The explaination of behavior has long been a destination for many people. Psychologists study behavior according to events and circumstances. And more often than not, the brain is used to define a mysterious behavior. It is obvious that the nervous system is much more complicated than one stimulus provides one response. The stimulus-response model doesn't account for autonomous behavior or one stimulus giving a different responses. Changing it to the input-output model accounts for all of the above. Now, the question arises, is brain really behavior according to the input-output model? It has been established that the human brain has close to 10 to the 12th power neurons, the smallest input-output box. In a typical case, with one connection of the neuron to another neuron, one receives 1000 different outputs while the other receives 1000 different inputs, all simultaneously. The brain is nothing more than 10 to the 12th power neurons. Behavior is 10 to the 12th little input output elements, all talking to each other. Therefore according to the input-output model, there seems to be more evidence that brain is behavior. Through this model there isn't room for an explination of some outside force causing behavior.
Should there be? Are you convinced (already?), or skeptical. I hope the latter, because things are going to get tougher before they get (I hope) better. PG
The notion of input/output boxes in smaller and smaller divisions down to individual neurons doesn't really have much effect upon my degree of comfort with the brain=behavior paradigm. I believe as much as I can believe anything that the nervous system is responsible for behavior. The concept of boxes is a very convenient way to study n.s. organization. I like the idea of an "I-function" box as a temporary pigeon-hole for all of the sticky concepts of individalism and identity we have begun to explore. Eventually, though, we are going to need to open that box, and make a new paradigm that incorporates different levels of consciousness and will into all different levels of behavior. The neurobiology of Freud, maybe.
The sheer number of boxes is something with which people seem to be very pleased. When we think how stimulation of just one neuron in a squid can result in a huge spasmic reaction, the potential of the billions of connections within the human brain is astounding. Although we must use a lot of neurons for just one reflex action, there are still a nearly limitless number of unused ones at any given moment. Some creationists attempt to dismiss the theory of evolution by the magnitude of improbability of the existence of human beings according to evolution (millions of species mutating and reproducing in just the right way, in just the right environmental conditions, to create our great species in all its glory.) To them, it seems just too fantastic to believe that this could happen by chance. This improbablity isn't lost on many of the supporters of evolution. Instead of discrediting evolution, though, those who consider the improbablity are more awed and impressed by how fortunate it is that our little brains have their opportunity to exist inside our little bodies. I get the same feeling of awe at the magnitude of the improbability of so many little cells and so many thousands of connections for each cell creating the thought processes that I think I feel inside my head. The box concept is not harder to believe, but it makes the human nervous system seem that much more incredible.
Fair enough. And yes, we will certainly have to open boxes to be sure what's inside has some chance of acccounting for their properties. The improbability (or lack thereof) is a larger issue, still very much up in the air. PG
The model of boxes is a good help in explaining some behaviors in terms of the nervous system. Some advantages of the model of boxes are that it can account for
-- autonomy of the nervous system (some outputs do not have to be triggered by anything from the outside of the nervous system.) For example, this model can explain why a person wakes up in the morning happy or sad, if nothing from the outside have caused it. Apparently, something inside of the nervous system is responsible for this.
-- different outputs-responses to the same input-stimulus. The model provides different ways the boxes are connected and it allows to have different outputs for the same input, or no output at all. An example of this phenomena is the person's response to the same song playing over and over again. A person can listen to it for the first time, dance to it for the second time, sing along for the third time, and completely ignore it the forth time.
-- an output reflecting many different inputs. For example, if a person is hungry, he will go and eat. If the person is sick and hungry, he might not feel like eating.
-- parts of the nervous system able to function independently. The model shows that the smaller boxes can receive inputs and outputs independently of the bigger boxes. This also helps me to understand the behavior of the earth worms: as it is known parts of the earth worm separated from the rest of its body are able to move. This illustrates that due to the structure of the worm's nervous system, each part of the worm has sufficient nervous system piece (a small box) that enables it to move without regard to the rest of its body.
-- many other examples
So, as a whole this model is successful in explaining many mechanical concepts of the nervous system and behavior, while it does not help to explain the questions of the mind and personality.
Like your earthworm extension, an apropriate and clear illustration of boxiness. And your advantages in general (though need to be clearer about how this allows for different outputs for the same input). Interesting remaining uncertainty about "mind" and "personality". Because these don't have any "boxy" character to them? PG
In my opinion, this increased degree of complexity from the model we were talking about last week makes it easier for me to accept the idea that brain is behavior. The model with a trillion neuronal connections, meaning a trillion input/output mechanisms, can account for many more variations in the behaviors of different people. Also the idea that specific neuronal connections can be different in different people helps to explain the degree of variation in behavior between people.
One aspect of the nervous system that I feel needs to be clarified for this model to be accepted is the idea that different neuronal connections can be specific to different behaviors. Perhaps neuronal connections within certain brain areas control different aspects of behavior than connections within other brain areas. Neuronal connections in the hypothalamus control for the release of hormones throughout the body, while neuronal connections in the cerebellum control for primitive movements and thought processes. There must be some underlying organization of the neurons that causes them to have different functions, or else the nervous system is nothing more than an amorphous blob. I think it is this specificity of neuronal function that is the key to this model.
Is certainly an important part, at least. You're right, of course. The thing is far from an amorphous blob. And must be, for reasons we'll come to shortly. PG
Consciousness is often discussed as if it were a binary quality--you either have it or you don't. Humans, of course, are assumed to have "it". Viruses and bacteria are often not discussed in terms of consciousness; we usually assume that they don't have "it". Some think they don't even have life. The occasional philosopher or five-year-old will wonder about dogs and cats and gorillas--do they have a soul? Are they conscious? These types of questions are usually applied to mammals, because they are cute and fuzzy and we like them because they are similar to us. We rarely ask about ants or tapeworms or cockroaches.
We also rarely acknowledge the experience that we have all had at some point or another--the desperate attempt to understand a big idea, and idea that someone has just given you or that you have just read or glimpsed somewhere in your head. We are familiar, though, with the burst of awareness that accompanied calculus or Kafka, or subtraction, or reading the first new word. That feeling can be described as a raising of consciousness: we are taking our existing consciousness and making it better, higher, more conscious. Another word for what we are doing is "learning".
We are not the only animals capable of learning--indeed, there are none I can think of that are not capable. Is it not possible, then, that "lower" animals can experience this same raising of consciousness? Indeed, in saying that we are just playing semantic games with an accepted truth ("all animals can learn"). Consciousness, then, is more properly thought of as a continuum.
This makes sense--our kingdom can also be read as a continuum (albeit a branched one) of traits. So consciousness is a trait animals possess in varying degrees, not in an absolute, binary sense (we'll leave the other kingdoms out of this for now, mostly because I'm most familiar with the behavior of animals and not, say, fungi). It seems logical to me, at this point, to define consciousness as a property of the nervous system, and say that when we speak of degree of consciousness we are speaking of the degree of complexity of the nervous system.
If there's one thing that a technical discussion of the nervous system has taught me, it is to not underestimate the complexity that can arise from simple things. The statement "the brain is behavior" seems to imply that by understanding the brain, behavior is understandable. But there are only twenty-six letters in the English alphabet, and nobody will claim that a six-year-old who has mastered them has mastered English and all of its possibilities. How much more is possible with even 26,000 neurons, much less 26 to the 12th?
At least two distinct issues worth further discussion. Your last, the combinatorial one, entirely appropriate: yes, of course, saying what creates the possibilities is far from having enumerated all possible states. "Understanding behavior" has an even greater problem though, which also derives from the "brain = behavior" presumption. It is the brain doing the understanding, which means that it is changing, which means that what one is attempting to understand is changing, which means ...
As for a continuum of consciousness, I certainly think that will turn out to be a necessary improvement on the having it or not having it dichotomy. But for a somewhat different reason. Yes, all animals learn. I'm not sure though that all animals experience the "raising of consciousness" you describe. For that one needs not only to learn but also ... ? PG
Upon watching the X-Files tonight I came to realize how important the effects of all the little boxes in the brain are, and their connections to each other. In this episode some man was suffering from auditory and visual hallucinations as a result of a parasite from tattoo ink that affected the brain. Now I realize that the X-Files are not a very reliable source of information, but they were the spark that started this essay. Other resources show the effect of disrupting the normal flow of information between the little "boxes" does indeed change and alter behavior. For instance, brain tumors, a less exciting but certainly more traumatic problem than parasites from a tattoo, have been known to cause such symptoms as dementia, personality changes, and sensory and motor problems. (Tortora and Grabowski, Principles of Anatomy and Physiology, HarperCollins College Publishing, 1993) Each of these symptoms, taken individually, show how behavior is controlled by boxes in the brain.
