Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2002

Does the "brain = behavior" hypothesis fit your observations/experiences/ways of making sense of the world? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. In either case, suggest new observations which might serve to further explore the hypothesis.

I agree with Paul that Brain=Behavior. I agree with Emily Dickinson’s poem that one can fit the universe inside the brain. And I also agree with the statement by Francis Crick that “a person’s mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them.”

When I think about the amazing workings of the body (actually every living organism) I remember one of my favorite children’s books, Horton hears a Who by Dr. Seuss. I recall reading to my children (who are now both grown) and discussing the tiny universe (inside the flower) where entire cities and populations existed, hustling and bustling, unbeknownst to the people up on top where Horton the Elephant lived. Only Horton could hear the cries for help from the tiny people who lived inside the flower. No one else could hear the cries; no one else ever listened. I wanted my children to learn to “listen and see.”

I think about the universe in the same way; that everything is made up of particles and cells and chemicals that simulate tiny populations to do what they are programmed to do, day in and day out, unless something causes them to change.

I wonder if the mind and the brain are the same thing; or if the mind and the soul are the same thing? I think about the mind, the soul, and free will and I believe that these are all inventions that emanate from our chemical brain. I think that different cultures have each created answers for questions that have no answers to quiet fear and offer explanations where no explanation exists. I am excited at the prospect that science is exploring a physical place inside the brain that could account for the creation of religious and spiritual “feelings”.

Feelings and emotions seem to be unique, private, and almost magical. But science has mapped areas in the brain, the amygdala, for instance, that control feelings and emotions, and when the amygdala is damaged, so is one’s ability to experience or control these same emotions. When a chemical imbalance occurs, our emotional states suffer.

We know enough about depression to know that Hamlet’s melancholia or Ophelia’s madness might easily be treated with Prozac today. The mysterious chemistries of the brain can sometimes be duplicated by our pharmacists. Our emotions can be changed with chemicals almost as easily as we make a headache disappear.

Behavior is a response to external and internal stimuli, which are processed by the nervous system. The external stimuli refer to different experiences each person has and the internal stimuli refer to the changes taking place in the body. Since it is almost impossible for two people to have the exact same experiences, each person may behave differently to the same stimulus. So, based on the definition on behavior one could say that Brain=Behavior. It makes sense that behavior can only come from the chemical physical changes of the brain.

However, this Brain=Behavior cannot be such a simple relationship. What about the soul and the mind? Or are they a part of the Brain=Behavior relationship? Each on of us has felt at least one indescribable emotion that I believe cannot be accounted for by a few chemical reactions in the brain. So this leads me to believe that there has to be something else besides the brain that allows for such emotion.

Another thought that came to mind: What about identical twins? They come from the same cell and so they have the same brain but they aren’t identical in behavior but that can be due to their different experiences or maybe not.

I want to agree with Dickinson and Professor Grobstein because it makes sense and there are a lot more “concrete” observations that makes Brain=Behavior plausible, but I can’t just agree when there is something telling me that it can’t always be true. So, I’m left at the same position I started at: Unsure.

Does the "brain = behavior" hypothesis fit your observations/experiences/ways of making sense of the world? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not. In either case, suggest new observations which might serve to further explore the hypothesis.

Does the brain really equal behavior? I am not quite sure of the answer. It seems almost hard to believe that everything that one experiences and does in their lifetime is really a function of the brain. It also seems hard to fathom that the brain really contains everything. The brain is constantly changing. There will probably be constant debate over brain and behavior as the same thing. This relates back to the mind-body problem.

The brain is only one part of the nervous system. I took neuroscience two years ago and went through the textbook, Physiology of Behavior . It read that the distinction between brain function and behavior is an important one. Circuits within the brain perform functions, not behaviors. No one brain region or neural circuit is solely responsible for a behavior; each region performs a function (or set of functions) that contributes to performance of the behavior.

I think that it is important to understand and look at the different functions that are ultimately responsible for performing a particular behavior. What circuits of neurons in the brain are responsible for each of these functions that we perform?

We do know that there are a nature of functions that are performed by various parts of the brain and that damage there disrupts people's ability to perform different functions.

Human brains are similar but in a way are different in an individual depending on the circumstance or the time. Human brains are also similar to one another but different individuals act differently. Even identical twins do not have the same behavior.

Don't people who live in different environments act differently? But could we just say that the environment affects the brain instead of affecting behavior? If we make mistakes or commit crimes, can we just blame it on our brains? How does learning theory and behavior come into play, such as Pavolvian and operant conditiong?

