Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2004

Again, I am resisting a bit the mater-based view we seem to be taking as our departure. I think it's important and essential, but not complete. With that, I am more in agreement with Amar.
When we speak of the Brain-Mind-Self relation, we can maybe see it as the following analogy of wine in a glass. The Brain or NS (the glass) contains the mind or self (the wine). If we shatter the glass, then we would lose the wine as well. However, from this alone, we can not conclude that the Container=All, and there is nothing else.
This seems more philosophical than scientific, but I think the reasoning hold, no?

I also believe that behavior can be strongly influenced by a lot of outside factors, which I don't think can be fully observed in a laboratory setting. Some say that these factors cannot be observed and therefore there is no correlation and that behavior is solely controlled by the brain, but I would like to raise the example of quantum physics. Basically, in this field of science, if anything fits the equation, then it's a good theory. No one has been able to physically prove the existence of black holes (frankly, I don't think we would know even if we are in one) and the theory of overlapping galaxies and universes, but it doesn't mean that they don't exist. But it doesn't prove that they exist, either. They are very good stories that fit in the greater picture. People win Nobel Prizes for these things. For imagination, the sky's the limit (or should I say the universe is the limit?;).

Just as a side note (I have not had the chance to get my hands on the article) in the cricket experiment, where different environmental stimuli used when testing whether or not the male crickets would sing? I thought it would be interesting to know if the amount of light had any effect on their singing.

First, is the question Amar posed to us: "The question I pose to the class is how many of you can really relate your emotions to chemicals in your body. When one thinks of the sky, do you think that picture you hold in your head is really in fact some sort of molecule which is a compound of some organic molecules that trigger your hypothalamus to envision a sky?" I want to devote my life to exactly this question, in various guises: How does the brain create the self, reality, dreams, memory...and as a starting point, I think that I have to say I DO think that all of these somehow arise from the physicalness of the brain, which at the most basic level is the chemicals. I have no idea how this happens, how I can "see" images in my mind, when I'm obviously not using my eyes and I don't even know what my "mind" is. There just seems to be a projector on the inner surface of my skull, one big enough, as Dickinson said, to contain the sky. And there are "boxes" of memories and emotions and facts, some of which I can't open or find or even know exist. As a scientist, I somehow feel that I must start with the assumption that this all arises from the physical. But I must also admit my total lack of understanding of this; I don't even have the right questions to ask yet.

Second, I'd like to exand of Aiham's question of "what is life?" In our quest to discover what is human, do we perhaps have to start with life, first?

Finally, I'd like to put something out into our little universe: "In traditional personality studies, raters try to infer how much of a given trait a person 'has' by observing that person in a laboratory. But in a classic text called Personality and Assessment, originally published in 1968, researcher and theorist Walter Mischel showed us that personality traits are mostly suppositions on the part of the laboratory observer, rather than real attributes of the person who is observed." (The Myth of Sanity, Dr. Martha Stout) This idea blows my mind! It begs the question: If we spent our entire lives alone, would we have personalities? I know that humans not raised among humans have grave developmental problems, such as not ever being able to fully acquire language. But what about personality? And what does this say of the self? Would we have no selves without others? If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound??

Does the model we worked our way up to on Tuesday make one any more or less comfortable with the b=b idea? (remembering that "brain" should really be "nervous system" and that everything "outside" (experience, culture) can affect behavior by acting on the nervous system?). What observations/intuitions about behavior still aren't dealt with successfully by that version?

And what about Thursday's notion that all that's in the input/output box are smaller input/output boxes themelves made of smaller ... all the way down to neurons? And that the neurons are pretty much the same from one box to another and from one organism to another?

And what about ... any other thing that might have come into your head this week?

From this, a metaphor can be taken away; the brain and it's compents are a painting. When one exams the contents and actions superficially, all that can be seen is what is expected, or what we want to see. However, when looking in depth, the true aspects (i.e. paint within paint, boxes within boxes) are visible to us, and things such as why and how the brain and behavior are linked are more obvious.

But again, what defines behavior? Is it the impulse reactions, stimulated by external forces, such as heat or noise? Or is it the implict actions we create in our minds? By using the idea that part of the many parts of the nervous system and self, we can begin to visualize how we has human function and behave.

