Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2003

On women, choice, free will, control ....

Take the example of the word "like" we used earlier. Again, girls have been shown to use it more frequently. When I say, "There are like 5 paths I could take," I mean exactly what I said. I'm expressing my thought in the best words possible. There may be five paths I could take, possibly more or less. I could say "there are several paths I could take", or "there are many paths I could take," but I don't mean quite that. I think there are probably five. Maybe not, but that's what it seems like to me. I, of course, could say, "about 5 paths." That is closer. But it expresses more doubt, I think. "Like" leaves room for the word to be exact, even if it might not be. This use of the word serves a function in our language that to me seems very obvious and necessary, but it is in fact a very new use of the word.

In certain subcultures even in America girls may not use this word, and many guys also use this word. I understand those things. But the fact that its creation arose from a female population, and that it is still used more frequently by the female population still has certain implications about the way the female mind may work.

Why wasn't a word such as this in the lexicon before? It seems to me that the word is not always or even often used when a person is ignorant of their own thoughts, but when they are aware that a certain word may not express their meaning completely. They are in fact admitting a certain amount of inability to control, but it may be the result of the limitations of language rather than the speaker. Or maybe the word they want is out there, they just don't know it. But does this mean that all men have larger vocabularies than all women? I don't think so. The fact that a speaker is aware of the possible ambiguities of what they are saying and can express this seems to me an intelligent sense. They get across more than they might if they attemped to be definite. In class we've learned we must be wrong all the time, it is a good thing. Maybe girls tend to be more comfortable with this. We were quite willing to criticize ourselves in class.

I agree that women should overcome the stereotypes that exist within our culture and learn to be more assertive,and that many women let others walk all over them. Perhaps men have taken advantage of our natural inclinations for a certain passivity (although I do not think that is the right word) throughout history. But while we are attemping to overcome the "passivity" that we detest about our femaleness, I hope we do not lose the thoughtfulness we possess, and feel free to throw in a "like" or two if it is helpful, even in a room full of men.

However, I still find the explanation/definition of it vague. Sometimes I wonder why we probe so much into the brain to find every single explanation for an occurrence. As of now, I believe consciousness exists within us. But whether it is something that's reducible to studying the brain processes or if it is something that is caused by the brain processes is still ambiguous. At this stage, I feel what we know about the functioning of the brain does not give us enough assurance or hints to distinguish which brain processes serve as consciousness and which ones do not. Consciousness to me is in this indecisive phase- it is the source of unusual and unpredictable events that have not been registered in the brains as unconscious actions of knowledge; events that are yet to be coded in to our genetic memory. It is also one of the reasons that makes us so unique to the rest of the biological species.

Additionally, I don't think that the pleurobranchea is the most useful model for the study of choice. When the pleurobranchea is chewing and is poked, it makes no response. However, if it is just moving around and is poked then it retracts the proboscis. In this model we are defining the stimulus or input as the poke, but I don't believe that it is that simple. Our current definition of input seems a bit restrictive. The input is the poke in the presence or absence of other sensory input (sensations from the mouth while it is eating). If we simplify things a bit, the pleurobranchea retracts the proboscis when it receives only sensory input from the poke, but when it is receiving input from the poke and from its mouth it doesn't retract the proboscis. I think that the inputs that the animal is receiving in both cases are very different. Each input leads to two mutually exclusive responses. Therefore, the animal cannot make a choice.

Researchers have done similar conditioning studies in psychology. I'm not sure exactly what the procedure would be called, but one thing that is similar to it is called occasion setting. It seems that an occasion setting procedure might be a more reasonable account of choice behavior in animals. In an occasion setting procedure you have at least 2 types of trials: (1) Stimulus B (let's say white noise) is presented in the presence of Stimulus A (light) and after a certain amount of time, the rat will receive a food pellet. (2) Stimulus A (light) goes on and after the same duration has passed, no food is delivered to the rat. After repeated trials the rat learns that when A and B are presented together it will get food, and that when A is presented alone that it won't get food. This learning shapes the rat's behavior and the learning theory asserts that when both stimuli are presented the rat anticipates the delivery of food and starts to respond (by pressing a lever). When the light is presented alone, it knows that food will not be delivered and will therefore not make a response.

