Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2004

I was raised as a Buddhist and one of my understandings about the practice of Buddhism is that while we are here on earth, we are given the tools to do what we want - good or bad or nothing at all. What we do in this life is upto us. Biologically, God has "fixed" how we are in this life based on our past life behaviour. So, "good" biological traits based on how "good" we were in our past life (our choices, actions) and "bad" biological traits reflecting how "bad" we were in our past life.

But again, if we are given "good" biological traits, we are still tested in this lifetime on whether we take advantage of these traits or if we can overcome the "bad" ones.

An emotion like jealousy - either being jealous or the degree of jealousy we may feel - which we feel that we have no control over, in Buddhism, the test is that you must recognise this and try to change this negative trait.

I think that's a really simple interpretation. But I just wanted to see what you all think about this idea.

In response to Allison's post, I must question the definition and implications of a "soul". This idea raises certain questions which (not only in the realm of this course) must be considered. Many religions believe in an afterlife (a plane where the soul is to be found after the death of the body) and the following questions are an inquiry into these religious beliefs: 1) How does the believed entity of a soul effect the biological makeup of the nervous system or initiate behavior? 2) What is the composition of the soul? If it interacts with the nervous system it would imply it was materialistic and if that were the case how would it survive after the death of the body (being that even inanimate objects breakdown after time? 4) What role would this soul play in someone's life being that the soul was said not to be involved with perceptions, processed inputs, the unconscious, or personality?
I would also like to find out about what is meant by the statement death is the end of change. Death can refer to the ending of a physical or cognitive state (by death of a cognitive state I mean something that wipes out cognitive ability such as a lobatomy). It also depends on your definition of the time period because it could be the events leading to this death, the instance you enter death, or the time after death has occurred. The term change has different implications at these different times periods (i.e. the body is still changing in the process leading to death, but in the minute time afterwards it is not changing).
In response to Amanda's post, I feel that the universe is the perceived environment around us, but even if it was referring to a divine power, we still need our nervous system to form ideas and interpret information among other things. In many religions as well they believe that you can pray by yourself directly to a divine being, which is a form of communication in which a religious leader is not need.
Finally, I would like to address Sonam's comments. By biological traits, It is implied that they are genes because the term traits usually implies inherited characteristics. Therefore if God has "fixed" biological traits that we have in this life time based on our behavior in past lives, the following must be considered: 1) Does this fixing of traits by a higher power imply that God effects what specific egg is fertilized by a certain sperm in order to select certain traits an individual will have? 2) If a person acquires a genetically inherited illness, does that mean that they were bad in their previous life? 3) By the testing described (" you must recognize this and try to change this negative trait"), does that mean that a person with a genetically inherited illness failed the test if they do not seek treatment?

Maybe this is just my warped way of interpretting these statements, but I hoped the raised interesting insights into the comments posted previously by others.

questions:

1) Does this fixing of traits by a higher power imply that God effects what specific egg is fertilized by a certain sperm in order to select certain traits an individual will have?

yes, i think that is what is implied...that god is a scientist. the whole idea of the body (or "shell") being separate from the soul is something central to buddhist beliefs. so, maybe it all depends on how this soul deals with the type of "shell" given to him by god.

2) If a person acquires a genetically inherited illness, does that mean that they were bad in their previous life?

i do think that some people interpret it this way: people who do "wrong" in their past life or lives may have disadvantages (not just biologically...can be financially or other ways). but another way to think about this, i think, is that a person with an illness may still be a positive-thinking person who tries to live the best life possible. whereas a person who does not have a disease but may be someone who is easily jealous of other may let this become a disadvantage in their lives.

3) By the testing described (" you must recognize this and try to change this negative trait"), does that mean that a person with a genetically inherited illness failed the test if they do not seek treatment?

well i guess it's not about seeking treatment but rather trying to handle this as best as you can. i put "good" and "bad" traits in quotes because, as i said before, the whole "test" seems to be that you have to overcome the "bad" traits and take advantage of the "good" traits. thus, blurring the whole "good"/ "bad" thing.

i know i sound like some bad talk show host right now but i'm just trying to understand these beliefs myself. but i'm glad you asked these questions because i do constantly question these beliefs (and as a result, horrify my pious mother). questioning definitely has streghtened some of my beliefs. again, since it's all about interpretation, i'm sure someone else could come up with a clearer/better interpretation or explaination. by bringing god and/or religion into this discussion, i'm thinking that we can inspect/question all areas in order to be "less wrong."

