Neurobiology and Behavior, Week 1

The loopy model of science creates accessibility and validity to all observations, while linear science is more exclusive and authoritative. This being said, I think the linear model has room to grow and become more open. Truthfully I think that the two models cannot be separated from each other; they are two ways of viewing the same world. I think there is more overlap between the two models than separation.

On the subject of Dickinson vs. Descartes, I agree with Descartes. Often times I send out a message to my brain to make a certain decision, and end up making the opposite decision, for reasons beyond my comprehension. This leads me to believe that more than the nervous system is at play. Issues of morality begin to surface. If it is true that everything is a construct of my brain, then the world around me should be much more predictable, measured, and consistent.

As most other people enrolled in this class, I too was taught the linear scientific method. In grade school we were instructed to come up with a hypothesis, experiment, and then reach a conclusion.  Now, as a college undergraduate, I believe that experimentation in the sciences involves much more than a guessing game to predict whether you are correct. I agree with the theory behind loopy science. In order to make strides and effective advancements in the sciences one has to continually be trying to make meaning of one's observations.  The world appears different to every one of us because of the way in which each person interprets the events they experience. Thus, it is important to constantly try and perceive what we experience, test the different conditions of the event, and then summarize the outcome based upon different behavior. 

In addition, I do agree that you cannot prove that a summary is not true, because a summary involves those events up to the present date & because we are not psychics, it is pertinent that we continually try to prove our previous summary incorrect. In doing so, one will have the intent to continually improve there understanding of the world around them, the interpretation made by others, & will be able to live in the here & now with anticipation of the future, rather than living in the past.

 

Between the two theories, I am going to choose to sit on the fence for now. While Dickinson's theory that everything is a construct of our brain and that brain = behavior is quite appealing to me, I find it hard to believe that our behavior is a result of only the interaction of molecules. I'd like to think that there is something other than the brain that controls our behavior. Otherwise would we not behave for the sole purpose of reward? How does altruism play into this? How can something like morality simply be a result of firing neurons? However, could all these be emergent qualities of the interactions between molecules?

I cannot decide which theory I believe in more and am curious to know where I'll stand in May.

The senses and their primary interpreter, the tangible nervous system, in my opinion, are avenues for perceiving the world around us.  As Emily Dickinson argues, the brain is so vast that it can very easily contain, conceptualize, and provide a means of critically evaluating even the largest and seemingly boundless ideas and physical manifestations.  If this is in fact the case, why and how is this possible?  I understand that this presents the interesting quandary of whether or not anything actually exists when we are not able to perceive it or create it using our senses.  To me, this brings to mind the popular question of whether or not a tree in the forest, upon falling, makes a noise if no one is there to observe or detect it.  I believe that this is the issue which is being discussed and referred to by both Emily Dickinson and Descartes in the topics discussed in our most recent class.  If the brain is able to work with and comprehend these seemingly unfathomable things, then how does it accomplish this?

Personally, I am able to recognize that things are able to be perceived using the nervous system, but have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that the nervous system is a product of the senses.  If one has an impaired brain due to physical damage, like severe blunt trauma from a car crash or removal or decrease of its function from physical conditions such as excessive drug use or disease, then his or her ability to think and tap into this mental realm of thought or perception is also found to be impaired or altered.  I do think that there is a space for the intangible ideas and concepts which lack physical qualities, making them impossible to be completely detected using a strictly sense based logic within the tangible realm.  For example, these include concepts such as love, honor, or selfishness.  We may associate these concepts with a certain set of physical actions or perceivable features/qualities, but these collections of concrete examples are merely representations of ideas and concepts which remain ungrounded in physical reality.  The brain and the physical components of the nervous system seem to effectually be the sole gateway to this area of rational thought and reasoning that must exist outside of the realm of the physical world.  However, whether the brain is simply a vessel for reaching this space or the creator of this space and its contents remains a mystery to me.

i think that saying everything is a construct of our own brains gives us a more important role in the world than we really have. also the fact that doctors ask you to describe how something hurts to help them know what's wrong shows that people, at least to some extent, perceive pain the same when they have the same medical problems, and what would be the chance of all those people's brain's just constructing the same feeling if there wasn't some degree of common "truth" to whatever problem they have. Some people can’t feel pain, but are equally susceptible to injury and death. So even if the pain is a construct, whatever is causing the pain is more than just a construct and has the same consequences to people whether or not they feel or “construct” pain. Also, some people can’t perceive motion.