Dementia is defined as "a mental disorder that results in loss of intellectual abilities such as impairment of memory, judgement, abstract thinking, and changes in personality." (Tortora and Grabowski) The alteration of physical brain structure can cause changes in basic thinking patterns, the origin of conscious behavior. In the X-Files it caused a man to stick his arm in a furnace to stop his tattoo from talking, but perhaps that's a little extreme.
Personality changes as a result of brain damage emphasizes further the concept of all of behavior and humanness being housed in the brain. If the alteration of the brain can cause a normally shy and mild person to become loud and erratic, it would suggest that the brain contains the basis for how we define the soul and being of a person, as shown by their personality.
The most basic part of behavior, sensory and motor functions, have been shown over and over again to be housed in the brain. All those little neurons running all over the body have to be good for something. However, balance, coordination, and proprioception being affected by changes in the cerebellum and other parts of the brain shows that the neurons are more complicated and connect more little boxes than simply moving a few fingers.
Overall, yes, the little boxes do exist, and their existance does show more and more evidence that behavior is entirely a result of the action of the central nervous system. The more the structure of the brain and how changes in it are studied, the further this point can be proven. And Agent Scully really didn't have to get a tattoo to prove that, either.
Fine (of course) to find sparks anywhere they happen. Is an interesting thought that various forms of "pathology" may result from disturbances in communication among the boxes (as opposed to the presence or absence of particular boxes. PG
Why do we act the way we do ? Each individual on this planet is distinguished by his or her distinctive neural pathways, every single person has a different connection of the thousands possible. The response time, and in some individuals even the neurotransmitter used is completely different. The fact that the brain is compartmentalised gives rise to even more possible places where the brain may secrete away the answers to what truly constitutes behaviour.
Each part of the brain houses a different function, or the interconnecting link to some function. This is extremely important because it allows us to explain the brain as behaviour by making more functions located in the central nervous system. Within ourselves we divide the brain not only into physical regions but imaginary regions such as the mind, soul, etc these divisions allow us to explain our behaviour as either conscious or unconscious, deliberate or instinct. We compartmentalise our explanations as much as we assign different functions to the different regions of the brain.
The impulses for behaviour are as varied as the neural connections within us. We are a series of layers - from the simple inner layer that governs our unconscious, homeostatic functions, eg peristalsis, to our neocortex which allows us to reason and think about such abstract concepts as emotion and beauty and respond to them in a certain manner. Thus the layers and compartments of the brain merely emphasise the idea that the brain is behaviour.
Currently we are at a very elevated stage of evolutionary development. We have experimented with various behaviours and kept those that we find useful and discard those that are less beneficial. Mother Nature is constantly experimenting with certain behaviours to see which will further our race. In conjunction with these experiments different parts of our brains have been employed to comply with these necessary behaviours. Temperature regulation, for example, is mostly regulated by the most ancient part of our brain, the inner layer, whereas our mating rituals, in our more complex world have fortunately been taken over, in most individuals, by the neocortex: we reason and court rather than just take. Thus the different regions and connections that we learn from experience, be it evolutionary or individual, are compartmentalised in the brain in conjunction with the behaviour that it houses.
An interesting and productive way to think about it. Have read Paul McLean's The Triune Brain, Luria's Higher Cortical Function in Man?, Shallice's From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure? Yes, of course, the boxes (compartments) have evolutionary origins, and there is certainly some hierarchy to them. At the same time, one wants need to be too literal either in identifying boxes with behaviors or giving an adaptionist twist to every behavior. Evolution is constantly playing with variant forms, for no reason other than to play with them ... and most behavior results from interaction of boxes at multiple levels. Or, at least, I think that's what we'll find as we talk more about it. PG
In lecture, we said that the person is located in a section of the brain(the front part). First of all, what is the person defined as? Is the person not the sum of his or her behavior and personality and thus the brain? Or are we controlled by a peice of the body(the brain) which is considered a "non-person"? It is reasonable to say that there are features of our body that continue without us thinking about it, such breathing and the pumping of our heart. We can control the rate of breathing by running or relaxing,, but the overall process proceeds without us thiking about it. I think that the "person in the brain" has a lot more to say than we give it credit. The person has somewhat control in the inputs that the brain receives. Aside from situations such as accidently burning your hand or stepping on nail, we basically have a say in what we consider input. The person we are is apt to ignore certain situations and filter certain experiences. I would say that we are not passive in the process of deciding what inputs the brain receives. We are also not passive in the decision of what the out put is. Instead, the output is confounded by past experiences and the way we choose to react or act in a certain event. This can lead to various outputs from the same input.
Several different issues, all interesting. Yes, indeed, input not passively received but, in general, selected/chosen. But, it will turn out, that can happen without the "person in the brain". At least in the sense we've used that idea so far. The spinal cord influences inputs. And yes, there is an interesting problem in defining "person". In one sense, the spinal cord certainly IS part of an individual. In another (the one used in class), the "person" is distinct in that it can't control the spinal cord. Bit of a thorny thicket, huh? Can think of ways to get us through it over the semester? PG
Last week, the question asked what, if anything, could the brain not explain or would have the hardest time explaining? And I replied with an answer about Nature vs. Nurture. In which, I was reminded, that every brain is different. So now I have read some Scientific journals on neurotransmitters and the pathways of information and the proteins that compile the membranes and I understand how every brain can be different. If a brain is compiled of many different "boxes" and different "pathways" to the different boxes, then although, nurture may influence the inputs into the brain, the outputs or the behaviors are inevitably controlled by those boxes. So the statement the brain is behavior would be true. Now, I agreed with this last week, and searched and read journal after journal for one word or concept that perhaps could not be explained scientifically through the study of chemical pulses or neurons. I haven't found one, yet. I think that just about every behavior can be explained through the process of inputs and outputs in the nervous system.
Glad you're reading (and thinking). But what "journals"? You're not likely to find skeptics in neuroscience journals. More likely elsewhere, or, even more importantly, in your own experiences/thoughts. "Nurture", it will turn out, can affect not only the inputs to the boxes but the boxes themselves. That ok? PG
When regarding the concept of boxes within boxes used to support the belief that the brain is behavior, I found myself having to remain unusually openminded. Posing the most challenge was the deduction that the mind must therefore be contained in one of these boxes. The boxes idea had always been confusing because I could not see where the line between the brain and the mind should be drawn. Now all I can say is that it makes a lot of sense. To have the mind contained in one of the brain's boxes would not deemphasize the influence the mind has on our lives, it would mearly place the mind in tangible territory. Knowing that the brain contains many pathways is reasuring. It is concievable that each input would be filtered through one of the mind's pathways in its way to producing an output. Before we place the mind inside the brain however, we must understand what the mind is. If we cannot understand fully what the mind is, we must at least learn what territory it encompasses. The mind may be nothing more than the inborn knowledge of our ancestors, our primal instincts, etc.
If, in the future, this hypothesis about the connection between the brain and behavior is not proven wrong, we must then begin mapping those regions of thought that appear inconceivable. We must find the equation for the thought processes of the brain and mind common among all living beings. All of us have primal instincts, and to understand the brain better, we must understand where that information comes from.
"Unusually openminded"? May it always be so. Regardless, glad you like the idea of the mind within the brain; hope it lives up to your positive feelings. Suspect we'll find that mind is more than just "inborn knowledge and primal instincts". After all, it can be open. PG
Describing the brain as numerous boxes with multiple patterns for input and output explains several aspects of behavior, but also raises many questions. It does answer my questions of last week on how identical twins can have the same brain but different behavior. Even if the twins have identical boxes and pathways, there is no assurance that their brains will have the same use patterns of the pathways, just as there is no assurance that the cricket will always have the same output to the same input. As to why some identical twins are much more similar than others, perhaps this has to do with their individual conditioning and their meathods of learning and copying others behavior.
But this notion of multiple pathways leads to another question. If there are so many ways for input to be processed, why is there a repeat pattern of output. If there are so many way for the female cricket to process the sound of a male, why does she turn to the male 70% of the time. Why doesn't she turn to it only 10% of the time, if she has 9 other options of what to do, why aren't they all equally balanced? If there are so many options for response to touch, why does the foot always retract from pain? You could say that part of this is conditioning and learning, for people who have never been tickled and don't know that they are meant to laugh probably don't. And perhaps in the case of the cricket, hormones have something to do with influencing her response. But it still does not explain the certain patterns for behavior. Not all people are conditioned the same, yet there are still general patterns that the majority of people follow. If we can generate all of these possible outputs, why don't we? Why are so many behaviors seen more than others, and what makes their pathways better?
Wonderful question: the one I posed reversed. If we can account for things NOT happening, then how do we account for the fact that often they DO happen? What gives even statistical regularities? Am not sure how well we'll do with that, but we'll take more than a crack at it. It, and the twins, probably has something to do with "conditioning" (though we have to be careful defining that) but it has to do with some other things as well. Be sure to write again about both if the relation isn't clear by the end of the semester, ok? PG
If the brain is a connected system of interrelated boxes that is in control of the behavior of the body then that would explain why if one thing goes wrong with the brain the whole system doesn't shut down. This also makes it possible to test and observe which part of the brain controls which behavior.