This issue of the I-box also begs the all-important question of What Is Humanity? Before today, I thought of humanity, in large part, as the "I", the observing ego, self-awareness, the ability to know that we know. But considering that the I-box may reside in any animal with a neocortex throws this off. It kind of scares me. I am willing to concede that many of the "fuzzies" in the world have personality, distinct selves, and some very high intellect. And from a young age I've advocated that my dog is as conscious as my self. But as a scientist, I must admit that this is probably not the case, that there is something in our consciousness that is unique to humanity. Let's consider my friend's cat, Misty, again. Misty fell off the roof and broke her back. Doctors were able to reconstruct her spine, giving her fulll motot and sensory control again. However, the last inch or so of her tail didn't seem to make it through. Misty is all white, but the end of her tail is sooty. She won't clean it; it seems that she does not acknowledge it as part of herself. Now, if this is simply the result of the severing of the tip-of-tail-to-I-box-cable, then wouldn't that mean that Misty, with her I-box, is just as human as I am? I'm willing to admit her personality, her intelligence, etc, but to admit that a cat is as human as I am, that there is nothing special about humanity...this is just too much. Which is why I believe there has to be something more to consciousness and self than just the physical entity of the I-box.

I dont think that the posession of an I-function box makes an entity conious in the same way humans are, necesarily. It means they have a major item in common- the sense of self- but there are other things which differentiate human minds from animal minds, like introspection, metacognition (thinking about thinking) etc.

Also, isnt it possible to have different types or degrees of I-box, so that a cat's box containes a sense of the body as belonging to the self whereas the human box contains that and more, or that to a higher level? And the interactions between the I-box and other boxes would also affect it.

Exploring the concept of I-f also could be useful when studying mental illnesses. Some individuals with depression claim that they aren't themselves. Who are they then? Is this lack of self a malfunction of I-f? Some even go to extreme measures to regain their to feel alive, or feel like themselves again. Self inflicted violence has gained widespread attention but is poorly understood (like anything worth studying) and is often seen as a cry for attention rather than a disorder. Yet the people attacking their bodies claim it makes them feel alive (www.ruinyourlife.com). Is this a way of forcing the body to be included in the I-f? Do these people get a reawakening of the I-f by inflicting pain on the body that somehow makes them feel alive?

I'm quite interested in the idea of I-f. It may not be accurate, but it definetly raises many interesting questions.

Jenny

If you're floundering though Emily/Dana/Jenny have already started on what I would have suggested as a possible topic this week: the "I-function" box. Does that work as a way of making sense of the observations on Christopher Reeves that we discussed? Are there other ways of making sense of those observations? What new issues does the story/hypothesis of the "I-function" box raise? Does it, for example, have any possible connections to the discussion of religious concepts that Sonam/Jean/Katie were having early this week? Is the I-function box a useful story? How seriously do we want to take it?

The other concept that is a bit disturbing to the way I used to think about the nervous system is the idea that we shouldn't think of whole you pinch my foot and it withdraws as a reflex. In the past, I have taken biology classes that have spent much time discussing the "reflex." I was always told that a reflex occurs when a signal is sent from the sensory neurons to the spinal cord then to the motor neurons without first visiting the brain. (This emphasis on sensory and motor neurons is also why the idea that the vast majority of neurons in the nervous system are interneruons is quite shocking.) I guess this new concept of "reflex" goes along with the idea that the brain and the spinal cord are not really separate entities, but all part of one nervous system. I do like this new way of thinking along with the topographical organization of input and output signals, but I think it might take some time to get used to.

I wonder more about what characterizes it, assuming it exists, and whether or not we are to assume that it is something that can't change. I would like to believe that the I-function, just like us, has its own inherent qualities, but that these can be reshaped and transformed into something else as a result of our external experiences and internal processes. Wherever these internal processes may occur, I don't think that a "loss of self" or some other mental un-health people may experience is due to a malfunction of the I-function. Instead, I think that everything that we experience within ourselves is simply who we are. There are things that may change our I-function, from good to bad, bad to good, or some other combination, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is our "self" that is lost. It has simply changed.

Regarding Christopher Reeves' condition, I thought about how an arm or a leg can be reattached when severed and regain much of its senses. I thought it may be possible to regenerate a "bridge" between the brain and spinal cord through transplant or the intentional regeneration of nerve fibers. I have long heard that neurons fail to regenerate, but is there a hormone or a gene in the body that supports the initial production of neurons? Perhaps that gene/hormone can be used to spur additional neuron growth and the creation of a new cable between the medulla and the spine.

