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