When a person is involved in a car accident in which they suffered severe frontal damage, while the rest of the brain is intact then that still allows for them to be able to breathe (medulla) and carry out the hormonal processes for the body (thalamus). ( Iam not sure if this 100% true but this in a hypothesis.) This lends a lot of hope to the preservation of the brain, if for some reason something should happen to it. These interconnected parts of the brain make it possible for someone to still lead a "normal" in the case of some forms of brain damage.
With these parts of the brain it is very possible to see which part controls the emotions, intelligence, the social situations, etc., of the human body. Experiments could be devised that under special lab conditions allows the scientist to see what part of the brain is active or even if there is a organization of other parts to come up with a response to "stimuli". This information could lead to the knowledge of whether or not the pathway of the nerves are different or if they behave in a certain way in order to fulfill the demand, in the different parts. It would be very convenient to think that the brain does operate in a way that does warrant the independent yet coexisting manner which allows organisms to behave or respond to the situations that if faces on a daily basis
Interconnected boxes does indeed both provide a basis for thinking about recovery from brain damage and for exploring the brain. One does, however, have to keep in mind that the different functions served by the different boxes may be quite different from the different components of behavior one imagines from other forms of exploration. PG
Changing stimulus and response to input and output and restructuring the "box" has made it easier for me to accept that the brain and behavior are one. Breaking the large box into segments, depicts a more accurate view of the brains autonomous functions and interrelations. Due to the fact that there are infinite combinations of output from the brain, the partition among boxes allows us to visualize the brain as an autonomous structure which can be broken down into still smaller autonomous structures. The first vague box with it's corresponding arrows was disconcertingly ambiguous. The updated box is more accurate and clear.
And raises new questions? Can you be more specific about why you like the segements, what autonomy means to you, is good for? PG
The concept that the human brain likely consists of such a vast number of neurons as 10,000,000,000,000 helps the belief that the mind is an element that exists on a physical level. But it is a concept that I was already aware of, one that helped formulate and accept the idea that the mind is something, at least on some sense, physical. It is to say that it has been one of the primary and initial factors for my comfort with the idea that brain is behavior.
But I still believe that the mind is something spiritual, something that also exists, in some sense, without the aid of a body. The mind is something that "resides" in the physical body in a real, tangible, and physical way during our earthly life. This means that the most defining behaviors, those that we use to identify the real "person" inside (such as our feelings, methods of interacting with others, and talents), can be traced to the complex firing patterns of the huge number of neurons in our brains. But by saying this, I do not mean to imply that the mind, the "person" or "I factor" is limited to the physical entity of neurons and protein and other elements that compose our bodies. The very complexity of our physical brain suggests the presence of God. We exist here on earth, our souls or minds present in our physical bodies, and are called to an afterlife when our time in earth is complete. Our physical entity dies, including the physical remnants of our mind, and the spiritual mind is "released".
Absolutely and unquestionably an entertainable hypothesis, given existing observations. And with a distinctive set of questions to be asked about the brain: where and how does the non-physical intersect with/influence the brain? In the long run, the validity of hypotheses relates to their usefulness: what new questions get posed, what new observations get made because of those questions. Worth persuing, along those lines. PG
The modified version of the nervous system arrived at last week, makes me considerably more comfortable with the assertion that the brain is all behavior. Particularly the inclusion of the "little boxes" which do not require external or internal inputs and the idea that no response is itself a response. These two additions or clarifications seem to be much better approximations for the inclusion of personality in the nervous system. Abstractly, I can imagine aspects of a person's personality being seen as one of the no-input-required boxes. However, breaking this box down into its individual neurons still makes me a little uneasy.
Although I am now more willing to acquiesce to the inclusion of personality within the nervous system, I maintain that there is still some part of each person which is separate and distict from it. I called this one's conscience. In this case, the new discription of the nervous system clarifies my original conclusion. Although I can obviously not prove this one way or another, I believe that this conscience can not be ultimately broken down to a neuron. Rather than the conscience being identified as one of the no-imput-required boxes, I would contend that one's conscience is actually an imput to some other box. Where exactly this input comes from, I don't know. This is obviously a very valid question, but it is also one which I do not have a clear opinion on just yet.
Fair enough. Interesting that you connect the idea of personality to boxiness, but that conscience feels different to you. Can you be more specific about why the two are different?
To say that all of human behavior is the result of signals that travel down 10^12 neurons is mind boggling. The problem for me is not that there are not enough neurons to account for all behaviors since there is a finite number of behaviors (besides 10^12 is a lot of neurons), but that the simple connection of one neuron to another results in complex behavior. I guess it was easier for me to think of the brain (nervous system included) as behavior, because I did stop to think about what that implied. When I agreed that brain IS behavior, I had no problem putting aside the "mind" and "soul", since they cannot be proven or disproved. I also did not stop to think about what the brain and the nervous system consisted of. Now that the argument has been simplified, I find it harder to disregard "mind" and "soul".
It seems to me if behavior is just a connection of 10^12 neurons with inputs and outputs, then computers can one day be just like humans. Yet it seems unlikely that this will happen, I mean I cannot picture a computer that one day does not work because it is feeling sad. The idea of a computer having free will seems too far fetched. For that matter, the idea of humans having free will seems bewildering, if behavior IS just 10^12 neurons.
It seems like there is more to behavior than just the signals that travel across the axons of neurons. Maybe it is because the brain and the nervous system are autonomous and affected by the body (e.g. hormones). But then, how can you account for free will and consciousness as the result of internal/external inputs which send a signal to the brain? And this is where I always get stuck. Hopefully further discussion and study of the brain functions, will help me make sense of this.
Nice concerns, appropriately occurring with extension of brain/behavior idea to what brain actually IS (lots of neurons). Yes, of course, raises questions about whether computers could, some day, feel sad. And about where we are going to get things like "free will" and "consciousness". Let's see. PG
If there were a problem with the idea of brain as behavior it could be that behaviors are too numerous and subtle to be completely attributed to the brain. The concept of input/output boxes makes it easier to attribute behavior to the brain because infinitely smaller boxes and the way in which they're interconnected accounts for these subtleties as well as individual differences. This concept explains how a stimulus can lead to different responses either in different organisms or in a single organism in different contexts. Regardless, more needs to be known about what goes on inside these boxes: what affects the transmission or pathway of a stimulus, how the proximity of neurons allows for numerous points of interruption and changes in the pathway.
The concept of boxes implies that any processing occurs only once the stimulus has crossed the boundary of that box. This makes the model inadequate in explaining autonomous, internal stimuli of the brain, because at some level here the stimulus is not coming from outside a box. Behavior is not the brain which is not just the boxes. Behavior is the consequence of the interaction of boxes and their environment, whether the environment is other boxes or something such as hormones. Although reducing the brain to boxes helps us understand what goes on behind the scenes, reducing behavior to infinitely smaller entities loses "behavior" as the complex concept that it is. The idea can appear circular. The behavior is the brain which is boxes which constitute the brain that is behavior. What bothers me about the concept of boxes is that it puts an observable boundary on a concept which has no observable boundary.
Very interesting, both in the explanation of why boxes useful (though could use some specific examples) and in concerns about its limitations. Let's keep concerns in mind as course proceeds, and see whether/where issues of circularity and/or boundedness for "unboun
The conceptual idea of nesting boxes within boxes to represent the various levels of organization in the nervous system does seem to increase my level of comfort with the notion of the identity of the brain with behaviour, because it implies an inherent uncertainty in the structuring of the limits to which the nesting process can be taken. We currently believe that the smallest box, the smallest autonomous unit, is the neuron; we don't need to define a mathematical limit for the divergence of the "box" series. However, we don't really have any concrete evidence to suggest how many levels of the hierarchy of boxes within boxes there are; in a physical sense, maybe we do, but in the sense of "mind", and all the trappings of the "mind- body dichotomy", we have no clear idea about the kinds of levels to which it can be reduced.
Why does the idea of uncertainty imply greater comfort? It seems to me that if we assumed that everything was completely clear- cut, sharply defined and with an uncertainty of zero, then we should be able to absolutely explain everything that we claim to understand, completely. An uncertainty inherent in the theoretical model makes the model much more believable in terms of its correlation with empirical evidence. Perhaps sometime in the future the uncertainty will disappear, but it needs to be accounted for in contemporary theories.