Genes, knowledge, and experiences all affect the brain. If the brain is behavior I guess it deals with what influences behavior as well.

What doesn't "brain = behavior" equation explain?? Perhaps creativity. Contrast cricket song patterns, each one unique to a single species of cricket, and reproducible by a cricket who has never heard the song of his species. Human song [or dance, storytelling, art, etc.] may be shaped by culture, but the range of human creative expression appears to be unbounded, the specific works of creative expression unpredictable even to their creators. Likewise, intellectual play: I recently sat in a roomful of lawyers, all of whom had read the same cases, yet each of us came up with a different legal theory to support the result we were trying to reach. Was each analogy, each leap in logic, solely the product of the slightly different neural pathways in each brain? I ask the same question about personality [even the most trivial aspects, like food and music preferences]: most parents contend that a child's personality is evident from birth or soon thereafter: assuming this observation is accurate, how much of a person's temperament can be attributed to the brain?

What observations could help to support the idea that brain does not equal behavior?? I agree with the suggestion that studying twins or siblings, or observing behavior in other circumstances where the differences in brain, experience, and stimuli, are minimized, would be useful. Likewise, observing and comparing brain activity in response to stimuli to determine if differences in behavior can be correlated with differences in brian activity.

From a scientific perspective, it's hard to think that the mind or soul could be in any other place besides the brain. However, a religious upbringing can conflict with this statement, especially the idea of free will. I read some excepts from Owen Wilson's Consilience and I think he presents a very interesting take on the concept of free will. I do not know if I agree with him by saying that free will is just an illusion, but none the less it makes me think.

Personally I do not have a hard time mixing my religous beliefs with my scientific understanding. I believe that there are just some things that we are not capable of understanding and think that if there is something greater, he created our brains in such a way so that they could equal our behavior.

I used to think I could not only be flesh and bone, especially after attending a Christian church for so many years. I did not have the knowledge of how complex the brain is. I think the brain is a miracle in itself, and that the greatness of it is often overlooked. There is so much still unknown and what is known is amazing to me.

I believe all behavior is processed and physically carried out by the brain based on what I have learned. I hope that after the complex organ itself is gone there is some sort of spirit that is left to show for all the growth and experiences of the brain.

In answering the brain/behavior question, I think about perception. We are what we perceive. What we see, feel, smell, taste, and the knowledge that we deduce based on our perception is who we are. Of course, everyone is different and none of us begin life at the same starting point. We are shaped by the influences of our outside world. We react to the outside world, and these reactions are spurred from our perception.

The brain IS perception. I would, theoretically, like to believe that there is more to life than neurons and chemicals, but it would not make sense. Many people have stated that they believe there is more because of the complicated array of feelings and emotions that we feel as humans. They are incredible, yes, but not impossible to have been created by the amazing, incredible, mysterious (at this time), and complicated workings of the human brain.

Since we live in a physical world, I think in physical terms. If there is such a thing as a spiritual world, then I do not think that it has any influence on our physical world. There could theoretically be many other planes of life that we just are unable to perceive.

The point that I am trying to make is that there are a lot of things that we cannot understand at this point in history. Even though we like to believe that most of the worlds questions have been answered, there are fundamental perplexities that continue to astound us, especially when one thinks about the brain. Psychiatry and neurology are still very young fields of study.
I believe that, many years from now, we will be able to understand the functionings of the brain so as to understand that the brain is completely responsible for one's behavior. What I do know now is that the brain is much more than the sum of its parts. One cannot merely say that all of human existance depends on a melon-sized pile of gray matter. The brain is overwhelming in its functioning. It is the groups of neurons working together that produce memories and thought processes. Maybe it is the functions itself that produces the soul.

I like the philosopher David Hume's notion of cause and effect. He points out that human reasoning is derived from custom. Repeated actions and observations develop an understanding of cause and effect. This is what ultimately allows for what is accepted as true. However, there is likewise ample room for doubt since much of the information stored in our minds does not come from immediate experience. For example, I consider it true that there are nine planets in our solar system, even though I have not seen all nine, nor have visited more than one. According to very good, scientific evidence I have never the less chosen to accept the nine-planet argument as compellingly true.

What does this have to do with neurobiology? From my encounters as an encephalized being, I have observed that, indeed, all of my present knowledge or understanding has come from conscious and deliberate experience. This experience involved my five senses. In fact, I cannot think of an instance where I did not employ my senses to learn something. Furthermore, the repeatability of my experiences provides a reasoning capability and judgment to help me to discern what is most likely true from what is most likely false, and thus associates ideas obtained from previous experiences. Essentially, exploration of the material world with our bodies' resources allows for understanding. This can also imply that there is a level of universality to human body systems, as well as the environments (physical) that we are immersed in.

