Reply to comment

This post was really interesting to me because it highlights a lot of the issues I think we are working to come to terms with. I like that you used the idea of mental states being equal to their physical states, which is what most people think of when they think brain = behavior.

 But in the example you used, pain, the reality is much more complex than that. There is pain when C fibers, a beta, and a delta fibers fire, but there is also pain in the absence of these fibers fire, pain in the absence of tissue damage, and firing of these fibers which do not result in pain.  This problem is one of the reasons that pain is so complex and hard to treat. Pain has a mental as well as social and linguistic component to it [in order for people to know a human is in pain requires vocalization (hr and other signs can be used, but most commonly it is spoken)]. This presents a problem because we cannot physically see what the physical state is that causes the mental state. However, it doesn't mean there isn't one. The theories that are emerging about pain in the absences of pain stimuli are based on the Gate Control theory propped by Melzack and Wall, which involves a feedback loop in the body. Using their theory a barrage of input into the dorsal root, can either cause the spinal cells that send messages to the brain to become abnormally active, or inactive. This abnormal firing can cause chronic pain, in the absence of what we would think of as painful stimuli. This hard part is figuring out how to treat this pain.

But I think this is a nice example that fits in well with the new theory we are proposing for the brain. There can be initial input that modifies a structure within the body that then has its own activity which can lead to an output. This doesn’t mean that brain does not equal behavior, but merely that there is a more complex relationship between the two than one may have thought.

I also think that the I-function that we have been introduced to last class gives the mind a place within the brain that allows for this dichotomy to exist, while showing that technically, it is all in the brain.

As for losing free will and agency when we accept this theory, I believe is something that worries people when it shouldn’t. Imagine its 9:55 am on a Tuesday, you have to get up and go to class. Or rather, you have the choice to. Do you go or not? YOU choose. You may use your brain to consciously weigh the options, or you may just unconsciously know you have to go, and get up and go. Either way, nothing was forcing you. You could have went either way. We have the ability to mold our behavior, and in that way, modify our brain. While our brain gives us the ability to think about what is right or wrong, by accepting this theory, we don’t give away any power of free will. If we said our free will was due to our “mind” we would still be limiting it by the constructions of what the mind is. The only reason this is appealing is because the mind could be anything, it gives people free reign to imagine limitless possibilities. While some people are more tied down by their brain, people with mental diseases, this doesn’t mean that people with fully functional brains “give over” control to their brain. Rather, their brain supplies the microscopic tools for us to make macroscopic decisions. While I think it would be interesting to look into the line between unconscious and conscious decisions, and how we make them, I don’t think this means we HAVE to do anything.