Nice set of ideas. And interesting that you want some uncertainty somewhere. I agree (which isn't to say it wouldn't be wise to wonder WHY we want that). I think, though, that we can find the uncertainty without having the entertain an infinite regress of smaller and smaller boxes. We'll see. PG
It has been established that the brain is purely a set of boxes within boxes that transimit information to one another , at least directing human behavior, and yet, does that imply that this definition of the brain is behavior? Certainly the question then arises as to what defines behavior, however, for the purposes of this essay, behavior will be defined as all human action, ranging from simple actions such as breathing to the more complex emotions and decision-making.
The concept that the brain is a series of boxes allows one to better understand why the human body acts certain ways concerning survival skills, such as hunger, pain, and so forth: One can picture the neural signals traveling through one set of boxes for hunger and another for breathing and another for pain, and upon arriving at their destination, there is a particular output from the system. It is also possible to understand such a notion when one considers more complex bodily actions, such as the direction of the immune system or the processing of nutrients, but when one approaches more complex functions of a human, there is some skepticism. For example, when a human makes a decision, do the neural signals just follow some path through certain boxes and then the brain forms the decision? But why is one path chosen as compared to another one? Where does the difference come from and what is the distinction between these boxes that causes a different output?
It appears as though this particular version of the nervous system augments the idea that brain is behavior, at least for the more simple human actions because the particular path and direction of the nerual signals can be imagined and therefore understood. As for more complex human actions, it is more possible and probable that one can better imagine the path and direction of neural signals through the boxes, therefore making it somewhat easier for many to accept the notion that brain is behavior. I must admit that I am somewhat biased, as I already beleive that brain is behavior, but there remain some unanswered questions as to why certain boxes are located where they are, and why they are distinct from others and what makes those internal "decisions" for neural signals to follow one particular path. The secrets of the brain are slowly being unveiled, but that does not mean that we can or should stop asking questions.
Of course not. And PARTICULARLY if one thinks one knows how things are. And your questions point in an important direction. Maybe the boxes within boxes idea isn't ENOUGH. What indeed accounts for which direction things go between boxes? We'll try and see that there are boxes but that the signals aren't simply from one box to another but rather are simultaneous activity of lots of boxes, with lots of resulting influences. Maybe that will help? PG
Thinking about the brain as an input/output system does make it seem more plausible that the brain is behavior. In saying that I accept that the brain is behavior, I still want to be able to keep the idea of a 'mind', but as something created by the brain. I get very confused when I try to think about/explain this. It seems to me that we can explain the mind as a construct that has been created by our brains. To 'change your mind' on an issue can mean that new input has changed the structure, even in some small way, of your brain, and effects which box input enters and leaves from. Some piece of me hates to give all credit (for lack of a better word) to the brain, because it does seem to turn us into calculating, machine-like beings. However, I do accept it, and it seems to me that it doesn't completely rule out spirituality. Just as the mind can be created by reactions inside the brain, spirituality and the soul can be ideas that are formed in the brain and for whatever reason, can bring a sense of comfort to many people. Learning that emotions are under hormonal control, and therefore under the control of the brain, which in turn interacts with experiences and environment, is a large piece of why I can accept the brain as behavior.
Yep, confusing. But nice wrestling with the whole thing. And what we'll keep doing all semester to see how unconfusing we can make it all. Clearly, "calculating, machine-like" isn't what we're trying to make sense of. Can think of the "mind" both as something which IS the brain AND made by the brain? PG
It is easy to believe in the assertion that the brain is made of tiny "boxes" called neurons, as this can be verified by physically viewing them beneath a microscope. It is not so easy, however, to reconcile this belief with the statement that the brain = behavior. If the brain = behavior and the brain consists of neurons, one should also be able to say that neurons = behavior, but this raises a few questions. The brain consists of thousands of neurons working together; how many neurons = behavior? Is one tiny box capable of housing that which we call behavior? I do not believe that this is possible, but I do believe that thousands of neurons working in harmony with each other can produce the physical reactions that we term behavior. In other words, I believe that the brain can produce behavior, but I do not believe that the brain is behavior.
I'm not sure I understand your final line, but the argument up to that point is an interesting one. How many neurons = behavior? I think we'll find that that depends on which example of behavior one is interested in. Relatively few neurons suffice to produce (be?) some behaviors. Lots and LOTS are necessary for others. Withdrawing a foot from a painful stimulus can (as discussed in class) be done with fewer neurons than we have. Withdrawing a foot AND saying "ouch" requires (is made up of?) more. PG
During the first week of lecture I became confused about what we were defining to be behavior. It seemed to me that processes I had considered to be separate from my previous definition of behavior were being included. Things like the concept of personality rather than the actions that stem from this abstract concept I still believe to affect behavior instead of belonging to such said category. I do think that if we are considering the mind to be part of the brain, then yes, the brain controls behavior ( I do still think that the distinction between mind and brain is giving me a hard time). I do not feel that the brain and behavior are the same thing. Looking at the nervous system in more depth in relation to its role in behavior, it seems that we lose some of our free will. We cannot always control the action potentials that pulse through our synapses. The brain, whether we are conscious of it or not controls the nervous system and these electrical impulses that are ultimately at the root of all of this. It seems to me that when you consider things like chemical imbalances and hormone problems that affect the way people act, this lends itself to giving the brain even more power over influencing behavior. It can be pituitary problems rather than just wanting or not wanting to act a certain way. This biological basis leads me to wonder what kind of control the "mind" really has over the brain, if any, when it comes to influencing our decisions regarding behavior.
Confusion fully understandable. If all goes well, the course should result in some new thoughts about behavior, as well as about the nervous system. We do want to think about behavior and its (presumed) causes, in their entirety, and how all this relates to the brain. And how whether brain, mind, behavior, and "We" are separate things, with varying degrees of power over each other, or all the same thing. PG
If you think of the brain as one big box populated by millions of smaller boxes, connected by an infinite number of bonds and pathways, it isn't hard to see how the brain is behavior. There is input to the "box," and this input is transferred between inner boxes until some ultimate output works its way out. This output is behavior. All output can be behavior, for even if the output is nothing, that is still behavior.
Behavior itself is influenced by many things. You act the way you do because you feel some emotion, or some other part of your body is requiring you to act a certain way, or because you morally feel obligated to perform the act. This makes perfect sense when you consider behavior as the output of the brain. The little boxes inside the brain consider these factors. They pass information around inside the brain and if the certain conditions of the little boxes are met, then the information is connected eith to another box, where the process begins again, or it is passes outside the box, and a behavior is carried out.
Last night I watched a show that directly related to the brain and its relationship with behavior called THe Outer LImits. The plot was that there was this boys' school that locked boys away from the outer world and the administrators of the school made the boys into what were basically human robots. Computer chips were implanted into the brains of the boys at a spot in the brain which supposedly allowed the administrators to control the free will of the boys. The boys would then do anything the administrators said without considering the moral implications. The only boys that the implant didn't affect were ones would had taken a certain medication for ulcers. Supposedly this medication created a link in the brain that bipassed the region of the implant.
This made me wonder if humans could really be controlled to this extent. How can there be one particular area of the brain which controls all of a person's moral judgements? IF the aboved theory of interconnected boxes is true, then it seems that more than one "box" would affect behavior. Also, i have a problem thinking that a computer chip would somehow be able to control of the brain by placing it in a certain area. The show implied that if you controlled free will then you controlled all behavior. The brain has so many neurons composing it that i don't see how interferring with a few neurons could produce such drastic results. But then again, there are drugs which affect only certain neurons and that do indeed have drastic affects on behavior. Maybe we are so easily controlled. But somehow i doubt it.
Utterly LOVELY extension of things talked about in class. Warms the cockles of my heart. Yes, I suspect, given the numbers of interacting different boxes involved in any kind of behavior it is in fact inconceivable to eliminate "free will" by artificial control of any single part of the brain. Which is nice (from my point of view). As you say, however, it certainly is possible to alter behavior artificially, in a variety of different ways, and that almost certainly includes altering the expression and extent of "free will". That's nothing new, though. People have been trying to control each other's behavior, and developing ways of doing it with various degrees of effectiveness, as long (I suspect) as there have been humans. And resisting such control. PG
We have spent the past two weeks discussing the brain= behavior principle. The model of the nervous system introduced to us this past week further develops the brain = behavior principle and introduces neurons as an extension to the brain = behavior principle. Therefore, it would seem that neurons make up the brain and are behavior (neurons= brain= behavior). If this is the case, questions of autonomy and the validity of neural passivity come to mind and toy with the brain = behavior principle that I thought I felt comfortable with just one week ago. To begin I will define the nervous system (NS) and with respect to it, explain the neuron.
The nervous system (NS) can be thought of as a box. Within this box there are a number of internal boxes all of which give outputs and receive inputs. Some of the boxes interconnect and some do not. And each box is autonomous. Box A may connect to Box B, C, D or 1000 different boxes at any point in time. A direct correlation between two specific boxes does not exist. NS therefore consists of as many as 1012 input and output boxes which are cells, and more specifically neurons. No two neurons are identical, and thereby no two individuals have exactly the same brain and behavior. Dendrites serve as the source of input for neurons and axons conversely carry output from one neuron to the next. The site of this association of the dendrite of one neuron with the axon of another is called the synapse. The brain therefore is nothing more than 1012 communicating neurons that pass messages to one another autonomously.