Being aware of accessible knowledge and synthesizing it is what I feel leads to more complex thinkings; rationalizations or creative endeavors that sometimes are, in my opinion, mistaken for understanding from a non-material source. Maybe this is how the idea of a soul has become so independent and isolated from the physical aspect of people. Perhaps an eternal soul does exist, arising at conception and developing as the conscious mind throughout life. Whatever the case, I am not anxious about accepting the idea that brain equals behavior, either from a scientific or a religious standpoint. I am assured that the absolutes of science provide plenty of room for the mysteries of faith.

If understanding comes from perception, then there must be multiple relative truths. From my interpretation of the world, this is what I feel comfortable with right now. However, other peoples' impressions may have lead them in a completely different and equally acceptable paths that could sway me into another direction throughout the course. .

-Cindy

A second point I would like to make is that the simplicity of saying that my emotions are a product of molecular interactions does not offend me. For one thing, molecular interactions happen to be very complex. In addition, when one considers that all that exists in the universe is a product of the combination of about 90 elements, why should I feel that I am somehow beyond what seems to be a law of nature---that complex things can be built from simple starting materials.

Another point I would like to raise is the question of how genetics fall into the brain = behavior equation. Doesn't genetics play a part in neural development?

But a question I would like to pitch is that if the brain, or nervous system is all there is, how do emotions come into play? Does the mind/body/brain create the emotions that are then released from the brain, and transmitted throughout our nerves, sending messages to our bodies to act or react a certain way, or are emotions external forces that penetrate into our brains and the story goes from there?

The way I am interpreting this question is thaat there are no external forces that influence us in any way, shape, or form. That it is all within the mechanisms of the brain. If that is the case then I will have to disagree. As many in this forum are saying, past experiences can be a major influence on how each individual handles a certain given situation.

I find that emotion is one of the more complex issues when dealing with Neurobiology and behavior. Perhaps this field of study makes a great attempt at explaining the vast complexities of the human mind. But who knows if we will ever truly understand ourselves.

Where am I going with this? Well, often ethical writings expound on what’s right and how to be a good person and what I realized through Aristotle is that while these arguments are complex, they are in essence a sort of “how-to” for becoming a good person, hence having a good life. What they are telling us is how to behave. Perhaps in focusing on the complexities of the brain, which I don’t even begin to refute, we have overlooked behavior.

Behavior defines and frames our lives. Ultimately, our behavior is the only remnants of our presence on earth – our impact. It is very difficult to categorize such a critically important aspect of our lives under “brain”. Is it accurate to say that like behavior, the brain defines and frames our lives? I don’t know. In my opinion, behavior contains too many intricate features to even place them all under the umbrella of “behavior”.

My hesitation to relinquish behavior to the brain speaks to how vast of a subject matter behavior really is. Something with which I define myself as an individual can not be so systematic, so rigid and should I dare say it – so scientific as to be all attributed to the brain.

Perhaps my logic isn’t quite scientific, but I would like to think that if brain=behavior, we would have all made far fewer mistakes in our lives.

The higher functions of the brain such as cognition and belief are clearly influenced by the environment. Therefore, there is more to behavior than just the brain. However, if one regards the environment as something that is a construct that only exists in the brain, then brain does equal behavior, and there truly isn’t anything else. It seems to me that the crux of this debate lies in the way in which people understand the external environment.

I am hesitant to embrace the idea that brain = behavior, because it seems to imply that this system is much simpler than it actually is. If one really wants to split hairs, YES, all human thought, emotion, and belief is, at its most fundamental level, a result of a range neurophysiological interactions. However, we do not fully understand these processes. Human behavior is unpredictable, and is clearly influenced by outside forces (which in turn may result in biological changes). Neurological processes which govern cognition and free will cannot be activated or altered without interaction with the outside environment. I am thus uncomfortable with the notion that brain = behavior on the grounds that it muddies the notions of free will, personality, and spirituality by implying that interaction with the outside world is irrelevant to neurophysiological processes.

