Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2003

This week we introduced the idea that somewhere inside the nervous system is a smaller box that we called the "I-function". Is this a well-founded concept, in terms of observations? Is it a useful one, in terms of suggesting approachable new questons about the nervous system? about behavior? About the relation between the two?

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/national/11DEAT.html

The article talks about making a death row inmate sane enough to execute and the issues that arise from that

According to Proffessor Grobstein (I am loosly quoting here) "the I-function requires the conclussion that thereis a box which is rostraly locatedto the nervous system and reports internal states and articulates it externally (output)". The example today was the I-function with relation to the motor or sensory system. I would like to try and find a relation between the I-function and the part of our brain which enables us to act on other people and feel emotion.

So to recap. I think all brains a different but have important evolutionary similarities. Therefore the I-function is different but has some important evolutionary similarities. Is somehow the I-function supposed to impact us emotionally? e.g. I feel sad. I feel angry. I feel like killing.I think it filters what we are thinking and feeling and translates it into the "self". Maybe?

In reference to the psychical differences in brains, I suggest the following idea: We have all agreed that animals that have "similar" behavior should have "similar" brains. So, if the brain of a normal and a serial killer are at the least similar, maybe it is not the organization of the brain that differs, but the neuronal patterns that determine specific behaviors. If each behavior that we display is caused by a sequence of neuronal output (like a melody), maybe there are distinct melodies for distinct behaviors. If your brain doesn't play the melody "kill...kill" then you are not likely to display this behavior in any situation. Maybe this is what differentiates normal persons from serial killers.

*I know that this sounds a little off the wall but it's just a thought.

(1) If indeed, brain=behavior, and we could indeed know what details of the brain causes someone to be a serial killer (serial killer open to all motives and what not), I still don't think that the justice system could let that person go free in court. And so, this makes me re-think... do we REALLY WANT to know what difference or similarity causes someone to be a serial killer? Maybe there is a reason why we can't know such things... otherwise, these convicts may go free just because "they can't help it"... and that is scary!

(2) Wow... the discussion on "I" really opened my eyes today. Although I was one of the people who raised her hand for DISAGREEING with Emily Dickinson, and i was so sure that I would not be easily persuaded by this class into thinking this, I can honestly humble myself at this point and say, I need to know more! The idea of the box "I factor" really made me think about what it means when "I MAKE" a choice, "I DID" something, etc. I'm just really stumped at this point because I am not comfortable with the material presented. The pronouns and simple words like conscienceness that we used so freely before is no longer such a simple topic.

(3) So, WHERE IS CHRISTOPHER REEVES?? Well... C Reeves is in that "I" box when he regards himself... but now that brings up the point that to an outsider, Christopher Reeves is not only that one "I" box, but also the entire brain and behavior that he exhibits. So even this issue of identity is not so simple anymore! So to answer the question "IS HE PARALYZED?"... well, to C Reeves himSELF, he is because he can't move his body. But from an outside perspective, he really isn't paralyzed (what IS paralyzed anyway?) because we can see that he moves his foot!!

WHOA... too much to think about at once...

we have before related the variability in minute structures to the actions that are eventually the result of those structures. how strong are the links b/w our behavior and the patterns of movement of our smallest building blocks? it may be a stretch, but does it seem so far off to say that as a people, we also move towards the greatest possible randomness?

thinking about the randomness made me think that maybe what we see is not randomness at all, but the greatest form of uniformity. each molecule moves randomly but together they make a perfect composition. if i saw a pile of snow like i did, but on a morning where everything was still covered in snow (ie uniform), i would not have wanted to step in the snow, let alone kick over a pile of it.

it is scary for me to think about this, because it suggests a much great force over us. if those molecules could think, they would surely see themselves as moving randomnly, thats all the computer has them doing, and their life span may not be long enough to see it any other way, but they are playing a part in a greater composition.

could this have something to do with our production of serial killers in society? are they deficient in being able to feel the uniformity that "normal" people are in line with (unconsciously), or maybe they play their part a beautifully uniformed pattern we would see if we were able to step back?

This week we introduced the idea that somewhere inside the nervous system is a smaller box that we called the "I-function". Is this a well-founded concept, in terms of observations? Is it a useful one, in terms of suggesting approachable new questons about the nervous system? about behavior? About the relation between the two?

"Compare your brain with a serial killer's brain, and you may find it to be very similar or almost identical to yours."

On a gross scale, our brains may look the same as those of serial killers. Even a serial killer's amygdala, where aggression is rooted, could prove to be almost the exact same size as ours. However, it seems to me that it would be a bit of a generalization to assume that our brains are similar or identical to those of serial killers when taking the small-scale factors into consideration: How do we know for sure that the chemical compositions inside of our brains are comparable to those of the serial killers? How does one even begin to measure the precise chemical composition of a serial killer's brain in comparison to ours without some degree of uncertainty? I am just not convinced that we have the technological capability today to be able to measure the chemical compositions of 2 brains and say that they are very similar or exactly alike.