It would follow therefore that since neurons are the smallest boxes within the multitude of boxes within the nervouse system, that the brain is defined by this system of neurons, and that neurons, or more specifically the interaction between them, are behavior. As the neurons talk to each other at the synapse, behavior occurs. Lack of interaction between neurons results perhaps in the lack of behavior. The correlation seems to be direct. Thereby, I am extrapolating that neurons (or the communication that exists between them) is brain and thereby is behavior.
Again, a week ago, this brain= behavior principle seemed more clear, or easily to accept. With the addition of neurons in this grander scheme of behavior, more questions are posed. The example of a person breaking their neck and not receiving a painful input would imply that there was no connection between the neck and the spinal cord. This implies the lack of neural interaction. What if however the breaking of the neck triggered interaction with a different neuron that (directly or indirectly) gave the output of no pain. The brain = behavior principle brings me to question whether boxes or neurons exist that produce a seemingly non-response response. Also, the autonomy of neurons contradicts what man has grown to accept: a stimulus- response action. It is difficult to grasp that me slamming the door on my hand won't necessarily prompt a pain output, given the autonomy of neurons. And also, how does learned behavior that seems to be programmed within us fit into this theory. For example, in the case of going to the bathroom. Will neurons autonomously signal different neurons that will keep me from going to the bathroom when I need to? And at what points do my neurons send the messages or "decide" that I need to go to the bathroom? What is my brain thinking? How are the neurons deciding when to talk? These are questions that remain with respect to the brain= behavior principle, perhaps the neurons= brain = behavior principle.
Sounds to me like you've taken the first two weeks VERY seriously ... and come to some very reasonable concerns as a result. Interesting that some of your colleagues are made MORE comfortable by having lots of littlest boxes, and you are less so. Indeed, we will have to account for what SOME behaviors ARE pretty predictable ... and also for what makes neurons "decide" to do what they do. They don't, needless to say, "decide" whether you are ... going to be bathroom or not, certainly not as individual neurons. But maybe the collective effect of what each neuron does decide is ... ? We'll see. PG Sounds to me like you've taken the first two weeks VERY seriously ... and come to some very reasonable concerns as a result. Interesting that some of your colleagues are made MORE comfortable by having lots of littlest boxes, and you are less so. Indeed, we will have to account for what SOME behaviors ARE pretty predictable ... and also for what makes neurons "decide" to do what they do. They don't, needless to say, "decide" whether you are ... going to be bathroom or not, certainly not as individual neurons. But maybe the collective effect of what each neuron does decide is ... ? We'll see. PG
Using the ideas of boxes inside of boxes inside of boxes makes it much easier for me to accept the idea that behavior is brain. I'm not sure if, just by drawing a picture in class, I have a clearer idea of brain as the operator of behavior, but I have certainly been thinking about the concept ALOT. I question just what in the environment, in our own "mind", in the input, etc. makes us behave the way we do. When one realizes the millions and billions of possibilties of brain structures paired with the incredible number of neuronal structures, along with the variablity of chemical levels, one begins to understand that, yes! there are so many possibilities that could be held accountable for the infinite number of behaviors that really exist! In some ways, it seems so simple---we are just a product of neurons, neurtransmitters, and the commmunications at synapses. And it makes (maybe not perfect) solid sense that behavior could indeed be entirely explained by the brain. There are so many combinations of brains and nerves and synapses and input; each combination ellicits a different response. That is why we all have similar basic behaviors, but each person has a slightly different, personalized version of that behavior. Two people could be in the exact same situation, but one brain may receive the input in one way and the other brain in a different manner OR one nerve may carry the message more quickly than the other OR the neurotransmitter may be activated at one synapse and not at the other's....all of these could produce different outputs. When looked at in the grand scheme, if this takes place in every brain, every second, then there are just trillions and trillions of different outputs. When I think about this over and over, I DO convince myself that all behavior could stem right from the two pound mass in our skull and from the spinal cord and the PNS. I won't end, though, without expressing how freaky this idea is--I still want to know where the mind and free will wind up. With this idea, there is no choice. Instead, we are like machines, operating by levers and pulleys, switches and buttons, and it is just a matter of who pushes what...... So if that is the case, then would we believe that a serial killer is innocent simply because he "had no control", claiming that his neurotransmitters and nerves were to blame for his behavior........hmmmmmmm?????
Hmmmmmmm, indeed. Yep, lots of possible "machines", which helps. But not ENOUGH, since each is still a machine and we are ... ? No, I don't think that's where we'll end up. Yes, we'll do better than absolving serial killers of any responsibility. Now, how will we get THERE? Want to guess? You're doing pretty well so far. PG
Every single existing brain is different. the differences in brains are formed due to environment, expereinces and other factors; however do newborn babies have similar brains? i have thought about this and come to the conclusion that they probably don't: because even though a baby is born with a so-called inexpereinced brain it will respond to external stimuli different from another baby. and then there is the issue of babies born with brain disease. deaf or blind bablies will have different brains from a normal baby. in a deaf or blind baby will the input, output, I-functions of the brain work differently? the inputs can be said to be the same but they are processed differently... but then how can different blind brains process visual stimuli differntly!!!? they have not experienced the visual world so therefore it seems as thought they would process visual stimuli differently > but to generalize the brain process is a commited and therefore difficult concluision to make. How can a brain react to inpputs that it has not recieved and then give anoutput that is differnt from another?
Nice question. Which we WILL answer. Roughly speaking, how the brain is organized reflects not only experience but also genetic information ... and therefore can be (is) individuated before birth. PG
The concept that the nervous system, ie the brain and spinal cord, is an input- output box that can be divided and subdivided into smaller and smaller input- output units, of which the neuron is the smallest autonomous input-output element, increases my comfort, by a small degree, with the idea that the brain is behavior. The fact that there are so many neurons, and even a greater number of possible connections and pathways between these neurons, makes it a bit easier to account for the many many different types of behaviors that have been observed. On the other hand, the concept of the neuron being the smallest input-output box also makes the idea that the brain is behavior, harder to swallow. If you take a look at how neurons work, the mechanism is very cellular. A neuron is activated if it is depolarized beyond its threshold. If this is the case then an action potential, that travels from one end of the neuron to the other, is propogated within the neuron. The action potential is propogated from one neuron to another, through the opening and closing of ion channels on the post-synaptic cell, which is in turn a result of the binding of neurotransmitters from the pre-synaptic cell to receptors on the postsynap- tic cell. When you examine this whole process, it is difficult to see how such a fundamental process can account for complex behaviors such as, say mating songs and dances.
Fair enough. Indeed, better than that. Question for us, at this point, is precisely to understand those "cellular" events, and see if, by combining a number of cells, we can get something that looks like behavior. New properties, from cellular underpinnings? We'll see. PG
Knowing this new model of a nervous system composed of a box within a box, within a box..., makes it much easier for me to be comfortable with the assertion that the brain is behavior. The original model of a box representing the nervous system with stimuli and response characterized by arrows connected in a direct path from one leading to the other was too simplistic to account for the known complex nature of the brain.
The old model did not account for the many unpredictable behaviors to stimuli, such as we saw in the results of the cricket experiment which we discussed in class.
Thus with this new model of an infinite box within a box system, leading to what we will study as the smallest box, a single neuron, we see that there are then 10e12 boxes linked in an incomprehensibly large number of different ways to produce an equally vast number of behaviors. From this model, I can understand why no one behaves exactly a like, and where behavioral disorders may originate. This complex pathway of many interconnected boxes also frees me from the concern that the original statement limited us to a finite number of choices, (essay 1), but with the additional property of autonomy, I can agree more strongly with the original assertion of brain and behavior.
In addition, I think that the changing of the words stimulus and response to input and output still implies that one leads to the other always. Mathematically we can conceptualize how adding an input of certain numbers into an equation leads to a definite output or solution. However, I guess that we really won't ever know the 'equation' for our brain, thus there is still the necessary ambiguity in input and output.
Glad it helps (it does for me too, for many of the same reasons you mention). And yes, together with autonomy (which we need to talk about more), it gets one out of the uncomfortably constraining finite choice sense. Your concern about input/output is entirely appropriate (and quite sophisticated). In a very real sense (which we'll talk about more), information flow is not only from left to right (as we've drawn our box) but from right to left as well (so that what we have labelled as output is, in some interesting ways, an important component of input). On top of which, the "equation" for the brain is always changed by the use of the brain. So, I agree (and think we'll find) that thinking of the brain as a very complex but defined mathematical function mapping input to output isn't quite right. PG
Now that we know what the nervous system is made of (e.g. neurons), what does that say about the relationship between the brain and behavior?