The main question is: will the rat always make the same choice? The answer is no. While the rat often makes responses when it expects the delivery of food it can and does respond at other times. So yes, the rat is capable of making a choice. In this experiment I would not say that the light is the only stimulus used by the rat to "make the decision". However, the rat responds with the highest frequency when the light and noise are both on.

And on another note, it seems like you can also discuss choice using the phenomenon of habituation and sensitization. I don't know what Professor Grobstein would say about this situation, but I do not think that the animal would "make a choice". After repeated presentations the meaning of the stimulus may be lost, which would influence behavior. But I won't babble anymore on this subject unless it continues to be addressed in the forum.

I have a few friends who use the word "like",... a lot!!! However when they write an email they don't use it. I think that it is the inability of the person to express themselves concisely. Maybe they just can't piece together an answer faster than they can speak; so they give themselves extra time by inserting this word. Maybe the fact that they are unsure of themselves plays an important role, but of for the most part,... they just can't piece together complete sentences without using the word "like". They can't control it.

I used to use the word myself until I got a really nasty comment from someone (called me a bimbo for speaking that way). So I made it a point to stop saying it. Now I rarely use it but I am finding that people are criticizing me for the same reasons Sarah was/is criticized. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. However, control is very important in our society. I would rather have people think I am too assertive than be unable to control my speech.

My conclusion for tuesday's discussion is that everyone trying to generalize this way and disagreeing with people, etc just shows once again how many people just try to take control over all or many issues in our lives. I thought it was interesting when in class, PG asked "Who wants to be in total control?" i was not alone in raising my hand saying that i do NOT want to be in total control. The direction of the discussions sometimes makes me feel like everyone wants to be always in control. But I don't... =)

So is lack of self control an issue? Maybe, if this makes you do things you do not want to do, from simple issues like peeing in your pants or on a graver note raping people. However, as humans, we learn from our mistakes and being in total control always will make us... gods. Besides, if there is full control always, life just wouldn't be as exciting.

Yes, we are conscious animals. We have "superior" brain capabilities. Or do we? I mean, I agree with Neela- we all might just be under the "illusion that we are somehow special primarily due to our "superior" brain abilities" (Neela). This whole needing to be in control and having free will could be due to a combination of factors. For one thing, I feel that the United States places a lot of importance on independence and self-sufficiency...in that independence and self-sufficiency could be equivalent to free will and control.

However, other countries do not hold these values on the same pedestal. Instead, staying close to family, helping with the care of the elderly and the youngest, and being reliant on one another are ways of living. Does this make those societies incapable of free will? Is that why whenever we see women at home, bearing children, helping their elders, all "against their will" in other countries where women are likely to stay home, where they feel that having a reliability on another human is not such a crime, we cry, "repression!"

Our views can be due to social conditioning. Society determines just how much importance should be placed on self-action and control. Some countries/societies find burping at the table rude. In other places, or in other families, burping at the table is sign of appreciation- that the food is delicious. Therefore, "controlling" a normal body function, such as burping, would not be seen as a positive or desired characteristic.

Free will (as an idea) and control (in general) can take on many forms. Our idea, the one fed into our minds by our government and society is just one way free will can be expressed.

Second, some people just feel the need to put themselves above "other animals"—justify their standing and hierarchy over all other organisms. If there is any doubt shed on "free will" and "consciousness" there is a whole group of adamant protestors. To some degree, all animals have an ability to make a choice, to be in "control" to exert "free will." We are just seemingly able to make a variety of choices at one given time.

Also, it was said in class that corollary discharge circuits do help to account for the idea that Choice does not equal Free Will. I do not agree with that. Aren't choice and free will the SAME thing? Doesn't the very definition of free will mean the ABILITY to CHOOSE one thing over another?

If "free will" does exist, then I think there are definite obstacles that can confuse us about the existence of free will. One that comes to my mind is that of determinism. We often hear and use the Sanskrit word, "Karma" in our daily conversations. Having taken Hindu philosophy classes for years, my understanding of Karma is- the law that all good and evil is a natural consequence of choices in the previous incarnation. "Karma is simply the hand one is dealt; one can play it badly or well." There is essentially a cause-effect relationship. The question to ask ourseleves is whether we have the free will to determine our future or whether our future is already consciously or unconsciously determined?