I mentioned my take on this issue in class on Thursday, albeit briefly. I'll expound here:
To say that brain=behavior is to say that a human's entire personality and behavioral patterns, "mind", everything that is thought to constitute a person -- all of this is contained solely in the histology and chemistry of the human nervous system. Period. If a memory makes you smile, it's biochemical. If music or poetry is ever so beautiful and dead-on that it makes you cry, it's biochemical. If you pray, when you pray and you find that moment of peace and communion and centering, it's simply because you have induced a chemical reaction in your nervous system. Everything you do, say, think, experience, believe, realize, feel, it's all a series of complex reactions and mechanisms. You are a very well-designed machine.

Computers are the most complex machines we have now. You can have a computer with an amazing conglomeration of parts. The hard drive can be unfathomably huge, the hardware can be top-of-the-line, the circuitry can be phenomenal, and the way each of these parts work together may be an awe-inspiring thing. Who would argue that the parts of a computer aren't amazing and complex?
Well, have you ever tried to run a computer with no software? The parts work to an extent, and it's still complex and awesome, but you can't do much of anything with a machine that has no programs. Yes, everything that happens in a functional computer happens via the circuitry and hardware of the system. But it happens because of the commands and manipulation of a program. No software, no complete computer.
I offer the analogous conclusion that while everything that you experience in your body is the result of complex biochemistry, such circuitry is manipulated by what some call a soul. The body is amazing, yes. The nervous system is amazing, yes. But in order to manipulate this "hardware" in the way humans do on a daily basis, you need to run the right "software". The parts work by themselves, but they are controllable (to whatever extent control is possible) throught the soul. No soul, no complete human.

It has been proven that the brain is basically where all of the individuality, identity, and bahvior stem from. We know that in people with brain damage they or drastically different form their former selves. Similarly, amuptees do not change significantly as their brain is left untouched. Thus it seems logical to me that we are in many ways our brains and that brain=behavior.

What about the "soul"? About life after death?

I was brought up with believing in the catholic faith,
which teaches one to believe in your soul going to heaven after you die. By leaving out the notion of a soul, it's like leaving out beliefs of religion.
Nicole Pietras

Personally in my religion, as well as many other religions, it is believed that when someone dies,
their soul lives on. But if the brain was responsible for our every behavior, how could the soul live
on when the brain dies?
Balpreet Bhogal

i would like to believe that we all have a soul independant of the brain and body and that this soul lives on. yet there is part of me that believes that what we experience in our lives
that are stored in teh brain form the soul. I guess im undecided and still confused.
Alisa Alexander

I offer the analogous conclusion that while everything that you experience in your body is the
result of complex biochemistry, such circuitry is manipulated by what some call a soul. The body
is amazing, yes. The nervous system is amazing, yes. But in order to manipulate this "hardware" in
the way humans do on a daily basis, you need to run the right "software". The parts work by
themselves, but they are controllable (to whatever extent control is possible) throught the soul. No
soul, no complete human.
Sarah Feidt

I believe all behavior is processed and physically carried out by the brain based on what I have
learned. I hope that after the complex organ itself is gone there is some sort of spirit that is left to
show for all the growth and experiences of the brain.
Shannon Lee

What about individual differences? creativity?

Each on of us has felt at least one indescribable emotion that I believe cannot be accounted for by a few chemical reactions in the brain. So this leads me to believe that there has to be something else besides the brain that allows for such emotion ... What about identical twins? They come from the same cell and so they have the same brain but they aren’t identical
in behavior but that can be due to their different experiences or maybe not.
Asra Husain

Human brains are similar but in a way are different in an individual depending on the circumstance or the time. Human brains are also similar to one
another but different individuals act differently. Even identical twins do not have the same behavior.
Rebecca Roth

... specific works of creative expression unpredictable even to their creators ...
Hilary Hochman

If chemical can govern our feelings than it also seems possible that they would contribute to each
person’s sense of self (complete with a conscience, personal instincts, and a soul).
Joan Steiner

What about "mind"?

Our brains make mistakes, and not only have we realized this; we’ve learned to use it to our own
advantage in many visual arts fields. So which part of the brain makes the mistake, and which part makes the corrections? Is this the distinction between
the brain and the mind?
Tua Chaudhuri

In a sense, the brain seems to have a mind of its
own.
Natasha Gjivoje

What about the world out there, "reality"?

However, if everything is inside the brain than why
can’t we understand everything that makes up our world? If the earth is inside the brain then why
is it that centuries ago people thought that the earth was flat? If the sea is absorbed by our brains,
then why is that we may never know everything that is at the ocean floor of the Mariana Trench? ...
we are more than just machines programmed by our brains to
perform certain tasks.
Tiffany Vaughn

I agree that
behaviour does not occur without going through the process of the brain. However, the universe or
(sky), exists independent of the brain.
Cindy

The way I am interpreting this question is thaat there are no external forces that influence us in any
way, shape, or form. That it is all within the mechanisms of the brain. If that is the case then I will
have to disagree. As many in this forum are saying, past experiences can be a major influence on
how each individual handles a certain given situation.
Serendip Student

Conscience, free will?

