Name: Emily Varani
Username: evarani@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Brain and Behavior
Date: Mon Jan 26 14:49:29 EST 1998
Comments:
I am not convinced that there is a mutually exclusive relationship between brain and behavior for two reasons. One: behavior is possible in organisms that lack even rudimentary nervous systems. Prokaryotes, without even a nuclear membrane for their genetic material, are capable of many of the behaviors we listed in class. Ingestion, digestion, reproduction, predation, and competition are just some of their behaviors. To say that brain and behavior are synonymous disregards the activity of these and other nervous-system-lacking organisms, relegating all their movements to a yet undetermined catagory. Two: I believe it is dangerous to assume that we have found and answered all the questions of the brain. Humans have only just begun to understand how this complex organ works. By selling ourselves to the idea that we have found the root of behavior, we are closed to making new observations about either the brain or behavior. I don't dispute the connection between brain and behavior; I simply won't commit myself to accepting an exclusive relationship between the two.
Name: Vera R. Barkas
Username: vbarkas@brynmawr.edu
Subject: What is our brain?
Date: Mon Jan 26 17:05:29 EST 1998
Comments:
When we discussed whether or not there existed more to our behavior than just our brain, I began to wonder about the significance of outside influences on our behavior and specifically outside influences that affect bundles of nerves. The concept of the brain was enlarged to encompass the entire nervous system. This means that every neuron in our body is considered part of our brain. However, I never thought of the events that occur over a certian synaptic cleft, which is esstentially very biological and chemical, in the same way as I saw "the brain", a large and comlicated think tank where event can occur because we will them to and not merely becouse of chemical interaction. I may not be making myself entirely clear. Basicaly, I'm having a hard time differentciating the purely biological aspect of neurology and the details of voluntary behavior. I see the brian as the central organ for thought and control of bodily processes. But I also believe there are many things which can affect our behavior that originate outside of the brain. I think that when we trip over rocks we do so because of gravity and not because our brain told us to trip. I guess "triping" in this sense, can be seen as a reaction to stubbing our toe? I find it difficult to think of myself as a purely biological machine. But until I learn more about the brain and the nervous system, no matter how hard I think of something to contridict the statement that there is no more to our behavior than just our brain, I will have to accept this notion.
Name: Miriam Kulkarni
Username: mkulkarn
Subject: Is the brain responsible for all behavior?
Date: Tue Jan 27 11:18:54 EST 1998
Comments:
I do not take isssue with Prof. Grobstien's assertion that the brain is responsible for all behavior. I do not believe that there is a mind or a soul that exists apart from an individual's nervous system.
However, I do not believe that behavior will ever be fully explained by information gained from studying the brain. The brain is infinitely complex, and the knowlege gained in neurobiology and psychology will always be an incomplete picture. While these disiplines provide useful insights into behavior, many of the most fundamental aspects of human behavior remain unexplored. For example, consciousness is a fundamental aspect of human behavior that is so complex that it is difficult to define, let alone explore scientifically. I do not forsee a time in which neurobiologists and psychologists have explored every aspect of human behavior and discovered the biological processes responsible for it.
My position on on Prof. Grobstien's assertion is that while I agree that biological processes in the brain are responsible for behavior, some aspects of behavior are simply too complex to be understood in those terms.
Name: David Bellows
Username: bfootdav@bellsouth.net
Subject: re: free will
Date: Wed Jan 28 22:05:18 EST 1998
Comments:
I've always found it useful to consider the question of free will best divided into two seperate ideas - universal and conscious free will. Universal free will explores the idea of whether or not there is some outside agent (God, natural laws,...) determining our actions (and thoughts), whereas conscious free will asks if our conscious mind controls our actions. For brevities sake I'll only discuss the latter.