The linear method we were all taught in grade schools I believe was appropriate for use as a learning tool.  Many of the labs throughout grade school were not there to make you think about the scientific theory behind the lab topic, but to learn lab techniques and prove something at that current time.  Sure eveything changes over time and something that might be true one day might not be true the next, but at the same time there needs to be some results or there would be no grants given to science.  I believe there is a difference between the loopiness and the linear models, and they both serve their own individual purpose with the loopy model building on the linear model.

When it comes to Descartes theory, I 90% agree with him.  I've always been a firm believer that many aspects of your behavior are caused by the physical stimuli affecting your nervous system.  In many ways I believe the nervous system has power over the mind, because the nervous system can ultimately shut down the mind, through disease, injury, depression..etc.  I've also been a strong believer in sports about the physical aspect of the game over the mental aspects.  At this point I agree with Descartes theory, but I'm sure as this class progresses I may change my mind to another theory, such as Emily Dickinsons.   

Two summers ago I read an article in the newspaper about a man who attended the University of Sheffield in the UK, had an IQ of 126, and graduated with honors.  His head was slightly larger than normal due to hydrocephalus, which caused the brain cavity to fill up with cerebrospinal fluid, impeding the normal development and growth of the brain.  After undergoing several medical examinations and tests, doctors concluded that this man had no detectable brain.  His cranium, instead, completely filled with cerebrospinal fluid, yet he was able to function completely normally, and, indeed, would have been considered smarter than average.  This man makes me call into question Emily Dickenson's theory about the brain that we learned this past week.  If behavior is merely based on the firing of synapses and chemical reactions within the nervous system, then how can a human function normally, let alone exist, without the brain, the most essential part of the central nervous system?  I wonder if even Descartes theory stands up when considering the case of this man.  Even if the brain and the mind are separate entities, how can one exist without the other? 

The thing that is most human about us is this intense desire for control. As such, in my opinion, new knowledge builds on our humanness - and our ego - to know that you have discovered something no one has is an intense feeling.

As to my theory on control, and science building our humanness - we're control freaks, so to say. We try to achieve many things, and by these achievements, we can control other things. Over the weekend, I watched a Bollywood film called Fashion - it basically showed what happens to a person, the mental and physical breakdowns that occur when we don't have any control. My mind works in random tangents, and this made me think about the Miss Universe beauty peagents. Who are we to judge who's the fairest in the universe? We're just on earth! And here we are again trying to control things - we don't know if there is life beyond earth, but we're human and just because we have a more cephalized and formed brain than others, we assume we're the center of the universe. 

The peagent is just one of many examples where we try to take control - if we look at history, we see all the kingdoms being ruled - which shows we even like to control our fellow humans. It may have something to do with survival of the fittest, but isn't that about who has control in the end? The most fit? the alpha being? ie. the control freak?

I know I'm slightly denouncing the human race, but all this science, education, philosohy - it all stems from control. If we can't control our emotions, we have a mantal disorder - that reasons out our lack of control. I really hope that I'm making sense on this theory of control.

we want to control, and so we need to understand, and when we understand, we gain more control - and so we become even more human. 

In exploring the issue of whether I side with Descartes or Dickinson, intuitively I wish to side with Descartes.  I believe much of my sentiment in his support stems from my training to study 'harder' sciences that seem to give way to a 'proven' truth through repeated testing and examination.

In trying to justify my decision, I've thought that perhaps my conclusion is only appealing to me because Descartes opens up neural studies to a more intelligible understanding by others wishing to explore studies of the brain and behavior.  I define intelligibility here as the ability of information to be communicated clearly from one person to another.  Inherent in my definition is a subjective determination of what is 'intelligible' for one may not be the same as another.  In that case, I further define intelligibility as the communicability of information for all reasonable people, those wishing to employ reason and rational thought in their pursuit of knowledge.  In other words, I think Descartes understanding of the nervous system makes the system most easily understood by the most number of people (assuming they are all rational), and because of this fact, it therefore seems 'more true' or 'less wrong' as Dr. Grobstein would probably prefer me to say.  For instance, by separating psyche into a physical (brain) and abstract (behavior) portions, Descartes transforms the murky object of psyche into something more open to analysis. 

