Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2003

If you currently accept the idea that there isn't anything to behavior except the brain, explain why. If you don't or are fence-sitting, explain why.

Very much enjoyed our conversation this morning, pleased to have the diversity of backgrounds and interests we have. Pleased too to have your willingness/inclination to recognize some of the hard/interesting problems, like the importance for behavior of both "nature and nurture", of motivation/personality/aspiration/thought, of social/cultural interactions. And pleased to have both the theoretical and the practical concerns voiced: what IS the relation between mind and body, and how should one deal with issues of mental health (among other things)? Hope that, with everyone contributing, we can indeed keep the playing field large enough/rich enough to meet everyone's interests.

This week (as every week) you're free to write about whatever interests you (and as many times as you feel inclined). But if you need something to get you started, here's something to play with as a starting point ...

If you currently accept the idea that there isn't anything to behavior except the brain, explain why. If you don't or are fence-sitting, explain why.

The experience with toddlers served as real-life proof that hypotheses are a summary of disprovable observations. While these observations may sometimes aid us in evaluating real-life situations, they do not hold true in all cases. I noticed this when I fed one sad little guy pudding (hypothesis: feed an unhappy toddler and he will cheer up) and he still kept on crying...then I smelled his diaper, and instantly knew that my hypothesis had been false :)

During our initial discussion, when we either agreed or disagreed whether there was anything besides the brain to behavior, the first thought to my mind was...well, that seems logical, but what about external factors- ex. environmental factors, other people, drugs, abuse, etc? For instance, if a healthy and moderately well off person who lived in a wealthy suburb with all the "necessaries"- house, food, water, heat, etc was put into a situation where he/she was left in a dark basement in another country without clothes, water, and food they may begin to behave differently, or the same person was subjected to some type of abuse repeatedly, be it verbal or physical, their behavior could also become different from what it was before the abuse...but, if you think about it, everything surrounding you can affect you, your body, and your brain. Therefore, I feel that the brain is the underlying medium for behavior, but sometimes it would require/ or be faced with things that can influence and can impact the brain. The brain would then interpret that stimulus (or stimuli) to elicit a response, which could be exhibited in the form of a certain behavior, or change in behavior.
One other thought. I also believe that religion and science coexist, go together hand in hand, especially since I feel that my religion supports a bond between the two. Therefore, accepting the idea that "yes, the brain is everything and the brain=behavior," while also believing that there is a God that controls everything from above does not seem unfeasible...but that's a whole other story.

The brain certainly plays a large role in people's behavior since medication can change someones mood and even help people emerge from states of depression for example. But where my skepticism lies is when factors such as creativity, aspirations, curiosity, emotions enter the scene. How can neurons be responsible for such abstract notions? I feel that these feelings cannot simply be caused by the nervous system. Therefore I cannot say that brain = behavior.

While thinking this question over, I was also wondering how much genetics had to do with behavior. How much of our behavior is caused/controlled by our genetic makeup? I have no concrete answer at this point, although I am sure that some of our behavior is genetic which would go against the idea that our behavior is simply caused by our nervous system.

Also, the discussion of the baby and food created another question in my mind, although it is a bit random: if you observe a baby while sleeping and see it smile, is the smile the result of a quick reflex or the reaction to a dream that the baby is having? I ask b/c this example comes straight from my own personal experience. Is it possible that a baby wakes up crying in the night because it had a nightmare?

Although I agree that brain controls many of our behaviors, in considering our moral decisions, I feel like there has to be more than just our brain playing its part. Imagine the lil angel and the devil sitting at your shoulders, or just think about our conscience. When our "brain" is telling us two different things, how do we choose? With WHAT do we choose? If our brain made all the decisions, I feel like being the selfish and stubborn people that we are, we'd all be living for ourselves. But if that was the case, where do our religious views come into play? Especially for Christianity?

This class is going to be interesting to see how our views may or MAYNOT be altered as the semester goes on... =)

I am also intruigued by the placebo effect which we discussed in class. I wonder how our brains are capable of simulating the effects of a drug. How do we create from sheer belief processes in our bodies which should require the introduction of a foreign chemical to occur? I hope we talk about this in greater detail in class.

I also share Nicole?s feelings of refreshment for the new perspective through which we are examining science. It is nice to think things through from a philosophical standpoint, too.

(( Strangely, I came out of our first week of NB&B discussions feeling only a small bit of confusion, and that had nothing to do with the brain=behavior question. It was confusion as to the significance of the Dickenson poem. The first stanza seems to simply say that the brain contains an impression of the sky "and you beside." Isn't this the same as a photograph? To me, this poem doesn't address behavior at all. If anything, it could point to a subjective reality viewpoint, where the sky "and you beside" only exist as a perception inside the brain. Taking Emily literally seems to say more that brain=reality than brain=behavior. ))

Right now, I think that any given aspect of behavior can be traced to a certain chain reaction in the mind-bogglingly complex systems of processes in the brain. For now, I joyfully embrace the idea that there is a distinct cause and effect for every blink and smile and twitch and conclusion reached. Far from empty, it seems exciting. Imagine the complexity, the jaw-dropping minute and interwoven nature of our brains!