Also, I think Debbie's story about the Siamese twins is quite interesting. The fact that they share the same brain, yet have different personalities, shows that there is more to the self than merely the brain...which brings us to the idea that humans have something, like a soul, in addition to the brain and body.

Another point that I thought was interesting was how everyone's brain is unique, this seems like a viable theory, but I was wondering how genetics are related to it. Is one's brain more similar to their parent's brains? Or is everyone's brain similar until they begin to have experiences, and thus would our experiences be the only force shaping our brains?

We can draw rather sound observations as to what is happening during the physical (observable and tangible) process of a sunset or the physiological aspects of the brain. However given the concrete structure of the brain, it seems harder to assess why specific organizations of neurons create specific responses, how the boxes integrate, why the organization of a frog "brain" creates certain responses, that may or may not be evidenced in other animals with similar characteristics. And, within the organization, what constitutes what we see? What defines a 'set' sun (i.e. when it is completely dark, or when the moon is out, or when it is still light but the sun has disappeared over the horizon). Similarly, when do we recognize specific neuron organizations to be significant? When do the organizational differences become significant enough to account for a defining change in behavior?

I must admit that I understand now that Brain (NS)= Behavior is a good starting point. We can start with the material/physical aspect, which we can observe directly and indirectly -- the Nervous System.
However, I still want to ask the questions about the "lower" species, especially those that do NOT have an organized NS. When I brought up the question last time "what is life?", I wanted to make sure that all living organisms are agreed to "behave" -- process energy, reproduce themselves... etc. All organisms that have DNA, and are able to copy it and "multiply", are alive. We established on Thursday that the differences in behavior are due to differences in the nervous systems, which are due to differences in the organization of neuron cells. I ask again, what about those species that do NOT have "neurons". I am sure they exist, and I would like to know: 1) If we all agree they have behavior? and 2) How do we account for that behavior (if B=B) ?

As for the comments about the interactions of the "outside" (environment) with the NS, I think that we should be careful when talking about the "personality" (it deciding, making outputs by itself ... etc.) This is because Brain=Behavior does include personality within the NS. In other words, the "personality" needs the NS to perceive, react and act ... etc.
This makes me think of Freud and his theories about the Conscience, Pre-Conscience and Unconscience, and Id, Ego and Super-Ego. These ideas would be difficult to combine into the Brain=Behavior theory if we insist that these entities should be localized in certain neurons or "boxes" of the NS. However, if we think of "boxes within boxes" as both a physical and a metaphorical organization of the NS, we could then maybe reconcile the physical NS (Brain=Behavior) with other existing (metaphorical) notions about behavior of the human mind.

And also, if more than one personality does exist within a single brain- like with multiple personality disorder, the brain scan for the person differs significantly from personality to personality. Which again, I suppose, supports the theory of brain=behavior...

A couple more things- I've sort of been accumulating comments all week.

I've been thinking a lot about something Jenny posted on Monday- about how therapy and medication can ultimately lead to the same chemical changes in the brain (or at least, that's what I got from it- sorry if I misunderstood). That idea has so many implications- some kind of disturbing implications, for me. I don't like the idea that medication can help with something like depression just as well as therapy can. I mean, it makes sense. If all that depression is, at the most basic level, is a chemical imbalance in the brain, righting that chemical imbalance with medication is a logical solution.... And I know that medication is used, that medication does help. But something in me seems to really react strongly to the idea of replacing human contact and assistance with pills. Let me think how to put this in words... I think I can accept that personality, that behavior, that the self, all somehow have their root in chemical interactions in the brain. But sometimes that isn't a useful way of looking at things.

It's very easy to assume that the theory that all behavior has its root in chemical reactions in the brain implies something mechanical about behavior. Kind of in the same way that saying something similar about the self- that consciousness has its root in connections between neurons, makes it somehow less real. If all you are is chemical reactions, if each thought in your head can be traced to the physical, and the "self" is constantly changing- then it kind of makes you feel less real... Kind of makes you wonder how much your "self" is an illusion- whether consciousness itself is something of an illusion.