Dickinson's understand, albeit elegant, I would argue is less accessible to rational inquiry.  Dickinson says, and I think I quote Dr. Grobstein here, "brain=behavior."  When one views the psyche this way,  I think it becomes a spaghetti mess of abstract and physical concepts.  If one wants to 'dissect' the psyche, given this assumption, it soon becomes very difficult, given a 'cultural' foundation to use physics and math to then understand this mess.  It seems that one would inevitably break this mind-body mess into distinct parts, and study those individually, to understand it as a whole.  Right?

 

Does this mean that all analysis of the psyche using Descartes' assumption is therefore more accurate than using Dickinson's?  Of course not.  I believe, on faith and feeling alone, that many artists and poets (Shakespeare, Homer, Dante, etc.) have 'figured out' how the brain-behavior combination works better than modern science has, or maybe ever will.  However, if one makes a living by pursuing rational inquiry (as a scientists), then he or she would probably favor an assumption about the psyche that allows the most number of observations and tests possible.  Yes?

Moreover, what does it say about us, as a culture, or perhaps innately as human beings, that we 'need' to break things down into smaller pieces to come to any 'certain' or 'less wrong' understanding of anything?  Does this mean science must be inherently conservative rather than ambitious in its claims?  I would argue, from my experience, yes.

            Before coming to college I had always believed that there was absolute truth in science. I was taught that it was a fact that an airplane could fly and that the sun rises and sets in the sky every morning and evening, and I felt no reason to challenge these beliefs because they were constantly reinforced by my real life experiences. I realize that most people would find it ridiculous to spend a day, let alone a lifetime, trying to prove these “truths” incorrect.  But there are scientists out there that spend their academic life trying to find contradictory evidence to these long held beliefs, and their work has and will continue to benefit us for years to come. For instance, astronomers now know that the sun will someday die and thus fail to rise, and engineers have discovered faults in airplane machinery that may have resulted in numerous death and millions of dollars in damages. I can’t image how nerve-racking it must have been for early scientists to challenge some of the most tightly held truths such as, God made the earth in seven days or we are the center of the universe. Yet, in spite of thousands of years of evidence that the sun does rise, these scientists continue to put challenge these “truths” and, in turn, bring about positive changes to our world. In science and in life, it’s vital to be a skeptic and a pessimist

If there were absolute truth in science, science would eventually disappear. As we have discussed earlier, neuroscience is a continually changing field and that is because people have refused to accept every bit of information that they have heard as absolute truth. When humans stop being curious or forget to challenge what they hear or see, nothing new will ever be accomplished. But because of the scientists who are willing to stick out their neck for a crazyor “out-there” theory, our generation is constantly expanding and progressing. 

One of the things that I appreciate about the "loopy science" model is the way in which it encourages constant investigation. Given that there is no absolute answer, truth, or reason, there is always more work to be done, new observations and summaries to make. If we accept our current understanding, in any field, as the final understanding, we may not push ourselves to learn and discover as much as we truly can. I also like the fact that loopy science is more inclusive than linear science. I agree that science can be performed by anyone, anywhere and feel that more mainstream image of science/research often excludes individuals with valuable ideas and observations. A narrow definition of research limits the reach of our discoveries.

 At the same time, I do wonder how useful it is to eliminate the concept of truth. To what degree, I wonder, does human nature depend on truth and how do we respond to that need? Can humans feel trust without certainty? 

I also like that loopy science acknowledges the impossibility of objectivity and gives people the freedom to combine the academic with the personal.

As for the Descartes/Dickinson question, I am still on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that all concepts lie within the human brain and are not externally based,  but on the other hand, I do feel there is something material about the world that exists regardless of humans. As I mentioned in class, I also wonder how the Dickinson notion can be used when we begin to think about other species.

One reason that I cannot make up my mind as to whether I agree with Dickinson or Descartes is because I am not sure if I am understanding each of their perspectives correctly. From how I understood it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), Dickinson is saying that the brain is the mind, and the mind constructs all aspects of reality that it encounters. And Descartes is saying that the mind and brain are separate and independent of each other. I take it that "mind" refers to consciousness, thought, emotions.

