Reply to comment

             The current model that we have for the brain is definitely ‘less wrong’ than our previous models. We can say with some certainty that there are some outputs that have no stimulus and some inputs that don’t give a response (e.g. when the female crickets don’t respond to the male’s song on some occasions).  The modern model reflects these ideas. The part of this that strikes me as strange is that it seemingly redefines the idea of thinking, and consequently, may redefine the idea of life. If a brain can give off electrical signals without any stimulus, it implies that it can think without any stimulus. We have also seen that if we place a brain (that is kept healthy) in a dish, or some sort of environment that is not attached to the life form that it came from, the brain still gives off electrical signals. Clearly this brain is no longer a part of anything, but yet it can still signal-it can still think. This means two things to me:

            First off all, it the brain can “think,” or at least give off activity in the absence of a body, then perhaps that means that it is the brain, and no other mechanism, that determines who we are. Granted, the body would be necessary for more complex forms of thinking that would, for example, involve inputs, but if it isn’t necessary for the most basic type of thinking, then that could mean that no soul or other external mechanism would be necessary either. This could be a big leap, but that is what it implies to me.

            Secondly, if the brain still has minimal activity without the body, at what point can we say that something is still living or has stopped living? Most people would probably say that a brain without a body-activity or no activity-isn’t really living. But what if that brain, at the same activity level, is inside a body? Does it really make that much of a difference? In a sense, the body is just another container. It is certainly more complex than a dish, but it is a container nevertheless. So if someone has minimal brain activity, or if he or she is in a vegetative state, is it fair to say that he or she is still living? This is an important ethical question, because if we say that that person is definitely alive, even if he or she needs artificial respiration, then it is our job to keep that person alive. But if we don't think that this amount of activity amounts to life, then it would be best to have that person “let go.” In other words, where do we draw the line? What should the definition of life be?

            So like all of the previous definitions of the brain, though this model is less wrong than all of the models that came before, it poses some new, difficult questions. What is thinking and what is life? Hopefully we will develop less confusing and less wrong answers in the future.