Reply to comment

            I found it very interesting when we had talked about the brains being different amongst different organisms based on their behavior. I wouldn’t have expected the brains of all cats to be different based on the fact that they looked the same, which is not always a valid way of thinking. Then, when we talked about the difference between men and women, most of the class responded that there was a difference between them initially. When we further discussed this issue, it became apparent that there really was no specific difference between women and men, but there was a difference in a statistical point of view. We came to an understanding that the population distinction is unlike the individual distinction. For example, what all women are said to behave like can be what one man behaves like. I think I found this so interesting because usually men and women are characterized to behave so differently without any exceptions, so I would have expected there to be some difference in their brains. Another example that was used in the class that I found amusing was that some fish are able to change from female to male or vice versa depending on the social situations. This change in behavior resorts to a chance in the brain in a moment of days. Thus, in general all changes in behavior relate to changes in the brain.   

            I also agree with many of the other people when they say that the Christopher Reeve example was very helpful in understanding the behavior of neurons and the brain. I didn’t think that his foot would withdraw after being pinched, but rather it would stay still. If Christopher Reeve was told to move his leg, then the information would go to his brain, but there would be no cables linking to the motor neurons causing no movement.