If this is correct, I disagree with Descartes's perspective that the mind and brain are separate. The mind, or thoughts and consciousness, cannot exist without the brain being active. Thus, the brain must be vital in giving rise to the mind. However, I cannot say that completely agree with Dickinson because I am having trouble accepting the perspective that we construct our reality. The brain gives rise to the mind, which can perceive and interpret the world, but does that necessarily mean that the mind creates everything we perceive? I feel like the mind is just a lens through which we experience a real world. If not, how is it that each of our minds are constructing reality, but we are able to agree on what this reality is (like things we come into physical contact with)? In that sense, I guess I agree with Descartes that the mind is not something we construct.

Okay...I don't really know where I'm going with this anymore...I guess I am somewhere in the middle between Descartes and Dickinson until I gain more understanding. I agree with Dickinson that the brain and the mind are one, but I agree with Descartes there are certain perceptions of our mind that the brain does not construct (such as the physical world). This is a really mind-boggling topic and that is the most sense I can make out of it right now... 

        Originally, I was undecided and couldn’t conclude whether Dickenson or Descartes’ made the stronger argument. Dickenson’s point of view, combined with the scientific approach of Francis Crick, seemed more plausible. Truly, the nervous system, via signaling pathways and nerve cells, provides a human being with the ability to construct his or her reality. The scientific community is on the whole quite unequivocal that the senses, capacity for thought and other innate functions of the brain, are the result of various stimuli that are in turn processed and interpreted by the brain. For these reasons, I cannot discount Descartes’ view.

            Since the nervous system is of critical importance to life, it would seem right to suggest that the brain is the seat of the soul. This idea is typified by the Uniform Determination of Death Act (1981), which defined death as the “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” The function of the brain, legally and medically speaking, determines life and death.             Regardless, the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that Dickenson and Crick are correct. The mind is part of the nervous system. And, the central nervous system controls behavior either by activating muscles, or by causing secretion of chemicals, such as hormones. Although modern science has endeavured to elucide the functions of the brain, there are still gaps in our knowledge. In the meantime, however, I will agree with Dickenson and Crick.

I think there is a lot of validity in Emily Dickenson's concept that all human experiences, and therefore science, are constructions of the mind. In studying natural processes through scientific methods (however cut-and-dry or loopy you choose to do it), and in considering the results meaningful as a step in the dierection of understanding our environment (whether or not they are "truths"), the scientist must have some belief in a rational, systematic, mathematically sound world. In this way, science is a construction of the mind. Without that construction, a belief in a systematic, scientific environment, results would have little meaning.

Once this construction of belief is established, though, and we have some unwavering faith that there is mathematical consistency and rational, systematic organization in the world/universe, we can follow that faith through discovering the body, world, science through Descartes'perspective. In scientific exploration, within a rational, scientific world, everything is made up of/happens because ofatoms , protein chains, neurotransmitters, the scientific method. Once we establish and believe in the construction of the mind that is science, there can be definitive truth.

As I'm sure most other people in the class experienced in grade school, I too was taught the procedure of "scientific research," which all began with a definitive hypothesis which could not be changed in any way, shape or form during an experiment and subsequent conclusion.  However, my junior year of high school I participated in a new half-day school program sponsored by my neighboring technical school and the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium.  At the zoo, I wrote a thesis on the behavior of the dominance hierarhcy of the female drill monkey -- but I constantly found myself stuck in ruts.

I would observe on a daily basis, but I found that every time I observed, I wanted to tweak my hypothesis just a bit in order to encompass what I had just observed.  As I continually approached my advisor about this, I was turned down; there was no way to change a hypothesis until you proved or disproved it.  Not only did it impede my learning about the drill monkey, but I was also frustrated that I could not do more. 

The "loopy" way of looking at science is what I was striving to do, but I didn't have the labeling for it.  I had been striving to conceive an observation, then to continuously add observations and make a new observation.  The passive and aggressive behaviors of the monkeys constantly changed when enveloped in new circumstances, but because of my original hypothesis (which I had had to have formed after only two weeks of observing these monkeys), I could not incorporate this into my 'true' hypothesis.

So, learning about this new way of thinking about science basically put into words what I had been striving to do that whole year but was held back from. 

I now have more of a palette with which to construct ideas, and to build off of.