Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
week 2 - Neurobiology and Behavior
Rich conversation in our first week forum. Very much looking forward to seeing what's on all our minds during the second week, as we think about the usefulness of the story of the brain as a box full of interconnected boxes, with its capacity to generate outputs without inputs.
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
Narrative is determined not by a desire to narrate but by a desire to exchange. (Roland Barthes, S/Z)
What's New? Subscribe to Serendip Studio
A Random Walk
New Topics
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
4 weeks 4 days ago
-
8 weeks 6 days ago
-
9 weeks 2 days ago
-
9 weeks 4 days ago
Emily Dickinson...again
Ok, so in class today, Sarah played the devil’s advocate and challenged my “tree falls in the forest…” example based on perception and its effects. And, though I have not converted to her side, her thoughts did bring what I said into a new light—so maybe I am gathering a new set of observations to revamp my original argument…or maybe I am just contemplating. So, what Sarah said got me thinking: maybe, yes, I am on the right track in saying that Eden exists whether I exist or not, because others are perceiving her; and that it is simply my perception of her that would not exist if I was not here to perceive her as such. But, this thought process lends itself to the idea that if my perception of Eden did not exist, then the Eden that here and now exists would not—a part of her would be lost, that part that was part of me. And so in a sense (and through a convoluted thought process), Eden’s existence is very much dependent on those around her because our perceptions of her make her who she is.
perception
We can argue that everything we think and know is a construction of the brain. Without the brain and the nervous system we would not be able to perceive inputs. Almost everyone can use the environment to create certain responses in the body. Heat can be an input to create a signal that tells your body to sweat to maintain your body temperature. What happens when the input does not signal your body to create the response needed?
Those with congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA) cannot feel pain. It is a rare genetic disorder that prevents the formation of nerve cells. This leads to multiple injuries of the arms and legs, chronic infections of bones and joints, inability to sweat (anhidrosis), and recurrent episodes of hyperthermia.
The input does exist although people with CIPA cannot perceive it. Those with CIPA do not have to perceive external input for it to exist.
The same goes with perceive those around us. I agree that Eden will exist regardless of whether you (dmckeever) exist because others perceive her. But I think your thought on how other’s perception shapes Eden’s identity is incomplete. It is true that “Eden’s existence is very much dependent on those around her because our perceptions of her make her who she is” but this would not be true if Eden did not have the ability to respond to our perceptions of her.
Going back to patients with CIPA; a child with CIPA will never learn directly that touching a hot stove will burn. If a child touches a hot stove, he will not be able to respond to the input and change his brain; he will not be able to change his actions/himself according to the input.
An example with Eden would be: Eden is in a group of people that do not like the subject money. Eden likes to discuss how much money she has all the time with the group. If she could not perceive the group’s dislike, Eden’s existence does not depend on those around her because the perception of those around her does not make her who she is. She would continue to talk about money with or without the group’s perception of her. It is important to remember that it is an endless loop of inputs and outputs, which can be another person’s outputs and inputs and one’s unique ability to process that information is what makes our perceptions different from another’s.
I think, therefore you don't exist when I'm not in the room.
I see your point about other people's perceptions having a sort of cumulative effect, but what about when Eden is by herself? I guess it comes back to the same ol' "If Eden falls in the forest, and no one is there to laugh at her..." question. However, being fairly well aquainted with Eden myself, I'd like to argue that I still exist when you guys aren't around. Or at least, I perceive myself to be existing. In which case, maybe this is an argument about sentience. I'll be honest and say that I feel a bit cocky stating that just because a tree is not aware of itself, it doesn't possess a reality unless a rabbit happens to be underneath it when it falls. Where can you draw a line? If we are all part of the same natural system, why would exceptions about existance be made for some objects as opposed to others? I think the brain is a powerful tool that gives us the ability to understand the concept of perception, but even a mushroom reacts to its environment, it just doesn't "know" that it's doing it. Well, unless there's a lot more to mushrooms than we think, which is always a possibility.
The Two Faces of Technology
One thing in class today that we briefly touched on was that advances in medical technology, and quality of life improvements have allowed those who would not have been able to survive in the past, to live normally.
To clarify- in the ages before developments of modern medicine and technology, people living in the not so comfortable and warm houses that most of us live in today, or people with things like cancer, tumors, organ failures, pneumonia, infection or even the common cold, of these people the only the strongest would have survived.
Today, surgeons can successfully remove tumors, treat cancer, replace organs, and treat all sorts of infections, conditions and diseases that normally would have been fatal which is absolutely terrific. The works of people like Eleanor A. Bliss who set the ground for the development of modern antibiotics or Dr. Michael DeBakey who devised a heart operation that was recently used to save his own life are rightfully honored and celebrated.
However one thing that occured to me is that as technology as wonderful as it is, allows more lives to continue, but as more people who probably would not have been able to survive in the past are surviving now, are we thwarting Darwinian natural selection? Are we allowing weak, unfit, genes to remain in the gene pool? As more of the "unfit" people continue to live, perhaps we are potentially creating more work for ourselves with more people who are susceptible to disease, needing treatments, and aide.
However, I am not suggesting putting a stop to research in advancing technology and life saving. To me the positives of saving lives greatly outweigh the negatives, but I just wanted to point out that some negatives might exist, and suggest some effects they might have.
Modern Evolution
I think this is a great point to raise. It seems clear that the rate, and possibly direction, of evolution have changed. And I think the finger can be pointed at technological advances. It is just like you said, more people that might have been wiped out by natural selection are surviving to pass their genetic code on into the gene pool. But I want to say a little more, and address the implications.
As was said in the other reply the traits relevant for selection in the past are no longer the relevant ones. Physical "shortcomings" do little to hold one back in society. We can imagine that farmer Joe with asthma had a hard, maybe impossibly hard, time providing necesities for his family. We can also imagine that after the introduction of irrigation systems, or inhalers he had a much easier time of it, and was able to send a son off to college. Or, Sam, who was doing fine before, but due to the added help of the irrigation system now has some free time on his hands. We can think of the effect technology has as creating a surplus of genes.
The gene pool is growing as a result of technology, and the reproductive efforts of those kept alive by it. But the gene pool is not getting weaker, it is developing a surplus. Not everyone is needed in the labor market to keep the society running, and some people are able to enter the technological sector. Any advance in the technological sector allows more effort to leave the labor sector, the surplus grows, more individuals and enter the cultural/technological sector, and around and around we go.
It is interesting to think about where all this is going. Will there be a breaking point, when the population gets too big to support itself? Or will we end up sitting on our butts in front of the tv, while robots make our dinner, clean our house, do our taxes, clean our streets, and grow our food, with the occasionally motivated individual getting up to create a robot to pick his nose for him?
Darwin
I think you raise an interesting point, but I don’t agree that we’re thwarting Darwinian natural selection. It’s important to understand that traits favored in the past aren’t necessarily favored currently. It’s no longer relevant (in our society) that I can’t see without my glasses or contacts. The chances of me running into any wild animals while moderately blind are slim to none.
I think it’s also important to make a distinction between evolutionary theory and social Darwinism because what one person deems “unfit” may not actually be, in a strict biological sense.
On another note, I too (like some people up above) read the article in the NYTimes about repressed memories, and I take the side of the McLean doctors. I think there’s a lot of evidence that demonstrates how, if anything, traumatic memories are more unforgettable. And I’d like to mention Elizabeth Loftus (I don’t think anyone else has yet), who has done a lot of work on how memory can be impacted by post-event information and suggestion.