But I don't think there's anything purely mechanical about the brain- nothing truly fixed or predictable- it's beautifully dynamic and complex. It feels as though, theoretically, any mental illness could be treated by seeing it as a material problem, as (in some cases, anyway) a simple chemical imbalance. But that feels too much like seeing the brain as a machine that's broken and needs to be repaired. It would be like trying to fix a broken spider web with your bare hands. The human mind may have its root in the physical brain, and medication may help to some extent... But no medication, no chemical could ever be found to replace the healing power of human affection, of love and caring. Even with disorders like schizophrenia- which most definitely can't be treated with therapy alone, but has to have medication, a supportive family's been shown to help so much. Something that's forgotten too often.

I don't know. Just a thought.

I also found this article abou the brain and sex drive that I thought was interesting: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/love/package.jsp?name=fte/brainsize/brainsize

Conflicting arguments to tbe brain being responsible for delinquent behaviour are all around us - criminal behaviour arising out of poverty, poor parenting at the root of juvenile delinquency - and i'm sure we can all think of more specific arguments as well. On one hand, you could avoid the conflict by saying that things like poor parenting or poverty are capable of changing the brain and thus changing behaviour. Another reasonable solution could be that we're all born with the capacity to be criminals but a sort of "trigger" is needed to turn this capacity into something more tangible.

One final comment: people who are unable to morally tell the difference between criminal and non-criminal acts (or right and wrong) are sometimes described as legally insane. Likewise, an insanity defence is based on the premise that an individual should not be punished for a wrongful act that he/she cannot appreciate the criminality of. Would this be an example of brain=behaviour in an entirely pure sense - your behaviour is not at all affected by the morals and laws of the outside world and instead would seem to come only from the brain?

What do you all think?

As an example, we looked at a caricature of Bill Clinton, which, although made of simple lines, can be translated and recognised by the interaction of the boxes, and a pointilism painting, made up of tiny inputs that result in a single picture.

This implies to me that the smallest boxes- neurons- muct have some boxes within, so that they have differences, and sense different things. Its also interesting how the interaction of the small boxes- neurons- interrelates with the big box -vision

There was this article in Newsweek (or maybe it was Time, I cannot recall correctly as it has been a while) on a study of brain activity in relation to praying. I believe they found out that across people of all faiths, praying seem to stabilize brain activity. The question of whether the brain activity stabilized because of repetitive chanting or are our brains genetically pre-programmed to stabilize upon praying was raised by the conclusion of the study.

I personally thought it's interesting that the different prayers of the different religions in the world that are rooted in vastly different histories and cultures would seem to have a common effect on brain activity:)

We don't always see the things we can perceive- does that make sense? The brain fills in gaps for us, drawing on information already gathered by the brain. There are even games on serendip to illustrate this point ("Seeing more than the eye does," etc. at http://serendipstudio.org/bb/blindspot1.html)

Similarly, when we look at a Monet or a mosaic, we are capable of looking beyond the individual components to see the "whole picture;" only it's NOT the whole picture, it's the picture with the holes filled in.

If we are determined in our actions, then so are others: if I am pre-determined to be a criminal, say, then the rest of society is pre-determined to put me in jail. Might not be fair, in a sense, but it seems to be how it's working. (Determinism/Free-will is not a debate specifically for biology. But it's interesting.) Seems to be a case of playing one's part well...

On a final note, I think that instead of Brain=Behavior being a problem in the case of criminal behavior, or what have you, it could be seen as a plus. If criminal behavior is rooted in some sort of physical plane-—chemical balances, neurological structures, etc.-—then it is susceptible to manipulation, at least theoretically. We may not know how to do that, and we may not want to (has anyone seen/read A Clockwork Orange?), but it could be done. If criminal behavior is rooted in something not physical, though, if deviance is a product of an evil soul or perverse mind or somethng more ephemeral, then we have fewer tools with which we can approach it, and many of those are not what we would consider scientific. In treating the criminal or deviant among us, I'm a little more comfortable with mood enhancing drugs than with exorcisms.

And as far as the breakdown of the boxes go...how do we determine whether or not it ends, i.e. whether the level of boxes continue to break down infinitely or if there is a point where it ends?

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