Being a member of the camp that does believe that the brain is behavior, I think that the interrelationship of the neurons to each other in such vast numbers reaffirms the claim that brain is behavior. Since we are talking about 1000000000000 neurons in the body, the combinations of pathways the the neurons can transmit from input to terminal output (is there such a thing) in incredible. These vast pathways can help to explain both random and predictible reactions.
The combination of both seemingly random behaviors like bouncing your knee up and down while typing on a computer along with predictible behaviors like blinking when an eyelash falls in your eye helps to display the complex workings of the neuron relationships. Why are there some occasions that are so unpredictible and other the are so? Does it have to do with a longer pathway between boxes in the system that allows for more variance in responses?
Another question: Are there biochemical explanations for the manner in which neurons display their output? For example, if you wake up in a rosebush (bear with me here) being stuck with thorns, the reaction may ternd to be of pain and surprize and you will tend to your wounds. But if you are running after your dog that got off of your leash and you run through the same rosebush and sustain the same physical injuries, will the reaction be the same, or do you continue chasing after Fido?
Nice question. We'll get to it (though in a different situation, less poetic). And the prior thoughts interesting too. I'm not sure bouncing your knee is so much "unpredictable" as usually unnoticed by you (I suspect your roommate can predict it). But the more general question, why are some things more predictable, others less so, remains. And probably doesn't have its explanation in pathway length (though that's a good starting hypothesis): there are some pretty short pathway length but variable behaviors. PG
I am comfortable with the idea that the brain is behavior. My nervous system controls my behavior, myself being an entire individual ( from head to toes). When I think about myself I think of a person, that very one I "see" in the mirror each morning. I am now told that I am located in my brain, and that my body, rather, my nervous system does not necessarily need me. After thinking about this, I decided that it is true, I am in my brain, and that I do not actually see who I am in the mirror. However, I began to have this strange feeling of being disconnected. When I walk or talk, or whatever, when I "behave" I feel kind of robotic since I have now found out that I am somewhere else. I am an entity with in this machinery. Sound strange? Well, maybe this will help: Did you ever watch the " Power Rangers"? Have you seen when they somehow become robots and they are all of the sudden piloting the robots from the head of the robot? Well, that's what I just realized I am. In fact, I am not even the pilot, but more like a co-pilot. Worse yet, I am just a function, the "I-function"! One little box among many is what I amount to! Laugh if you will, but just think about it!
Think AND laugh (its good for thinking). And think some more. Yes, lots of books, with not all of them being "you" or "under your control". In one sense. But, in another sense, they are ALL you. If someone else sees what you see in the mirror, they say "Hi, Jennifer", so certainly THEY regard your body as (at least part of) you. And if what you saw in the mirror was a metallic Power Ranger, you'd be quite puzzled (to say the least, ever read Kafka's Metamorphosis?). So in some sense your body is also (at least part of) you for YOU. PG
Our scratching at the door of anatomy of the brain is personally thrilling to me because for a long time I have learned about theories of thought and brain processes without much of a physical connection to what we were talking about. Last year I took Human Cognition through the psychology department and was constantly thrilled by all the experiments and theories continually proving each other wrong. By looking at rare subjects (people that have been injured and have anomalous behavior) we are able to better understand some of the actual processes the brain uses to see, hear, or remember etc. Yet, Human Cognition was not strongly connected to the "hardware" because as far as I know there is still a great deal of ambiguity when it comes to specific places for mechanisms to occur.
I do know that in a general since many areas of the brain have been delineated--in that the cerebellum is for balance and the occipital lobe for vision etc. but there are many parts to these processes (some we still cannot explain fully I am sure). I think that people in general have gone about brain anatomy in the wrong way. Just as it is necessary to keep one's back straight and feet bent to walk, it must be necessary to have many parts of the brain interacting and functioning as a whole collective of sorts. Even though certain areas may be the focus or coordinator, it occurs to me that it must be necessary to use more neurons than contained in a specific place. Something else I wanted to add was that it amazes me how resilient the brain can be although endowed with a limited amount of neurons and faced with such deleterious effects of age, disease, and accidents. How do people manage to compensate for these various mind numbing factors?
Nice thought and question. Related to one another in fact. Yes, I think we'll find that it makes more sense to think of behavior in terms of "many parts of the brain interacting" than in terms of particular parts responsible exclusively for particular behaviors or even particular parts of behaviors. Which then suggests that the brain has lots of different ways to do any given job? Which then suggests that following damage to one part .... ? See the connection? PG
The new model of the brain shows it as a large box with many inputs and outputs with in the box there are several smaller boxes that also have several inputs and outputs. These smaller boxes are directing each other through their inputs and outputs in hundreds of different pathways. This new model of the brain and the nervous system shows it to be an autonomous structure that has the ability to function on its own. One of the boxes can set itself off and begin a chain of reactions that will ultimately produce an output.
With the new model the idea of self or soul is not completely lost. Among the boxes, there is one that is called the "I-function" or commonly known as the "person." This box relates to one's own experiences and feelings. There is a great possibility that the mind, spirit or the soul resides within the "I-function." But that would make it seem like a human's soul is contained with in something, and since the beginning of time humans have thought of the soul to be untouchable and unattainable, so the idea of it being contained in a box seems completely appalling. The other possibility is that the soul, mind or the spirit somehow control and/or interact with the "I-function." This idea is a little more conceivable. This new model leaves room for the mind, body and soul as well as making it a plausible idea to have the brain controlling our behavior as well.
Not so much "controlling" our behavior as BEING it. As for the soul cramped in a box ... I don't much like that image either. One possibility is indeed an interaction of something else with the "I-function" box. But how about if it turned out that that box (interacting with other boxes) could imagine/dream/create far beyond the limits of its own space. Would that do? PG
Does a detailed map of the brain bring me to a greater level of comfort with its vast capabilities? No! If anything it makes me more suspicious. We have learned that a brain has more compartments than there are base pairs of DNA. Knowing that all these compartments exist and interact is not the same as knowing their innermost secrets. The neurons may have matured with little genetic guidance other than what physical form they are to take on based on their location, but their myriad numbers still cannot account for behavior. There are a finite amount of these "boxes," never enough to interpret, decide, react, or dream the infinite possibilities in each category.
In class we get the impression that a single box asks a single question and determines a single answer, which is passed on to the next box along a path. But if there are an infinite number of questions and therefore choices, how can boxes be restricted to one question, and if they are not, how do they select the right question to ask? Is there really some kind of a "language" among the neurons? If so, would it also be used by the sensory neurons to categorize inputs? Finally, it appears from the model we have drawn that the output of a box is a vector--has a specific destination--but in reality a neuron has thousands of connections all along its length, that seem to branch out in all directions. How do neurons recognize and ignore the diffusing signals that do not relate to them, ensuring a single, appropriate final output? Might there be a genetically determined universal hierarchy of importance for this type of decision-making?
Nice thoughts/questions. Indeed we will need to talk about "the innermost secrets" of the boxes, their language (will turn out to be surprisingly uniform). And about how neurons know which others to talk to/listen to. And what (if anything) "organizes" the whole thing. By the way, your intuition is quite good: there are lots of neurons, but even MORE questions, so any one must be involved in lots of them. From which it follows that a given question must .... ? PG
This revised model of the nervous system allows one's behavior to depend on several things according to what happens within each of the input/ouput boxes of the NS. As we have observed, there are serveral factors that influence the behavior of an individual (which contributes to the general behavior of a community). Since each box has a different function, the brain (NS) is able to receive an enourmous amount of information about external and internal situations, any or all of which may affect the output.
Good point, for brains/people/and communities. Lots of influences (and hence, lots of wisdom in the result?). PG
From the start, I was comfortable with the idea that the brain is behavior. I think the idea that the nervous system is an input/output box containing boxes which contain boxes, etc...helps me conceptualize the whole system more. And this idea of boxes within boxes also makes sense because of the great number of different behaviors there are to any given input(and just the vast number of behaviors in general). Many boxes make sense to be able to handle such a number, and given the massive number of the "smallest box"(the neuron), it is reasonable to think of the brain in such a way. I have always heard of "centers" in the brain that perform certain functions and carry out specific tasks, and the notion of "boxes" makes even more sense to me.
I think what is very important about this model we have created is the interconnectedness(if that is a word) between the boxes. This may sound silly, but do you remember in cartoons when someone would get a fabulous idea and a light bulb would appear over their head? I have always had that picture in my head. No matter what you do, say, think, or how you behave, your whole brain(or a vast majority of it) "lights up." Knowing that each neuron has a thousand connections, well, lots will light up. And it doesn't matter how specific or non-specific a function is because lots of connected boxes will also light up. {I think my next question will be "what happens when a bulb blows out?"}
So, not only do the numbers fit(lots of inputs/outputs, lots of boxes, lots of behaviors, etc...), but I think the model fits, too. Behaviors cannot occur without the nervous system, and parts of the system need other parts of function.