Finally, in response to Eleni's comment on spasms, does an input from sensory neurons lead to an immediate output through motor neurons? If not, it seems logical that electric signals are running through interneurons and could get lost within all the boxes and trigger a different motor neuron response spontaneously.

But then the idea that we're parasites living off our own bodies... That's a very, very interesting thought. I don't think there's any way to know. There's no way to disprove something like that, really, short of finding the root of consciousness in the brain- the exact mechanism by which millions of unconscious cells give rise to consciousness. And somehow it doesn't feel as though there'd be anything "exact" or simple about such a mechanism.

I used to have this weird idea, a couple years ago, that ran along those lines- of being a parasite in your own body. I used to wonder if I was just some nebulous presence sitting in the brain of someone else. Because you *don't* really have conscious control over most of the things that your body does. And even the things that you do have conscious control over, it's difficult to see how that control comes about, sometimes. You can think, "I want to move my leg.". And your leg moves. But how? It just... does. Inexplicably. You're able to move your leg, you're able to *consciously* move it, but you have no real idea how this conscious desire to move it was able to translate into motion. Even if you understand the basic mechanics behind it. It's very difficult, trying to mentally bridge the gap between this nebulous, abstract consciousness that is your "self", and the physical body that it controls.

Another thought. Possibly a bit off topic, but if cells in the body somehow give rise to consciousness, that brings about the possibility that other organisms- more complex organisms- give rise to a larger, collective consciousness. The spirit of Earth, or the spirit of the universe. It's interesting to think about.

Ok, here's a story: A couple of years ago, I had surgery on my jaw and chin. With that surgery, I got three metal screws put into my chin, and I lost a lot of feeling there, and in lower lip. Now, when people touch my chin, I usually can't feel it. In the fall, during a rugby game, I got kicked in the face and got a bruise on my chin, but I had no idea; it didn't even hurt.

With the idea of the I-function, when I say that I can't feel my chin, I still feel attachment to it, because it's on my body, and it's still pretty functional as a chin (although i don't really know what the function of a chin really is).

I thought Debbie's post was interesting, particulary, "I thought it may be possible to regenerate a "bridge" between the brain and spinal cord through transplant or the intentional regeneration of nerve fibers. I have long heard that neurons fail to regenerate, but is there a hormone or a gene in the body that supports the initial production of neurons? Perhaps that gene/hormone can be used to spur additional neuron growth and the creation of a new cable between the medulla and the spine." There are a lot of people who want to study stem cells for those reasons because certain parts of our bodies cannot regenerate on their own. Take for example Parkinson's Disease. Parkinson's is a debilitating disorder that is caused by the loss of dopamine producing nerve cells in the brain. These neurons die or become damaged, leading to less dopamine in the nerve cells. As a result, people with Parkinson's suffer from loss of control of their joints and muscles. How does the I-function apply to these people that have such a loss of control of their body, but can still function normally most of the time?

Another aspect I came across is that as it turns out that, this portion of the brain is also linked with religion. During meditation brain activity in this area is increased. People who suffer from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy (TLE) in which seizures cause malfunctions in this portion of the brain often feel a sense of being at one with the universe or have a deeply spiritual experience. This then can imply that God is a creation of a certain portion of the brain, rather than the brain being a creation of God. People could argue that a person's religious strength is in fact due to the level of activity in this part of the brain. I am not claiming to agree or disagree with these arguments, but rather putting out the idea that the "I box" is also linked to the "God Box." What are the implications of this connection? How does this go along with the many different religions in our society? Where do atheists see themselves in "the universal picture?"

And on a somewhat related tangent; humans themselves are machines, we are nothing but parts, connected somewhat haphazardly, in order to make one larger machine function properly. In using Christopher Reeves as an example, the trauma of his accident disrupted part of this fragile machinery, thus having this "machine" lose it's ability to function the way it was meant to be built. This flaw though, it what has created humans as we are. If, in developing medicial breakthroughs to allow the nervous system to be reconnected, we allow for perfection in humans, where will this bring us. What would the side effects be?

In treatment and research of the nervous system, nothing remains clear. One can only hope to continue to learn more about how the nervous systems creates ourselves.

A relative of mine is in her fifties and experiences headaches and sometimes even blacks out. Her doctor diagnosed her with a kind of symptom (I cannot recall what the name is) where there is this sort of chemical imbalance in her brain that lead to the electrical signals not firing right. Which means that the electrical signals that would usually be the command for a certain action is either 1. not getting through her NS system to its rightful designation or 2. going to the wrong final destination.