I think Cordelia makes an important point. It seems that by "I-function" we simply mean "the part that speaks." I am doing my web paper on split-brain consciousness -- I'll say a little bit about that here.

One of the most interesting phenomena associated with people who, for medical reasons, have had the two hemispheres of their brains separated, is that those hemisphere act completely independently of each other. The right side of the brain controls language; the left side is mute. If a split-brain person sees something only with his right eye (left side), he cannot say what it is. Even more interesting is, if you cover his left eye, show him a lock, and tell him to pick up the object associated with what you've shown him, he will pick up a key. But if you ask him what he picked up, he will say he doesn't know. The left side obviously knows; the right side obviously doesn't. This makes sense the same way Christopher Reeve makes sense: the language center, the part of the brain capable of answering, receives no information from the side that saw the lock and picked up the key. So it can't comment on that.
But did he pick up the key?
Does he know what he picked up? Obviously, because he had to associate it with a lock in order to pick it up to begin with. But can he say anything about it? No. Where is the "I" in this case? By "I function" are we really just referring to the part that talks? And if we are, are we saying that the part that talks is the only determiner of consciousness?

I think that it's important to acknowledge this I-function box in order to realize the significance of words like "consciousness", "self" and perhaps the meanings behind the intentions that some people have. Cannot the I-function then be held somewhat responsible for temporary insanity, as is seen as a plea for some serial killer/criminal cases? Many people are aware of their "self" and can usually distinguish dream from reality. Maybe this incontinuity between boxes, somehow not touching the I-function box, can explain lapses in judgment and what is considered to be conscious action of an individual.

This idea is also supported by Sarah's post about split-brain function. There must be at least one separate I-function in each the left and right side of the brain when they are split. The left side of the brain, although it cannot verbally voice it's processed thought, demonstrates and communicates its I-function by picking up the key. What is the difference between the function that moves the big toe, the function that picks up the key, and the function which is able to speak? These each seem like very distinct functions to me, and it seems that some I-functions must be able to reach a greater level of sophistication than others. Perhaps there could be some sort of hierarchy of I-functions to sort out the vagueness. This raises the idea that there may be a supreme, ultimate level of consciousness and awareness. Nirvana, maybe?

And how many I-functions are there in the human brain? If the nervous system is not cut off or broken apart do separate I-functions still exist? Does this mean separate identities? Do people with multiple personality disorder channel into completely different I-function boxes at different times?

The eye tracking experiment also made me think about another facet of behavior in relation to the I-function. There are clearly some actions (like smooth eye-tracking) which exist without going through an I-function box. There are times in which we truly do not have control over ourselves. We must breathe, we must react. But wait, isn't breathing and reacting caused by some sort of observation and reaction which is an I-function, albeit perhaps a much less sophisticated one? I am very confused on this point. Where does reflex end and self begin?

My last thought is about the serial killer debate. The way I visualize the situation is this. A person is standing suspended on a board above the water. Jumping in the water is like make the decision to kill. All of the factors like brain damage, environment, abuse, etc. are piled on top of the person. The weight can become so heavy that jumping off would be a an extreme relief, but the person still makes the decision about what he or she will choose to endure.

But I also can visualize the situation in which there is no choice. The weight could become so heavy that the board supporting the person breaks, the I-function is bypassed, and he or she helplessly drowns. This to me seems to support the view that our criminal justice system has things right...some murderers may have been criminally insane, but others did make a cold-blooded decision to kill.

The article about metal buildup in the brain being a very important factor in creating aggression was very interesting, but I can still see how it would fit into this scenario. The book I am reading now (Awakening the Buddhist Heart by Lama Surya Das) describes every thought, attitude, or action as creating an imprint in the mind. Repeating the action creates a deeper groove, until eventually there is a deep channel of habit connected with a certain attitude or course of action in the process of thought. I can see how if certain channels are nurtured and grow in a person that certain chemicals like lead or whatever could tend to buildup by way of certain channels in the neurons. I feel the same way about many mental diseases...depression, etc. I am not proposing that environmental concerns do not matter, or that in every case people make decisions which lead to mental disorders, but merely that I hold on to the notion that each of us has a great deal of freedom in shaping the chemistry of our own brains.