But you know, every aspect of computer function can be traced to a certain chain reaction in the mind-bogglingly complex systems of processes in the hardware. Still, if you put together the materials and forms needed to make that hardware, and sent the right amount of electricity pulsing through it, would it run? No. Nothing would happen, except electrons would glide their merry way through the circuitry. Why is that?

Because hardware DOES NOT = output.

A computer will not work unless it has software, programs, a guidance system. It needs something to tell it how to run. It's not a wheel that will just roll on its own, it's far more complex -- and it requires instruction to work right.

I can imagine that some would say genetics fits this description nicely. But what is a genome but raw code? If you give a computer raw code, it still won't work. That's because code needs to be compiled: it needs to be packaged in a way that makes it usable for the computer. It doesn't influence the computer without first being influenced by... the programmer.

I realize that this is a potentially confusing and awfully long analogy, but it's really the clearest thing I could come up with on the spot to really explain what I believe. In summary, I believe in a human soul that influences the brain to create and effect behavior. I think that behavior can be traced back to the brain's commands, and the brain's commands can be traced back to the soul.

Isn't it a fabulous irony that the brain, the tool we use to understand, can't comprehend (or hasn't comprehended so far as far as anyone knows) what exactly it is? The brain understands other body parts, but because we associate brain not only with material matter, but with transcendant qualities. The only conceivable "thing" that could understand the brain, is the brain. To me this is a wholly solipsistic notion, because self is brain.

solipsism [f. L. sl-us alone + ipse self.] The view or theory that self is the only object of real knowledge or the only thing really existent.

Behave, the word, comes from a reflexive sense of have, as in "to have (bear) oneself." Then it follows that behavior is concerned (linguistically at least) with self, which is brain, which supplies one argument for brain=behavior, there isn't anything else. Because we don't know everything about the brain, and because the brain is involved in every discipline, there is widespread material about it. It is the ultimate, self-supplied mystery. Not confined by the existence of right (provable) answers, there is tremendous room for creativity in thinking about the brain. This feels like a cicuitous argument because, in the last sentence, there are four terms for what I have said is the same thing (existence, creativity, thinking, brain).

I wanted to comment on external factors of behavoir; many people brought up drugs and environment as examples. I started to think about mind control and brainwashing. Brainwashing is an enormous affront to self, but is it more so than the tools it uses (drugs, environment, suggestion)? Mind control alters behavior--external factors, changes the landscape of the mind--internal factors. Although we associate brainwashing with a kooky cultish fringe, aren't we constantly subject to it by virtue of mass media/ advertising?

I recast my vote from fence sitting to pro-Emily.

We cannot separate ourselves from the brain. The emotions we feel and the actions we perform are all part of the brain. The brain doesn't have to be logical. Just because humans (and other animals) can act quite irrationally at times doesn't mean that the brain isn't the root of this behavior. I think perhaps people associate the brain with science, and thus with logic. Much of science does follow a certain logic, but that does not mean that the behaviors we produce must be logical. The logic of science and the logic of society are two very different things.

Many people have said here that they don't like the idea that the brain is all there is. I don't see why a brain=behavior theory has to cheapen that behavior. Just because the brain is the root of my emotions, doesn't mean that they have any less significance to me. I am not aware of how my brain processes the inputs it receives, but that doesn't mean the process is any less awe inspiring.

One last thought...I am not a religious person, but it seems to me that a theory of brain=behavior could be entirely compatible with a belief in God. If God created people, then he created the brain. I find the brain fascinating and I could certainly see how a deity that created it would be worth worshipping.

I generally have agreed with the statement "brain = behavior". Descartes' argument, unlike any others of its kind, very nearly had me convinced that there existed something which I will call "mind", and that the brain thus could not be the sole source of human nature or behavior. However, there is a serious problem that makes it impossible for me to agree completely: the fact that, after having made this argument, one cannot subsequently give a meaningful characterization of "mind". Descartes says it is "a thing which thinks". This is the only characterization of "mind" that is at all possible in light of his arguments - however, in light of his arguments it is impossible to say what "thinks" means. At the most basic level, humans understand abstract concepts such as thought in terms of sensory experiences of the material world (this can be best demonstrated through observation of the way infants, toddlers, etc. learn things); if those sensory experiences are unreliable, abstractions become meaningless. Thus the argument for the existence of "mind", in order for it to be successful, requires us to take its nature for granted. I, for one, refuse simply to accept that mind is without being able to understand what mind is. At the moment, however, I am unable to understand the nature of mind, and thus stand by my original position. Until, of course, I am convinced otherwise. (I would like it if anyone in whom these arguments trigger some sort of reaction would tell me their thoughts on the matter.)

