic makeup and a similar environment from which they derive their learned behaviors and yet they can exhibit extreme differences in personality. The whole theory that has come up with the prospect of cloaning is that even if you have two individuals with the exact same genetic makeup, you will not have identical people as far as character is concerned. Is this all attributable to slightly different environmental influences? I honestly don't know. I feel like a lot of who a person is is defined by their experiences and fundamentally by how their brain functions, but part of me also says that their personality or character was something that they were born with and that everyone's is unique. Maybe my problem is that I don't think there can be enough variation within the brain and how it functions to accout for all of the uniqueness that exists amongst people. I mean, how many different things can the brain do that differently? A lot, sure - but enough? I'm sure I'm really tired and not thinking clearly, and I know that there is a LOT that I don't know about the brain. But this is where I'm at right now. I hope it makes sense.

when i continue to think of this question i agree with people who are questioning the role of spirituality and god in our behavior. while i'm not sure of its particular role in my life, i think it is an interesting question to think about. i'm sure there are ways to make spirituality fit the brain=behavior equation like the ones proposed by daniel burdick, but i'm just going to have to keep thinking about it. . .

It would be premature, however, to say that the current conception of brain=language, or brain=behavior for that matter, is complete. Just as those pictures we looked at on Thursday of the neural circuitry kept getting more complex, a place where the model of brain=behavior may continue to need filling out is the possible distinction between mind and brain. I think Christine brought up a good example of this with nicotine addiction, that the mind is at odds with the brain. I wonder, also, about the mental aspect of addiction. The addiction to smoking certainly has components beyond the physical dependence on nicotine. The drive influencing the behavior of smoking also comes from connections to one’s environment (like always having a cigarette after dinner, for instance), social pressure or custom, etc. etc. If, like Christine suggested, the mind can succumb to or deny the brain’s desire for nicotine, the mind, or whatever controls whether this desire of the brain is met, also has to, in its decision of whether to trigger the behavior of smoking, consider the nonphysical reasons to smoke and those not to smoke. Are these other reasons the mind? The brain? Is the brain fighting the brain here, or the mind fighting the brain, or the mind fighting the mind? It seems like these competing mental forces are too complex to be lumped together as "brain." Maybe someday brain=behavior will seem as oversimplified as the behaviorist model of language acquisition does today, or maybe it’s about as complete a picture as we can get or even need to get; who knows?

I am sure the implications that make them different are the simple fact that one is a thing (the brain) and the other is not (behavior). The first step is to first define what each means in the biological sense. Stemming from these broad ranges of possibilities could be one of the first steps in considering what kinds of new observations would cause people to think differently.

I will say though that if it becomes widely accepted that the brain controls behavior, and that is it, this has some interesting implications for society. For instance, what about all of the people in prisons? If there actions were dictated by their brains, should they really be locked up? Should we be trying to figure out a way to fix what is abnormal about their brains, rather that incarcerating them?

This new study examines a different type of behavior: dreaming. By examining brain patterns in sleeping rats, the researchers have suggested that rats dream - - and more specifically about the mazes they run during the day. The specific brain patterns that the rats have while running through the mazes were the same sequences observed while they were "dreaming." This study further suggests that dreaming may play a role in the formation of memory: the repetition of the brain sequences in the hippocampus (which is involved in memory) during sleep may indicate a process of memory storage. There was also evidence that suggested that R.E.M. episodes reflect past experiences while slow-wave sleep likely reflected recent events.

What do you guys think?

Searching For the God Within.

The soul is another important entity of a person. It is the moral center, where judgements are made and followed through by the mind giving the brain specific instructions that the body follows through upon. The soul is not physical, but is displayed when the soul takes control of the body and mind. I believe the soul is contained within the entire body. The soul is the part of a person where instincts reside, because it is the section that is most receptive to the idea of a Higher Being. When all three of these features are integrated into one person, the being is complete- mind, body, and soul. Using this model of a whole person, suggests that the brain does not equal behavior, because it does not account for the mind and soul.

This same paper had a very interesting quote from Hippocrates and his view on the brain.

"And men ought to know that from the brain and the brain alone arise our pleasures, joys, laughter and jests, as well as our sorrows, pains, griefs and tears...By the same organ we become mad and delirious, and fears and terrors assail us...and dreams and untimely wanderings...All these things we endure from the brain, when it is not healthy..."(Hippocrates, 1886).

This quote is interesting. It is quite old but it shows that even at this time they had some understanding that diseases of the brain, involved the brain and weren't connected to demonization. Hippocrates believed that all behaviour came from the brain, which is what we have been discussing in class.

Some may argue that so much variation cannot come out of such a small material object, but think of all the variation that comes out of small chromosomes. I think that the various specialized areas within the brain, and the combination of these areas can be a great source of variation. The brain can activate several pathways and that alone can produce different behaviors. In addition, once the brain begins to combine the activity of other pathways, that in turn allows for more variation in behavior. Also, if we examine brain-related diseases, many of them affect behavior. For example, the dysfunction of neurons and the release of monoamine neurotransmitters (I think that's what they are called), can affect the way a person THINKS, SLEEPS, EATS, READS, INTERACTS WITH OTHERS and even the way they PRAY, and experience religious events. Maybe its my personal experience with severe depression and anxiety that leads me to believe that such a small material object can have a DIRECT affect on behavior... I guess with more thought and more information. I will either lean more strongly toward brain=behavior, or I will drift away from that idea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/30/health/30PHYS.html?pagewanted=2

The degree to which the brain can be manipulated in a dish does lend some credence to the idea of it as a box subject to inputs and outputs. But I still believe in the distinction between mind and brain in some sort of reciprocal relationship where one enables the capacities of the other and vice versa. So, the New York Times aside, I am still a fence-sitter...

| Course Home Page | Forum | Brain and Behavior | Serendip Home |