I divide conscious free will into three separate categories. First there is strong free will which states :our conscious mind originates or creates our conscious mind eg. when walking along a road you reach a fork and your conscious mind creates the thoughts "there is a fork, do I go left or right?" and then makes the decision. The second form, weak free will, states that it is our subconscious mind which originates (creates) thoughts but the conscious mind makes decisions eg. (from above): at the fork in the road, the subconscious creates the question "Do I go left or right?" and then your conscious mind creates an answer. Lastly, the no free will approach states that the subconscious mind creates the thoughts (and questions), makes decisions (answers the question), and then reports these to the conscious mind so that our conscious mind creates nothing but is only the part of the mind that is aware that any of this is going on. The no free will model seems the most reasonable as simple models can be made to fit this idea. I've never seen any models that were able to explain how we could have strong or weak free will (without using supernatural explanations such as a soul).
Name: Miriam Kulkarni
Username: mkulkarn
Subject: the I function
Date: Tue Feb 3 09:52:14 EST 1998
Comments:
Last class, we used the observation that paraplegics still experience sense of self as evidence that sense of self does not require the whole nervous system.
I think that the I function integrates inputs from all parts of the nervous system to produce a sense of self. When the brain is disconnected from the spinal chord, as in paraplegia, sense of self continues, but sensation and movement of the body from the neck down are no longer included in sense of self. In behavioral neuroscience last semester, we saw a film about a man whose hippocampi had been destroyed by a viral infection, leaving him unable to learn new information. This man, too, still experienced sense of self, but his sense of self did not include actions which he performed only a few minutes before.
Thus, while the core of sense of self seems to remain intact when parts of the nervous system are destroyed, some part of it is missing.
Name: RIT
Username: rtrimiew@brynmawr.edu
Subject:
Date: Wed Feb 11 01:48:01 EST 1998
Comments:
I played the game. For the 2nd hardest I got it the first time and for the
hardest I got it the 5th time. None of the other levels took more then 5 or 6 moves. I have no idea how, I just went on instinct. On some of the earlier ones there seemed to be a pattern that I followed.
Name: RIT
Username: rtrimiew@brynmawr.edu
Subject: Nothing's Hidden
Date: Wed Feb 11 23:14:15 EST 1998
Comments:
I've tried the Find Serendip game and throughout the 1st 4 levels of difficulty I usually find it on the first try. However, it took me 16 moves for the hardest. Is the game properly working? I find it odd that I would get it right the first time 3 or 4 times in a row.
Name: Patrick Riley
Username: priley@basin.und-w.nodak.ed
Subject: memory and color
Date: Thu Feb 12 12:59:47 EST 1998
Comments:
Years ago when I first started teaching learning disabled adults, we were told that the color blue stayed in the memory better than all other colors. We used blue cue cards, blue letters, etc. in our teaching. I have a renewed interest in this area, but have been unable to find any reference to this theory in literature available in our region. If anyone can help me with this or steer me in the right direction,I would appreciate the help.
Name: MARIA BLANCO (Spain)
Username: blango@ceu.es
Subject: HELP, PLEASE!
Date: Wed Feb 18 09:39:50 EST 1998
Comments:
Hello! First of all, congratulations for this wonderful site. I'm an economist, my "branch" is the History of Economic Thought, and I'm working on a paper about how economist of 1870's introduced mathematics in economic theory. The main problem for them was to find a mesure of needs and wants of consumers, the mesure of individual utilities of goods and the aggregation of individual variables into a "social mesure". One of them (William Stanley Jevons) was one of the students of the psychologist Alexander Bain at London. Jevons and his succesors stated that we can mesure the individual perception of one need or desire of one good for the same reason that we can mesure the individual perception of a sense. The most important succesor of Jevons, named Francis Edgeworth knews the Fechner' formula, and the works of Wundt, and Edgeworth used it to wrote about economic theory. He stated the principles that allowed economic theorist to introduce mathematics in our theories, and it permet us to create mathematic models.
Both (Jevons and Edgeworth) wrote in the review "Mind", it said the first english review of psychology. My problem is: when Jevons wrote his book in 1871, Fechner theories was not published, so there must be some kind of relationship between him and some of Fechner disciples in London. Somebody can help me?