Like the "lighting up". Will have to think about what that means in terms of brain. Yes, I agree that interconnectedness absolutely critical to this way of thinking of things. Will have to spend some time trying to specify exactly what we mean by that. (and will help with what happens when a bulb blows out, I think). PG
I think that a more precise definition of your brain = behavior assertion is necessary before I can agree or disagree. There are several possible philosophical routes that one may take and still be in keeping with the brain/behavior idea. There is materialism, or the idea that there is no consciousness or mind to interfere with behavior that is produced by the brain. There is epiphenomenalism, or the idea that the brain produces the mind as a sort of by-product, but that the mind cannot influence the brain.
Then there are further positions that have been taken by various historical figures that are less in keeping with the brain = behavior concept (otherwise known as the Principle of Uniformity of Causality): interactionism, which allows for the mind and the body to influence each other; dual-action monism, which considers the mind and body to be akin to two sides of the same coin, operating as a single process; psychophysical parallelism, which retains the separateness of the mind and body but asserts that they work in parallel fashion; and even occasionalism, or the idea that neither the mind or body control anything because God is the ultimate cause.
Interactionism has a certain evolutionary validity in terms of the potential usefulness of consciousness. Consciousness would seemingly allow an animal to act more adaptively to novel and/or surprising circumstances. Natural selection, which is by nature a very slow process, would be inadequate as an adaptive mechanism in such cases.
Pardon the philosophy lesson, but I think it is useful to see that there is an entire range of possibilities to consider.
Entirely appropriate. Is a question lots of people have thought about over long period of time. Of course. All of the characterizations in your second paragraph are forms of dualism, ruled out in my assertion. And by the suggestion that "mind" is actually a part of the brain, I exclude epiphenomenonalism as well as completely reductive materialism. Now, with the terms straight, what do you think of the assertion? PG
Taking into account what we discussed in class this past week; that 1) a certain stinuli does not always give a certain response, 2) Sometimes NO response is given to a certain stinuli at all and 3) The nervous system can act autonomously of stimuli, we have come to a more "mechanical" definition of functions in the brain. We studied the structure and composition of a string of dendrites and also a cross section of the spinal cord...but after all this, does it increase or decrease my belief that the brain and behaviour are the same thing?
Well, if the brain is considered he center of the nervous system, when asked this question, I would lean towards saying the brain is RESPONSIBLE for behaviour rather than BEING behaviour. No emotions or concious decisions are made by the nervous system to do it's duty when such a mechanical perspective is taken. If such concious decisions were made saying.."well, the stove I touched is hot so I will jump back"...it is seen, as we viewed it, as more of an option the elements of the nervous system happpen to take.
In conclusion, this particular last Week of lecture has encouraged me to view it as more mechanical and thus, less the existence of behaviour as RESPONSIBLE for it. However, perhaps a week in an intro psych class where emotions are studied as more imperative to response would lean me in the opposing direction.
Interesting. Things will get even more "mechanical" for a while, at least in the sense that it will get less and less clear that behavior has any one definable thing "responsible" for it, and more and more likely that behavior is simply what the nervous system does. We'll come back later in the course to the "responsibility" issue. With, I suspect, the conclusion that this too is simply something the nervous system does. Which doesn't, however, exclude either emotion or "conscious decisions", both of which may have "mechanical" explanation. We'll see. PG
Consciousness could be considered a social construct, where the society is comprised of about 10 E12 neurons. The notion of mind is a construct of the brain-society - collectively, the neurons lead to a sense of consciousness. However, there is only physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology. The Bio-physics {{is}} : the fundamnetal, knowable laws of nature. The life in trees, paramecium, bees and monkeys is not some special magical force, but it is the consequence of physics and chance interacting in the environment. Biologically, humans have more neurons, with more interconnections than do monkeys and other creatures. Is this is the physical basis of the more complex "neurosociety" that results in the conscious "mind" of the human or ape.
What is the neurological difference between humans and other primates? Only a 1% difference in DNA, so the difference has to be something subtle. Does it have to do with the number of connections that each neuron makes? Thereby forming a more complex network-- or is it related to the complexity of the signals that neurons can exchange with e/o. In other words, humans have a larger array of neurotransmitters...?
Interesting question, perhaps with the answer in your beginning thoughts. "Mind" is indeed a "construct of the brain-society", if you mean not only all those interacting neurons of one brain but in addition, at the next level of organization, all those interacting brains. Arguably the difference between humans and apes is a greater interconnectedness of brains, which might come about as a consequence of VERY small differences in any individual brain? Certainly worth thinking more about. PG
This week's essay topic: Does the view of the nervous system as boxes with smaller boxes within smaller boxes (i.e. an active autonomous system) that can generate its own activity independent of external stimuli, increase or decrease my comfort level with the idea that brain is behavior? The concept of the nervous system as stated above is helpful in terms of conceptualizing the nervous system as an active complex system that is influenced by and influences external and internal activity. This view helps me to conceptualize and better embrace the notion that " brain is behavior" because it provides a potential explaination for individual differences as well as for innate characteristicss. I find myself wondering about one of the current theoretical models in psychology and motor learning/control: the dynamical system theory (Thelan); and how this view of the nervous system might help to explain some of the concepts set forth in that theoretical perspective, i.e. that behavior is a result of any number of variables that are influencing the nervous system at any given time. This dynamical view moves us away from the traditional neuromaturational, stimulus/response view of the nervous system much like your analogy of the nervous system as boxes within boxes does. It would be interesting to examine the parallels in these two views. So although for the most part the view of the nervous system as boxes...is helpful for understanding how the nervous system functions, when we draw boundaries around things we can immediately find examples that do not neatly fit into these boxes. For example, thinking of the person(the "I" function) as one of the boxes limits the ability to appreciate how the person will impact on all other activity in the larger and smaller boxes. For example, a person with manic depression may respond and react differently when in the manic phase than when in the depressed phase. In this example, the "I function" influences every other aspect of behavior and nervous system functioning. How then can it be placed into one big box. It needs to be THE box that surrounds all others, don't you think? This concept was also brought forth in Sack's story of the "Last Hippie". Poor Greg, who had sustained brain damage from a tumor, had lost his autonomously driven personality. He could only generate interaction if it was initiated by someone else first. He needed a stimulus in order to respond. How can we put Greg's change in personality and his inability to spontaneously generate activity into a box when it affected every other aspect of his behavior? These are questions I will continue to ponder as we get further into the nervous system and it's relationship to behavior.
Very interesting issues and questions. Would like to hear more about Thelan (which I do not know about). As for boxes and their dimensions, that's a very significant set of problems. We could either give up the idea of boundaries or entertain the possibility that some bounded things influence LOTS of other bounded things. Or ... ? I tend to favor the second choice, but let's see whether/when/where we get into trouble with it. PG
Past week in class the most intriguing discussion for me was that concerning a person with a broken or damaged spinal cord and the questions which emerged from it. We can understand from the phisical point of view how it is possible that such a person does not have controling power over their body; their nerves are disconnected and are not communicating. However, the fact that the nerves are not communicating does not explain why the "person" is traped inside the brain. It does not seem appropriate to label "person" as just another box within our nervous system. The concept of one's "person" can be explained in two completely contradictory ways. In first option our NS has a box labeled "person", and from this box we coordinate and produce all of our behaviors. The other option is that all of our behaviors combined end up forming what is known to us as "person". In this chicken and egg problem I tend to believe in the second version where all that we do makes our person, this includes our actions and interactions with the outside world and our body as well as the interactions within the NS. The structure of the NS does suggest that some of its parts are specialized for some functions while other parts concentrate on different functions. All of these parts, as far as I am aware, perform their functions in the same way, through synaptic exchange. My idea of how a "person" comes to exist is that throughout our lives, starting with conception, we develop our own unique pattern of comunication between neurons which then becomes known to us as "me". Going back to the damaged spinal cord case, we can see that something that we call "person" is present in the head/brain region of the NS. It is a possibility, nevertheless, that in the lower part of the body there also exists a "person", but that this "person" is not able to communicate itself because the patternes of communication in the body developed in such a way that all the expresion was done through the brain region. I can't offer much evidence in support of this theory and I am not myself sure how much I belive in it, but the concept of who we are and what makes us "be" is in my opinion by no means sufficiently explained by our present scientific knowledge.
