Reply to comment

I read once that the significance of naming an illness was that it rendered it intelligible to the sufferer. One could infer that putting a name to an idea, putting a solid and tangible definition on what exactly the brain is versus behavior—whether they are or are not of the same meaning—will inexorably position it to a point where it cannot truly be believed anymore. This infinite series of connections is represented in historical/classical Chinese thought, where life itself exists in a circular pattern. In this mode of thought, perhaps it is that there is no progress in science, but rather deeper or more defined connections and understandings of things that already exist. Thus, maybe the brain IS behavior, but that they face each other on opposite sides of a circle of thought…

One of the hardest things to deal with as a scientist is to decide whether or not science can be the end all explanation behind things that happen. Is it necessary to define life and human interaction as being products of scientific process? Though the brain itself is a muscle, a natural living object, it seems unnatural or even inhuman to canonize it and hold it equal to the mind and to behavior. If that was the case, I feel as thought every life and every person would hold towards the same goals and the same desires, without possessing any noticeable sense of individuality. Yet we are all different, no matter how we try to group ourselves.

Ramachandran said that the richness of our mental life is “simply the activity of these little specks of jelly in your head, in your brain. There is nothing else.” To believe that brain stimulations and synapses follow innate patterns to produce simulated reactions to stimuli, that feelings of joy, the freedom of laughter and excitement, or the thrills of love are all constructed emotions; these are all hollow realizations, ones that I do not feel can thoroughly be defined by such tidy rationale. I think the magic of life is that life and behavior in themselves deal with more than just a science of technical connections and reactions going on inside of our bodies. Feelings of love and compassion and being able to house our own worlds inside our minds and create individualized connections with others around us is something that shows a deviation between the biological workings of the brain and the creative, individual stimulus of our own minds (in our brain). I’m not sure if I just refuted my own statement there, or whether or not the brain and behavior being equal can even truly be explained. Or if it needs to be.