I feel like free will isnt some kind of loose term that is given to us from an external source but rather a concept that is built into our system internally. I think we have a blend between determinism and free will. Our past is unalterable but our future lies in the action of our choices.

I am not sure if free will and freedom of action are one of the same things. For example, a paralyzed person cannot move his/her limbs. The free will in this case is in trying to (or not) move his/her limb. Here, isnt our free will restricted by an action that has already been determined? From a determinist approach, one can argue that our perceptions, emotional, and cognitive processes are all results from our past experiences, which inevitably guide our future choices. So although, you have the power to choose between a mango and pineapple milkshake, your past experiences of having an allergic reaction to the pineapple one, may lead you to choose the mango one. In this case, do we experience a free will or an already determined action?

A coma patient is fully functional on a physical level, but not 'awake' on a mental level. Just as a paralysis patient is physically incapable, but mentally conscious. If we are looking for a place that free will is housed, could this indicate that the brain is the place for it? Or is there even a physical place that free will can be found? Many a time free will is an amorphous aspect of the soul. If we give it a physical presence will free will still be free, or prey to the biological functions of the human body?

Also, in thinking about Alanna's example of the fire drill, I would think that our response of leaving a building when a fire alarm sounds is a conditioned response. All the times in the past that we have heard a fire alarm, we have responded by leaving the building. So, when we hear a fire alarm being sounded, we automatically leave because that is the behavior we have been trained to respond with.

When we are in class, we raise our hands, yet do not take the time to think "perhaps I am bending my elbow too much in the hand-raising process?", and frequently we raise our hands without thinking that we are doing so (we instinctively do so because we have a question or intelligent comment to make). However, the hand-raising example can demonstrate that some self-control is crucial to our proper functioning (for example, we must control the height of our hand, i.e., raise it high enough, so that the professor can see it in order to answer our question)

The brief exposure to corollary discharge has significantly improved my understanding of the functioning of the brain. Its amazing to realize that not only does the nervous system, particularly the brain, set up a network of connections (between neurons) that enable it to communicate far without the boundary of the body but it also creates a structural framework within to relay messages from part of the nervous sytem to the other. Thus, the notion of corollary discharge brings to mind the autonomic activity as evidence in the example of the pleurobranchea (sensory stimuli is inhibited once the pleurobranchea is feeding). This idea imply that some of our actions are automatic without any conscious choosing. For instance, in the example of the hand raising. I think that it is mostly automatic requiring no conscious choosing. Why? Well like what Prof. Grobstein said, the reaction is simply too fast to require any thinking. However, this does not imply that hand raising is all automatic. For some people, depending on the condition and circumstances of the moment (ie, the position of the arm or the condition of the hand --like holding something) there may be some thinking behind the hand raising. Here, I see as Prof. Grobstein had introduced a struggle between the I function and the rest of the nervous system to be in control.

Thus, the issue of control is raised. If corollary discharge part of the NS is in charge then there is no choice or free will; rather, the reaction or behavior is autonomic. However, if the I function is the one in charge then there some sense of choice and free will. I know that there are exceptions to this but to generalize, are these observations make sense so far? If so we can continue further...

Therefore, it seems to me that by saying that in striving to be in control, we really want our I function to be in charge of the behaviors we used as examples in class to discuss about choice and free will (like burbing). Can we all agree that in some situations by having to choose our behaviors, danger is inevitable? Such situations are emergency circumstances in which the difference between life and death is within seconds. Thus, our nervous system was built in such a way that this is taken into consideration. So assuming that the person doesnt want to die, when it comes to survival I think that free will and choice become less important. However, we know that free will exists. So is there a defining line between what we can choose and what we cant? I think that at some point there is overlapping, and here is where we want our I function to be more and more in control. What does everyone think?

I know we discussed that corollary discharge circuits are support for the idea that Choice does not equal Free Will, but I'm just not sure where I stand on this, especially if Free Will is only supposed to mean the act of making choices as an autonomous being.

Also, where does predestination fit into this model? Do we even believe/agree that it exist?

Maybe I'm reading into this too much...it is 4 am...

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