Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
BBI 2007 Session 7
|
BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR INSTITUTE 2007 |
The bipartite brain: The frog and the story teller
Review (and extension)
- Nervous system consists of very large numbers of neurons
- Sensory neurons, motor neurons, mostly interneurons
- Neurons receive, process, transit information in form of action potentials
- Assembly of neurons (architecture) is what makes difference people (organisms) different, is changing all the time
- Acting is pattern of action potentials in neurons, so too is perceiving, thinking, and .... (Tammi: emotion?)
- Diversity and change are fundamental features of the nervous system, and hence of behavior
"The boxes, inside the boxes, inside the boxes...is a great demonstration of how we are hard wired, in the physical." ... Geneva
"I found it interesting to learn that the dfferences among people are not in the building blocks but rather the structures themselves." ... Dalia
"Each person becomes unique because of the way they are put together. This means that everyone in the world is significant and necessary to make life special. I was really impressed by the fact that there are more interneurons than sensory and motor neurons together." ... Judith
"Seeing how easily the nervous system generates action potentials makes understanding individual personalities a complex phenomenon. Isn't it a wonder that we have a common perspective or capacity for cohesion at all given how differently we interact with the external world, our internal environs, and the stories we tell about what is perceived?" ... Teresa
"during instruction the hope is that student’s neurons are working as expected without too much competing action in neurons concerned with other ideas. But self firing neurons will be inserting thoughts about the big game, a coming social activity, and countless other distractions. I need to learn ways to help students deal with such off focus ideas effectively while they are trying to learn. This might be where inhibition is helpful. Can inhibition be effectively encouraged?" ... Bruce
Synaptic integration: excitation AND inhibition
Thinking backwards about the nervous system and behavior: causing versus allowing
Important general architectual features (continuing to get it less wrong)
Loopiness and right to left arrows
- More thinking backwards - output to get input
- Corollary discharge - creating expectations, models
- Nervous system as scientist - getting it less wrong (without thinking about it)
The "I-function" and Bipartite Brain
- Unconscious/conscious distinction fundamental to nervous system organization
- Nervous system as distributed system
- Begins to account for story telling as distinct from acting
Your thoughts about the story so far? Is it well-founded re observations? Add additional ones? Are there things it doesn't account for? What new questions does it raise?
Comments
The Architectural Structure
Brain as a Scientist
What makes I I?
I'll be teaching the next Summer Institute, so I stopped by this morning to get a taste of how this one is going. I stayed on because I was intrigued by the story that was being told about the outputting/inputting/reafferenting brain. And I came back here this afternoon because I have a question about that story. It's a question about where we put the "I," and about what the consequences are of locating it solely in that aspect of self that we are aware of.
I understand the distinction between the modules that are the conscious and unconscious parts of our brain; I think I also understand how and why those parts might aptly be re-named the "storyteller" and "frog brain." What I really don't understand (and want to challenge) is the terminology of the "I-function." Why attribute only what is conscious to "I"? Why isn't "I" all that I do, via my body--all that my body does--in the world, whether I'm conscious of it or not? Especially if most of what I do is done unconsciously?
Is this a way of setting up some sort of morality, of saying that I'm only responsible for what I'm conscious of, what I intend to do? If so, then that story isn't very satisfying to me, doesn't acknowledge the really radical consequences of understanding the relationship of our unconscious to our behavior....
On an important distinction between the "I-function" and "I"
Nope, not "setting up some sort of morality", though I can see where the concern would come from. Its a "premature story telling" sort of thing. The "I-function" is a story about a particular set of observations: those that say that paralysis may involve not an inability to move but an inability of "I" to move, not an inability to respond to input but an inability of "I" to respond to input.
The existence of the "I-function" in turn raises (rather than answers) the very interesting question of what "I" actually means, and there are a variety of observations yet to be discussed that say quite clearly that "I" , as it is commonly used, includes things that are not in the "I-function". To put it differently, observations that lead to the I-function story in turn help to "unpeel an onion", to show the multiple levels of meaning inherent in the word "I" as it is generally used.
We'll get to those, and so it is a little early to be worrying about "morality" (and certainly too soon to argue that all this is "setting up some sort of morality"). On the flip side, though, the existence of the "I-function" and its relation to the unconscious does indeed raise some important questions about common understandings of "morality". Which we'll also get to.
Bipart-Brain
Brain & Behavior in the Classroom
Connections, and connections
I functions
I-Function
something to think about!!!
something to think about!!!
Thursday morning
Thoughts on Today
Helping people learn to think better ...
Yep .... see This Isn't Just My Problem, Friend:
frog brain
rewriting stories ...
Thanks Mr. Broudt
removed inhibition
education
education
to think more about ....
Two (of a LOT) of the questions/ideas that came up this morning that seem to me worth thinking more (a LOT more) about ...
Are kids who get through 12 years of school more successful in later life because of things they got during those twelve years, or are they kids who already have things that both help them complete 12 years of school AND be successful in later life?
Do we want "success in later life" to be our criterion for successful education? It presumes that we think culture/society (what kids are going into) is the way we want it to be. Maybe we should define successful education as that which enables kids to be meaningful changers of society/culture in later life?
Post new comment