Reply to comment

In some ways, there is a disconnect between viewing the brain as capable of generating outputs without inputs, the effects of leaky membranes and the net effect on behavior. It feels unsettling to relegate the realm of “free will” and “consciousness” to the random movement of ions and the cascade of effects neurons propagate within the brain. On the other hand, that neurons are adaptive leads one to conclude that learning can and does take place and that the nervous system is dynamic and, yes, predictable its unpredictability.

There is some cultural drive to explain behavior and categorize behaviors based upon observable and easily categorized morsels, whether or not there is "truth" or merit to these categorizations. It is, therefore, particularly interesting that depression, for example, can manifest similarly in two people (i.e. insomnia, loss of appetite, feelings of isolation), but because neurons are arranged differently, the input leading to the output might be vastly different between the two people. Furthermore, one may respond to psychopharmacological treatment while the other might not. Of particular interest to me is that if neurons are adaptive, then must behavior too be adaptive? If, over time, one who is “depressed” rearranges her neurons such that the certain inputs generate the “depressed” output and even “depressed” outputs occur without inputs, is there a way to “re-train” the neurons to rearrange, so the loop of inputs and outputs is altered? Is that the potential of therapy? Is depression an “illness” or is the category or label of depression useful as an explanation? If outputs generate their own inputs, does behavior reinforce itself?