The difference I continuously want to make then must be in complexity of responses. What are those inputs that require a large number of "boxes" which have "boxes" inside them to produce an output? How do they differ from those that only use a few "boxes" and why does one input need more processing then another?

Here's an exerpt from CNN.com:

"Led by a Los Angeles-based neurosurgeon, the medical team planned to spend about 13 hours removing Rebeca's second head, which has a partially formed brain, ears, eyes and lips.

The surgery is complicated because the two heads share arteries. Although only partially developed, the mouth on her second head moves when Rebeca is being breast-fed. Tests indicate some activity in her second brain."
---

The concept of being parasites to our bodies (as discussed by Anjali and Emma) is an interesting one, but I think that this case shows what a very concrete example of parasitism on the human body. No human as ever lived past a few weeks with the parasite twin condition (including Rebeca, who sadly died after the operation on Saturday Full Article) so it's difficult to say how someone would develop with a parasute twin, or if the person and parasite would behave as two different organisms.

I agree that we do not have complete control or understanding of our bodies, as Anjali was saying, but I think it's safe to say that I'm one organism. It's very easy to remove the "self" from the body because it's very difficult to understand what the self really is...

For example, a person who is colorblind cannot see certain colors or respond to them by identification, however, is their "brain" activity such that the input/output cable connection between signals is severed? Or is there a physical limitation in the way that they see things that causes the "brain" to operate with a "defective" signal? Or are there signals from one box to another that are not received along a path and fail to cause an output response?

Also, on a different subject, we were speaking earlier in the week about our behavior essentially being a result of the chemical compositions of our brains. However, I feel that to view our actions as merely resulting from random chemicals removes culpability. The truth is, we don't follow every impulse of our brains, we can't excuse our actions by saying "My brain did it...I didn't have any control." To a certain extent, brain does equal behavior, but I think we need to qualify this statement by remembering that we are capable of choice.

Does Christopher Reeve experience the sensation of having a body independent of physical touch? If we don't need a body to feel a body, what does this say about the I-function? If anything, both examples support the I function in some ways because the brain finds some way to generate a sense of wholeness, regardless of our physical bodies. However, this raises another interesting tension between our sense of self as mediated by the outside world (when someone pinches C.R.'s toe and he says "ouch") and our internally generated physical sense of self (C.R.'s ability to voluntarily feel and move his toe). I feel like that I function cannot necessarily contain both of these functions because they rely on a different source of inputs (internal and external). What if C.R. does not have any sensation of his body at all, not even something akin to a phantom limb? How does that then affect the I-function?

http://www.stemcellsinc.com/news-releases/PR-03-5-2.html

On a different thread- I have learnt that when born we are equipped with just about all the neurons we will ever have and that all that the nervous system does after that is to grow and organize itself. Connecting this to C.R's condition-soon after the accident he was left quadriplegic shoulders down and ventilator dependent due to a gap in his spine. Yet after years of intensive physiotherapy he has slowly regained sensation in some areas of the lower parts of his body and can breathe on his own for a period of around 90 minutes. If neurons cannot be generated than how do we explain these phenomena? Does this mean that his nervous system is slowly adapting to these new sets of conditions and growing and re-organizing itself to regain a new state of normalcy?

Here is the article.
(http://www.extremeultrarunning.com/hellgate_2003/race_report.htm)

Hope that makes sense....

On a saturday afternoon during my Junior year of high school, I was driving home from the stable where I kept my horse and had lessons. It was located about two miles outside of town, down a road that was hilly, but relatively straight.

Somewhere along the road, I blacked out. When I awoke I was in the left hand lane (fortunately empty), panicked, blacked out again, and totaled my car. After going over the event several times in the 6 hours I was in the emergency room (on Valentine's day no less), I was shocked to be told that it was possible that after the initial blackout I had continued to drive for about a mile before I woke up again.

Now, the story is interesting to me for two reasons:

1. That driving down a familiar (and not too difficult) road, it is possible that my muscle memory kicked in and kept me on the road for nearly a mile.*

*This is what the doctor said, but isn't it common to lose memory of what happened right before a blackout? So maybe not...

2. That after two waking EEG's, a sleeping EEG, a CAT scan, an ultrasound on my heart and blood tests they had NO idea what had happened...and then this winter break I was at my chiropractor's office and cracked my neck (a bad and now almost unconscious habit), which immediately illicited the response: "don't do that, you could pinch something and black out."

Mystery solved? Maybe. Either way, something new which was never suggested before. It's interesting how much and how frequently our knowledge of life and the world around us is (brain and behavior as well) is informed by the most surprising and unexpected sources.

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