... the conscience also intervenes. And if both have an effect on
behavior, then we would have to tease apart what influences what in order to cause us to behave in
certain ways.
Mary Schlimme

Behavior is modified and molded by the environment, our brains store our
perceptions of the environment, influencing our future behavior, but the environment which
influences our behavior is far beyond our control. So maybe, the sky is not really within our brain,
it’s just up to us if we want to believe it is blue or pink.
Sook Chan

Someone mentioned that a "sense of self" must come
from something beyond the brain, some other essence. That may be true, but the essence seems to
me to only develop through thought and personal reflection. That sense of self is developed
through experience and maturity-- but the brain is what allows us to think about our lives and our
experiences.
Yasmin Mashoon

Complexity, and beyond ...

I recall reading to my children (who are now both grown) and discussing the tiny universe (inside the flower) where entire cities and populations existed, hustling and bustling, unbeknownst to the people up on top where Horton the Elephant lived ... I think about the universe in the same way; that everything is made up of particles and cells and chemicals ...
I wonder if the mind and the brain are the same thing
Beverly Weiss

The point that I am trying to make is that there are a lot of things that we cannot understand at this
point in history. Even though we like to believe that most of the worlds questions have been
answered, there are fundamental perplexities that continue to astound us, especially when one
thinks about the brain.
Michelle Tahmoush

If understanding comes from perception, then there must be multiple relative truths. From my
interpretation of the world, this is what I feel comfortable with right now. However, other peoples'
impressions may have lead them in a completely different and equally acceptable paths that could
sway me into another direction throughout the course.
Kelli Deering

It makes us uncomfortable to be faced with the prospect that perhaps we are actors in a play being
directed by the brain with no apparent freewill. As for myself, I tend to agree with the statement
that brain = behavior, but I feel that the extension of the statement fails to account for the
environment outside of our perception of the environment. In addition, sometimes we (or our
brain) choose(s) what environment we want to experience and sometimes we have no choice in our
environment. Call it fate.
Priya Pujara

I feel that in order for me to fully believe this idea I
would have to be an atheist or completely close minded to all other possibilities. Don't get the
wrong idea. I do think that the brain and all of the stimulants in life have a huge impact on our
behavior but, I cannot say that that is all that I believe. I believe in many things that contradict
themselves and, if to believe in religion as well as brain=behavior is a contradiction, than so be it.
Melissa Hoban

I am hesitant to embrace the idea that brain = behavior, because it seems to imply that this system
is much simpler than it actually is. If one really wants to split hairs, YES, all human thought,
emotion, and belief is, at its most fundamental level, a result of a range neurophysiological
interactions. However, we do not fully understand these processes. Human behavior is
unpredictable, and is clearly influenced by outside forces (which in turn may result in biological
changes). Neurological processes which govern cognition and free will cannot be activated or
altered without interaction with the outside environment. I am thus uncomfortable with the notion
that brain = behavior on the grounds that it muddies the notions of free will, personality, and
spirituality by implying that interaction with the outside world is irrelevant to neurophysiological
processes.
Gavin Imperato

For years we have had two separate sciences dealing with the two so-called “different”
functions of sensation and thought, biology and psychology; in other words, Brain and Behavior.
Susanna Kaysen puts this very aptly in her memoir Girl, Interrupted, speaking of the problems
inherent in treating a mental disorder which, conventional wisdom dictated, must be categorized as
either physical or emotional. “For nearly a century the psychoanalysts have been writing op-ed
pieces about the workings of a country they’ve never traveled to, a place that, like China, has been
off-limits. Suddenly, the country has opened its borders and is crawling with foreign
correspondents; neurobiologists are filing ten stories a week, filled with new data. These two
groups of writers, however, don’t seem to read each other’s work. That’s because the analysts are
writing about a country they call Mind and the neuroscientists are reporting from a country they
call Brain.” This, the central problem to understanding the working of the brain, and indeed all the
aspects of human consciousness, is a miscommunication that this class works to rectify ... "Biology cannot subtract from what it is to be human"
Sarah Eberhardt

Perhaps if we removed the
arguments from humans, we could better understand the issue.
Miranda White

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