I hope you can forgive my intrusion. As an economist I recognize that WE have many things to learn about PSYCHOLOGY, and I'm glad to find you. Thank you.
Name: NOBODY
Username:
Subject: NOBODY needs you
Date: Thu Feb 19 13:22:28 EST 1998
Comments:
Hello. I'm NOBODY and I need your help. I have just posted a message in "Local Resources Forum" but I don't know if somebody reads it or not. As I realize that the last comment here is very recent, I hope that one of you, experts in this field, could help me. I appologize my ignorance, but I'm NOBODY, so I will try to explain as best as possible my problem. One of my friends told me that people with an intelligence coefficient of 120 or more (I think he said "the Waiss test") has many problems because they are bad-integrated in society. I supposed at this moment that he was speaking about him, and I thought to myself that we (AVERAGE PEOPLE) also have integrations problems (like me, for instance), I also felt lonely, different, without the desirable help and understanding of my family.... But last week, I have passed this Waiss test and my I.C. was 134. I was so depressed.. If I would have 100 (the average value) more or less I was been able to explain that LIFE is so difficult to live to me, but with this "extra-capacity" (if this is what it meant the I.C.)... there is something wrong, perhaps my friend was right? or not? Why I feel so sad? Is the I.C. a realistic coefficient?
Please, I NEED an answer, or some book to read that could help me...
Thank you in advance, and sorry for the intrusion.
Name: Jacob Ghitis, M.D.
Username: ghitis@isracom.net.il
Subject: To SOME SERENDIPIANS
Date: Thu Feb 19 17:17:54 EST 1998
Comments:
TO CONTRIBUTORS: 1.- M. KULKARNI, 2.- P. RILEY, 3.- M.BLANCO and 4.- NOBODY
Name: Miriam Kulkarni
Username: mkulkarn
Subject: the I function
Date: Tue Feb 3 1998
Miriam, you have touched on a most important subject. Not only of psychology, but of the whole universe. I will write a short note on this very soon. Besides, I plan to write a larger contribution for later on. All based on the NEW PSYCHOLOGY, as defined in the BIOLOGY forum. For now, let me just comment that the 'I function' reminds of the 'ego' as defined by psychoanalisis, where 'ego' is just the Latin name for 'I.' Now, 'self' is much more than 'I.' as I'll attempt to explain soon. For today, I limit myself to stress that the consciousness of the body is quite complex, and that the 'body image' is different to what you are writing about. Please stay tuned. I wrote the above on-line.
J.G.
Name: Patrick Riley
Username: priley@basin.und-w.nodak.ed
Subject: memory and color
Date: Thu Feb 12 1998
Patrick, I believe you will not get help here, but nice to read your post.
Colors are kept in memory encoded in special 'color' proteins. I see no reason to be surprised if blue is better suited than any other color to be strongly associated with text memory. After all, evolution is guided and constrained by physical laws and by ecological factors. If man has been daily seeing the vast blue of the skies, such color might have become a special influence. I've not read about your specific question. I just checked with askjeeves 'color+blue' without getting any useful information.
Sorry. Keep me posted and come back.
Name: MARIA BLANCO (Spain)
Username: blango@ceu.es
Subject: HELP, PLEASE!
Date: Wed Feb 18 1998
Hola, Maria: Este no es el sitio. Bienvenida, pero Serendip no posee informacion sobre el tema que te interesa. Sigue visitandonos.
Name: NOBODY
Username:
Subject: NOBODY needs you
Date: Thu Feb 19 1998
NOBODY, I believe your high I.Q. demands much from your brain -> mind -> thinking. Thinking demands a lot of neurotransmitters, among them, serotonin. Apparently, your neurons do not produce enough of it. This causes difficulties in coherent thinking and a belief of not being 'understood.' With good reason! The result is that a neurotic personality develops. Obsessions and compulsions may be explained as a faulty thought flow. Depression is unavoidable. In short, a mental hell. Help may be obtained by increasing the concentration of serotonin in the synapses. If you identify with my words, please feel free to contact me.