I have read the book , "Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient" where Norman Cousins describes the effects placebos have had on patients. I have to agree with his reasoning that the placebo is only a tangible object made necessary in a society that is uncomfortable with the intangible-specifically I see him meaning that society today cannot see a cure for an illness without a physical antedote. It seems that people need that physical cure for a visible answer.

I still do believe that drugs provide a cure but its definitely highly possible in my opinion that the drugs are unnecessary. Placebos, or actual natural remedies can accomplish the same results. Antibiotics represent one example of something the body actually can surely benefit from. This is of course as long as the body really needs it and does not abuse it to become then resistent to several antibiotics. This would only be putting the body at further risk by needing to find another antibiotic remedy. But basically I think that natural remedies, or a shift in the mind's belief and power, can cure many of the illnesses that people are becoming so accustomed to relying on drugs for.

Another example of the mind's power I witnessed in an episode of CSI:Crime Scene Investigation. There was a daughter whose mother had died but a few months beforehand, the mother had left leaving the daughter to take on the household roles that mom held up while she was them. Psychologically through taking on mom's role, she fell romantically in love with dad and felt like she had fully assumed mom's role. So in an interview with the police investigating the later death of mom, the daughter started lactating because she made herself believe that she was pregnant-even though nothing ever physical happened between the daughter and dad.

So I really do find the mind an amazingly powerful force over the body. What are its limitations? I don't know...maybe it has absolutely no limitations, as Emily Dickenson described in her poem relating the mind to the sky. I would love to further invest some thought in this topic.

On the subject of the soldiers in Vietnam who suffered from heroin addiction, I wanted to point out that drug addiction is not completely dependent on chemical addiction, but also on psychological conditioning. It should be noted that of all the Vietnam vets who were addicted to heroin while in war, only close to ten percent relapsed once they arrived back in their home environment. The mind had associated the drug with a certain environment, but once taken out of its known habitat, it was no longer as desirable. This is why I tend to agree with Michelle, that drugs cannot always alone cause change the state of the mind, it also depends on other contributing factors. For example, Cordelia pointed out that Prozac changes the mind's state, making those who take it feel happier and less depressed, however, I wonder, what would happen if they did not know that they were taking it? Would the drug render the same results or would people remain in their depressed states, since their minds have been conditioned to function that way. I understand that there exists serotonin in Prozac and that the it alters the chemicals in the brain, thus helping them to achieve greater happiness, but can their entire state be accredited to serotonin, or does their outside knowledge of the drugs effects contribute to that state?

On the opposing side, I agree with Cordelia in that there are drugs which alter the mind, with or without the knowledge that they have been ingested or injected, such as GHB – the date rape drug, or IV drugs when a patient is unconscious – such as morphine. Whether or not they are aware that the drug is entering their body, the effect remains the same. My question is – what is the range of reactions? Does the mind take react more intensely or dramatically once it is aware that it has entered the human system?

The thought experiment is as follows: Suppose a girl grows up in one room which she can never leave, where she spends her time watching tv, reading books and otherwise gathering information about the outside world, although she never has first-hand experience of that world. Now this room she is in is very special, and the girl herself is also very special: In fact, everything in the room, the books the girl reads, the tv she watches, the food she eats, is all totally black and white. The girl herself also happens to be black and white all over her body, such that she has never seen color before. In this black and white world, the girl grows up learning about the world from all her black and white sources, and in fact reads everything there is to know about color in every scientific book ever written on the subject about how color works in the world and in the brain. But despite this universal knowledge about everything about color which is scientifically reducible, when she leaves the room on her 21st birthday and sees color for the first time, we cannot doubt that she experiences something new.

What she gained in leaving the room, what Prof. Grobstein and Emily Dickenson have trouble dealing with, is called by philosophers "Qualia." It is subjective experience. It cannot be reduced to anything physical and objective, by which I mean we cannot say "the experience of color is nothing but certain physical processes in the brain." If color were a reducible physical brain processes, the black and white girl could read a black and white book on neurobiology and understand it. But the fact that she learns something upon leaving the room proves that there is an aspect of color, like all qualia, which cannot be reduced. We thus cannot say that the mind, with its capacity to experience things subjectively, is merely the brain, a physical object. If the mind were the brain, every aspect of it would publicly observable like other physical objects. But because that subjective experience is accessible only to the experiencer, (when he/she walks out of the black and white room and looks at color for the first time, so to speak) the mind cannot be totally physical.

This is only one of many arguments for the split between brain and mind, but I have no space for more. In the meanwhile, what have you got to say about it, Emily Dickenson? Huh?

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