I know this question has been tackled many times in science, psychology, and philosophy. How much of a person can you remove or replace before you view them as a diffrent person? Where do you draw the line? It may be a question of symantics, but I feel that it is a lot more than that. I'm not quite sure why, but placing the "I-function" within the nervous system threatens and unravels ones faith in a soul or in any sort of "I". It challenges the idea of heading to an after life. If everything that we are can be found within the nervous system, then there is nothing greater waiting for us, no rainbow after the rain, and no other level of existence beyond death.

And so, I guess the question of the "I-function" is what I find most perplexing, because each time I see the "I-function" inside our "Input-Output box," my vision of immortality, (which I think most people who believe in something after death posses) becomes immediately threatened.

However, this question of the "I-function," as silly as this may sound, has inspired me to sincerely treat my body better. A lot better, in fact. What if all we are is within our nervous system? Why does that threaten me so much? That isn't even such a bad alternative to the prospect of a soul, it is still individual and within us. I think while I continue to grow as a spiritual being, I will stop placing my conception of the afterlife on a pedestal so high above my blood-pressure, my eating habits, and lastly, my body.

The question of the "I-function" demands so much of a person's collected beliefs on life, that I feel we must discuss its' placement inside the nervous system first, even if we arrive at the conclusion that we must chalk it up to symantics.

Sarah writes: "By "I function" are we really just referring to the part that talks? And if we are, are we saying that the part that talks is the only determiner of consciousness?"
Can we trust ourselves and use our internal "I" functions, for observations? How does do "I" know anything about "you"? Any observation of another person's "I" function must involve communication. I don't think this need be limited to speech/oral communication; writing, body language, facial expression, gestures/movement, can all indicate there is an "I" in there somewhere. When a person chooses not to communicate, or perhaps cannot help but not communicate, does this mean their "I" function is gone? No. We have interior monologue, and know that other people have it also; we admit to thinking things we don't speak.

The addictive bit of the "I" function--where is control? Is control voluntary or involuntary? Is control pathways that have been trained to carry out impulses a certain way, what we deem the "correct" way, and is absence of control/ aberrant behavior impulses carried out a different way? So where do serial killers, exhibiting aberrant behavior, fit? And isn't it interesting that we keep looking at exceptions, special cases, post-trauma accidents, whatever is not normal, to try to figure out what is normal? Does "normal" get under anyone else's skin?

I also wonder how we would handle this situation when relating it to the "I-function." If a person has a pain in their leg, only they no longer have that leg, do "they" still have a pain in there leg. This is basically the opposite of the Christopher Reeves situation, but yet it aises interesting questions because it can be treated in 2 ways; by psychological therapy OR with medicine (some tests show improvement with actual medication, and others with placebos.) I just want to understand if this posses an even greater problem with our Brain=Behavior and our "I-function" within our nervous system.

But where is the beginning of the batteries, where is the initial potential? Our nervous system is sending electrical signals; And—we talked about how it is not "matter" that is being transmitted, but "information."

My question right now is in figuring out where we can draw the line between "matter" and "information." Are we talking about a "tangible vs. intangible" issue, where matter is tangible and information is not? This would introduce interesting questions about the connection of mind and body, raising again the voices of Descartes and Phineas Gage.

But, it seems that any "information" being transmitted (as opposed to "matter") is actually an informative electrical signal consisting of traveling ions. Aren't ions material? (Maybe, though, it is not the actual ions that move, but only their POTENTIAL that travels). However, it seems that this traveling information must have some aspect of matter because it relies upon the body's topography and upon complete connectivity of the nervous system in order to relay successful messages-- (ie, the I-function of Christopher Reeve did not get the message because a connectivity had been severed...)

Electrical signals also take TIME to be transmitted. Does this then point to a certain materiality?

Just to bring another interdisciplinary note to the "I" function discussion, I was thinking about a course in poetry I took last year and how the class had a discussion over the "I" presented in poetry, and its relationship to the "you" of poetry, and how these two intities are sometimes intersecting and sometimes seperable from the intities of "poet" and "reader" and the relationship between them. "I" does not necessarily equal "poet", and sometimes these two entities may not even be related within one poem. Because the "I" is a creation of the "poet", it represents only a selection of what she chooses to present of herself. In this equation, I suppose that the "poet" of this model is best represented by the "I" function of our discussions. So then, where is the subset of the "poet", the "I" presented in our discussion? Just another thought on multiple selfhood.

And on a completely different note. I think I am becoming a non-believer of free will (Courtesy of talks with Kelvey). I do think it's a little depressing that what we call choices may simply be a response or output that occurs as a result of a tremendous amount of input. I guess I find comfort in the fact that the amount of input needed to make a choice, display free will, or assert our autonomy is so great that we cannot be reduced to a computer that just reacts to the world around it. However, since input can be generated inside the box, I guess there is more to life than just reacting. I think there may be a bit of fiddling with semantics to feel better about that which we don't fully understand.

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