Point very neatly made, and entirely appropriate. We'll return to it in class at some point. Indeed, the observations say there is a "person" in the rostral piece of the nervous system, but leave entirely open whether there is one in the spinal cord as well (understand why the observations can't answer that question?). And your extension is an excellent suggestion: maybe "me" is what we mean by a coordinated, interacting set of boxes. PG
I think that the reason most people, myself included, feel more comfortable with the idea of a model with multiple input/output boxes is that it permits more "internal" activity and allows for more complex behaviors. With the single box, or shall one say "function model", there is only one unique Y (output) for every X (input). This creates a problem in terms of modeling behavior since there are often situations where the same input will result in two different outputs or when two inputs will result in the same output. A model with many different processing units helps explain this discrepancy and allows for a sequence of logical steps and "loops" which are more easily equated with thought.
Thought is a fundamental part of our definition for a human being. Our capacity for abstract reasoning has long been considered what differentiates us from other creatures and machines. Whether or not other creatures have this ability may be a point of contention, but human beings have since biblical times dismissed the possibility of self-awareness in other animals. While this may be an example of gross human egoism, after all it's easier to harness your plow-horse if you regard the animal as nothing more than a plowing machine, this distinction between humans and animals is deeply ingrained and has a profound effect on the way in which we view ourselves and our place in the world.
The idea that thought is a characteristic limited to human beings also helps to explain the pessimism, fear, and wonder surrounding the effort to create artificial intelligence. A machine with the ability to think would cease to be only a machine. Although it might still lack the tell tale opposable thumbs questions regarding its humanity would arise. The manufacture of another person tends to make us nervous. The monster of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein and HAL of Arthur C. Clarks 2001 serve to illustrate that fact. We fear the consequences for such hubris; human beings have never looked on usurping the gods lightly. Our fear may be completely irrational in many respects. The creation of a thinking machine may prove impossible. If ever accomplished we might discover that the lack of knowledge regarding the human thought process resulted in something that thinks in a manner foreign to us. We might also discover more about our thought processes from a thinking machine.
Lots of interesting thoughts. And I agree with your analysis of why people tend to draw a sharp distinction between humans and other animals/machines. The question of whether it will continue to be useful/possible to maintain such a sharp distinction is a very interesting one, with lots of significant ramifications. I, for one, would like to have as many "thoughtful" entities around as we can manage. PG
The magnitude of the number of neurons that comprise the brain suggests that the reflexologist's approach to studying behavior and the nervous system is too simplistic on several grounds. Following is an examination of the problems associated with applying this line in light of my own research on a reflex mechanism in humans.
The model of this reflex is that an intense environmental stimulus activates sensory neurons which send excitatory inputs to a response "organizing center" which in turn signals the motor neurons to produce the response, an overt bodily reaction the initial component of which is an eye blink. This model takes into account the capacity for this reflex response to be modified by the presentation of other stimuli. The modification effect examined in my research was prepulse inhibition (PPI) whereby a prestimulus presented prior to the reflex-eliciting stimulus results in a reduction in response magnitude to the reflex-eliciting stimulus. The explanation put forth by psychologists conducting research on these effects is that the prestimulus signals two separate pathways -- an excitatory one and an inhibitory one. The decrease in response magnitude when a stimulus precedes a reflex-eliciting stimulus has been explained as being due to the inhibitory pathway's being slower than the excitatory one.
The premise of reflexology, that specific motor responses can be elicited by the presentation of discrete stimuli, underestimates both the complexity of behavior and of the events in the environment and overestimates their predictability. While actions commonly termed reflexes occur often, the direct modification effects were not obtained on every trial or for every participant.
Not only are behaviors not as simple as the blink of an eye, there is also the issue that events in our external environments are not as simple as specific, discrete stimuli. Human behavior is coordinated into a continuous network (that is constantly changing and being recreated) of past experiences and present circumstances and therefore cannot be isolated as a time line of segregated events and corresponding behaviors. Similarly, even specific events in the environment such as a car crash are intertwined into a network of external events which mirrors the complexity and magnitude of out internal physiological structures. Human behavior cannot be extracted as a specific event from a lifetime of events; likewise, the brain cannot be extracted as a lump of functioning neurons at the time of an event as it changes with and reflects our past experiences. Therefore behavior, experiences, events in the environment should be considered in the continuum of a human life. For example, how would reflexology account for the following scenario: Mary is a twenty-five year-old college student who bounds out of bed at 4:00 every morning to study feverishly. She is putting her life back together again after having abused hard core drugs for the past five years. Her inability to focus her attention due to the extreme anxiety over "messing up again" compounds her problem of finding that she no longer grasps concepts as quickly as she did before her years of drug abuse, so she studies nonstop.
The basic assumption of reflexology is that the relationship between the reflex-eliciting stimulus and the observable bodily reaction serve as an indication of what went on in the nervous system in between the specific stimulus and the specific response. However, the dangers of drawing such conclusions is evident in the explanation of PPI of the reflex response which I examined. An additional note of concern with the reflex approach to examining the nervous system is that this model ignores the interrelatedness of the nervous and endocrine systems and the ability of a person's mental activities to alter the body via these systems. The question boils down to whether or not the reflex observations warrant these broad-based conclusions. The magnitude of the number of neurons in then nervous system indicates that the reflex arc is inadequate to describe the complex interaction of 10E12+ neurons.
A rich and interesting set of observations and issues. "Reflexology", of course, didn't start as "reflexology" but rather as the then best (perhaps only) way to make meaningful observations on the brain/behavior intersection. In a very real sense, anything one does today is standing on the shoulders of "reflexology". In the making mistakes is right spirit, the critical need is to try and isolate and characterize the particular problems of a given model so that one can on to the next one. You've put your finger on several different ones that should be kept in mind, including one that clearly not enough thought has yet been given to: the temporal embedness of behavior. PG
Last week, using a comparison of a computer and the human brain, I questioned whether or not consciousness was "just the brain." The subsequent class discussion concerning the web of boxes within boxes which forms the nervous system has further strengthened my belief that it is impossible to prove that consciousness is "just the brain." The thought that all of the boxes of the brain- all responding to and judging different things- when put together somehow interact to create consciousness is a very hard one for me to grasp. I am still skeptical that if a computer had all the "circuitry" of the human brain, (just by having thrown together all of these circuit) the computer would suddenly become conscious. Therefore, I still think consciousness is the most difficult aspect of behavior to prove exists as "just the brain."
Fair enough. Hard (impossible, as discussed) to PROVE there is nothing else, but may be able to get to point where it doesn't seem like there HAS to be ... by end of semester (have to get some groundwork in place to get there). Even then, the problem of how all the boxes get put together in the right way and work together will remain a difficult one. PG
We now know that the nervous system is 10^12 interconnected neurons... does this increase or decrease the comfy-ness of the idea that behavior and the brain are the same thing?
The nervous system... the brain... it is amazingly intriguing that 10^12 neurons ARE our brain. That they ARE our intelligence, our abilities, our beliefs, our morals, and to some extent, our life. We would be nowhere without these cells. I do not want to give in so easily to the debate of the brain being equivalent to behavior, but I see no choice. If neurons comprise the brain and the brain controls the body and the mind, then behavior is indeed part of what the brain controls. In a way, I feel as though there should be more to the nervous system than gazillions of cells working together. Team work beginning on such a minuscule level does not seem like it could account for me producing this essay.
Thinking in this way leads to a feeling of lack of control. Though somehow we CAN control the neurons, it just does not make sense. Perhaps we have control over a larger box that is comprised of these neurons. It is hard for me to type because I keep imagining a particular neuron firing. And when it goes out of turn, then I have a mispelled word (I suppose that sometimes it just does not fire at all...). My thoughts are convoluted. Does that mean that too much is happening all at once in the box on top of my body? Yes, I suppose it does actually. Because as I understand more and more, less and less neurons will have to fire at the same time to produce a final result.
I agree that the brain is behavior, but I still don't understand how the brain "chooses" or "controls" behavior.
Delightful working through of some of the implications of what we're talking about. Thanks. Notice that if "you" try and control your brain/behavior, some things get worse? And that the phrasing "how the brain 'chooses' or 'controls' behavior" gets you into trouble? If the brain IS behavior then the question isn't "how does the brain choose behavior" but rather what is it that is occuring within that brain that corresponds to "choice" or "control" of behavior. And, if there are lots of boxes, maybe "control" isn't the right word? That help any? PG
I suppose the view that the brain is no more than a series of input / output boxes solidifies the assertion that brain is behavior. Once the complexity of the brain is broken down and analyzed it is much easier to account for the complexity in a realistic manner. That is, if one does not understand how the brain works then its complexity can seem overwhelming. Likewise, it would be hard to believe that only the brain controlled behavior. This lack of understanding is why we, as humans, have created all encompassing terms such as "soul." We create these terms to explain away the unexplainable. Yet, in the light of scientific detail, we must reexamine our views and account for the complexity of human behavior through our newly realized complexity of the brain.
Maybe or maybe not. Is an interesting challenge to see whether brain complexity successfully makes sense of the previously "unexplainable", but not a "must" nor a guarantee. Let's see how you feel at the end of the course. PG