Reflections: brain and behavior

Reading through the posts that others have left, two thoughts in particular resonant with me. Angel discusses one of the things that I think is most vital in accepting scientific query. This is the rejection of the thought that perhaps if we discover the truth about everything, we’ll find we are boxed in; that life is dull, and that the rainbow, once unwoven, is no longer beautiful. I think this class has made it pretty clear that the rainbow, once unwoven, is not in anyway less beautiful, in fact it is more so. Like the rainbow, we have spent time this semester looking at processes in the brain. But has this demystified the brain? Reduced it to boring and predicable cables? No, in fact, we’ve discussed some pretty outrageous things that the brain does, things we never would have expected nor even though possible. Learning that so much goes on in the brain has merely expanded the query for knowledge, and immeasurably increased my respect and admirable for the mass of cells that sits protected in my skull, composing what is me.

 

The other post that I thought was definitely true was Jackie’s. She talks about how this class made us re-evaluate the very process of living. In our everyday lives we see things that need processing. While before we simply let our brain do this processing, now our I-function is aware (well, more aware) of the brains actions. It makes you stop and wonder if the things you act upon are really things you want to act upon, or things you’ve simply become accustomed to. One instance I can recall was in Orgo Lab. Jackie and I were writing down observations, and one was that the oil was yellow. It was after the class where we discussed color and vision, and we both looked up and said, “Well…it appears as if it is yellow….so it must be giving off the average wavelength of about 570 nm.”

 

Overall, I think this class was very important because it made us realize the fact that our brain is really just a storyteller. While I disagree with the claim that science isn’t after truth; it is, just a relative truth that our human capabilities limit, this class has made us all very cognizant of the fact that we know things we don’t know how we know, and that we don’t actually know things that we think we know.

 

I think the major take home message for me from this class was that I have a lot more thinking to do on how I define reality and truth. I’m a person who tends to believe that there are concrete truths, and while we may be limited in how we can approach and understand them, that they exist. I’d like to know how the brain works, how it functions, and I believe that one day its functioning can be explained. However, this will leave us in a more precarious place than we are now in trying to define reality and free will. While I do believe in free will and reinforcing behaviors though our brain, I think that when more becomes elucidated about our brain, that we will have to make an even clearer distinction on how we choose what we choose to be. I don’t believe this is cause to concern however, but merely a challenge to set out upon, and this class has really been a runway for the acceptance and understanding of this kind of thought.  

 

       Wow...what a class this was for me this semester! I don't think words could quite describe how much our class and forum discussions have changed the way I think about the brain, behavior, my own actions/thoughts/perceptions of reality, but also about human and animal behaviors and other assorted phenomena. It is amazing to me how even in this day and age with our ever-expanding summaries of observations, we as humans are still quite perplexed about the 'hows' and the 'whys' of the brain and behavior. I have even begun to think about some of the topics that we have discussed in relation to other areas of study. For example, in today's world, we can more readily discuss the more technical aspects of the brain (chemicals, channels, neurons, etc) in attempt to make more precise summaries of observations, or to explain some what we observe. BUT in the past, such complexities were less known, and perhaps this is why religion was so important and so central to many societies. And as we continue to make summaries of observations, what could this mean for the future of religion? Will science trump religion eventually? Or maybe not completely, since we will never really know everything?

       Also I think that the topics of our class and forum discussions were even more fascinating because pretty much everything that we contemplated or considered is in some way something we encounter (consciously or not) every day of our life. For example, we can now think more scientifically and philosophically about what we 'see,' 'hear,' 'smell,' 'feel,' and 'taste.' Who is to be held accountable for the good and the bad that note in our everyday world? Even something as simple as walking is really quite complex and mapped out at some level in the nervous system. And if we are paralyzed and cannot walk, what are the implications of this? The nervous system isn't necessarily dead in this case...it is more likely partitioned in a severe way. And if we are not awake and taking note of the world around us, what are we doing in our sleep? What keeps us from acting out our dreams? What happens when the I-function and the rest of the body don't sleep at the same time (as in sleep paralysis, for example)? Are there evolutionary underpinnings or advantages to all of these phenomena?

      There have been so many mind-opening discussions and experiences in this class this semester, and I really don't believe I will ever perceive the world around me in the same less-sophisticated sort of way. I think that our careful consideration of what is around us and what accounts for who we are was a really enriching experience, and our collaborative thinking about all of this was the foundation for all of my new perceptions and thoughts. I think that this course has brought to my attention that I am MOST GRATEFUL for being able to think. I think there is that saying, "I think, therefore I am." That could not be closer to the truth. No matter what is 'real' and what is 'not real,' the fact that we can all think and share our ideas...and this is something that we must not take for granted!

 

I think my favorite portion of the class, the real "take home message for me" was that science, though always in pursuit of something, is rarely undertaken in pursuit of truth. To me, the "less wrong" nature of science is determined by limitations on the creatures which do science: humans. If anything, this entire review of how we come to behave and think the way we do has cast a critical light on even the most "objective" of findings. We can only understand what we can perceive, and because of that, we really can't even wholly understand what we do perceive for the chance that something outside of our scope of experience is really driving the phenomenon we're observing: a third variable effect, if you will.

 

To that end, I'm not convinced that Professor Grobstein's demonstration of free will really was that. Changing what I see based on another person's demand to do so seems to me more like following an order, and for some reason I can't shake this feeling that the changing arrows is just another trick of the nervous system. Furthermore, given how beholden we are to our central nervous system for information to fill-out our stories, what good is free will? We cannot will ourselves to detect everything our nervous system does any more than we can will ourselves off the ground. What is the purpose of free will inside a human machine?

First and foremost, this course introduced to me to many unbelievable and complex functions of the brain and nervous system.  The lack of understanding about both the brain and behavior that I brought into this course was mostly overcome, and I leave with new understandings of brain/nervous system/behavior that I have always taken for granted.  However, I am left with many unanswered questions.  I guess this was point because it is difficult for me to believe  that anyone leaving this course could leave wihtout many new questions.  These questions will probably  motivate new observations which I guess is more support for loopy science...

Like Caitlin, I think what I have gotten out of this semester is a way of combining my interest in raw details with my need for a bigger story, picture, or philosophy to account for imperfections. Ideas like the I-function and synaptic thresholds allow for a level of spontaneity and uncertainty even while providing some answers as to how the nervous system actually works. Similarly, looking at how the inner system relates to the outer world and all its stimuli helps me understand why we call it a nervous "system" and why that system is characterized by nerves instead of by chemical or motor impulses carried by, or through, those nerves.

At the beginning of the semester, I was pretty insistent on dispensing with the idea of a "mind" except as a grey area that helped account for our inability to find great language with which to talk about science. I think at this point I still agree that I don't like the word "mind" in this context. Maybe, though, I am more flexible in terms of how I think about that "grey area" and what it means. Maybe there IS a level of consciousness and agency that we simply can't describe completely. I still think that talking about the nervous system as a network of computers is not harmful to the idea of humans as primary agents. I think the level of randomness and uncertainty built into the system, and the necessity for the system to interpret signals from the outside world as well as from within it, makes talking about any system not a reductive but an additive way of talking. Above all, I think this class has helped give me a vocabulary of reference for thinking about HOW to account for agency within a system and how to account for a system within an agent.