Welcome ...

Behavior is definitely a function of the brain, however it is not entirely clear if the brain exactly equals behavior. Perhaps it is an issue of semantics but there are other factors in play. However, a brain-behavior relationship seems undeniable. One example of this relationship is the story of Phineas Gage and the pole that went through his head (damaging the frontal lobes) after an explosion. He survived the accident but the once hard-working, pleasant man apparently became an unreliable, impatient failure. This seems to be a clear example of the relationship between the brain and behavior and how the brain has control over behavior or personality. Similarly, there have also been cases where brain tumors have caused behavioral changes, but once the tumor is removed behavior returns to normal.

 Obviously disturbances in such a sensitive area cause changes to who we normally are but this does not mean the brain is the only “thing” that causes behavior. Environment and genetic coding also have huge effects on who we are and how we behave- but it is of course the brain that somehow processes all of the outside stimuli and allows us to act the way we do. A recent article in the Economist, A survey of the brain, states these observations best: “The brain is a mechanism which generates the self, not merely an organ which houses it”.

What is fascinating about the relationship between behavior and the brain is not only that one is a product of the other, but that we are able to control and manipulate our behavior under varying conditions. Also, we are able to do things that are illogical and irrational. It is amazing to think that what seems to be a complicated mechanical system of cells and chemicals that developed under evolutionary terms would allow us to act differently and go against instinct or intuition. For example- people who remain in abusive relationships, or someone who commits suicide. These are extreme cases, but still it seems as though we probably do things that don’t make sense everyday but we certainly don’t all have neurological problems, so why do we do it?

After reading “The Claim: Drinking Tea Reduces Stress” by Anahad O’Connor in the New York Times, I began to question the notion of comfort foods.  The article suggests that adult men who drank black tea four times a day immediately reacted no differently to stress than adult men who were given a caffeinated placebo. When the entire test group was placed in stressful situations to have indicators of their stress levels such as blood pressure and hormone levels measured, all of the participants showed similar reactions.  However, although the tea drinkers’ heart rates and blood pressure did increase in the stressful situations, they calmed down more quickly afterwards.  An hour after being placed in one such situation, the group of men who drank tea had slightly lower levels of cortisol, the stress hormone, than the group of men who were given the placebo.  The tea drinkers returned to a regular, peaceful state more quickly than the non-tea drinkers. I have always understood the power of food.  My Grandmother’s Matzo Ball soup could cure any childhood illness, my Great-Grandmother’s marble-cake could make anyone smile, my Mother’s lasagna tasted like home, and when my Father made pancakes in the morning the sun came out.  However, I had always assumed that it was not the foods themselves that relaxed me, cured me, made me feel loved, or made me smile.  I believed that over my lifetime specific foods took on certain meaning due to the people, the situations, and habit.  I also grew up in a family that drank a lot of tea, and came to believe that tea’s effects were no different than those of my Mother’s lasagna. I still believe that this is true.  Although the caffeine and other various herbs in tea may have positive effects on reducing stress levels more quickly, the association most people make with tea may be its strongest asset. Tea is believed to be a soothing stress tamer.  Therefore, if people believe that it will reduce the stress in their lives, is that enough to make its effects visibly happen?  While there is still little scientific evidence linking tea to stress reduction, perhaps the simple belief in its calming benefits is enough for create a positive outcome for most tea-drinkers.  I am left with the question, can we control our brain with our behavior?

I personally have a difficult time determining whether I support Dickinson or Descartes in the issue of brain vs. behavior. I think the conflict that I encounter in making a decision is a personal one between my deep desire to believe that there is such thing as a soul and free will, and my growing knowledge of the power and influence of the brain over our identity.

I read an article in the New York Times recently that leads me to believe that I am not the only person who is having such doubts, and that brain vs. behavior is becoming more and more of an issue in the scientific world. In Of Gay Sheep, Modern Science and Bad Publicity (by John Schwartz) I learned about how Dr. Roselli, a researcher at the Oregon Health and Science University, has searched for the past five years for physiological factors that might explain why about 8 percent of rams seek sex exclusively with other rams instead of ewes. His research has come under very harsh criticism from animal rights organizations such as PETA as well as gay advocates who claim, incorrectly, that Dr. Roselli is attempting to find a way to ‘cure’ homosexual rams with hormone treatments and that research like this could “pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.” Obviously the research that Dr. Roselli is conducting is extremely controversial. Gay activists fear that this research could prove that the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation are rooted in our brain chemistry, and that they can therefore be manipulated. This, they claim, could lead the way to a sort of ‘sexual eugenics’, where parents can choose not to have children who will become gay. This thought process is very much connected to the belief that it is our brain that has complete control over our behavior.

Many arguments that I have heard support the idea that sexual orientation is based in our biology but emphasize the immutability of this biology (people are born with a certain sexual orientation and it cannot be changed) rather than its possibility to be discovered and altered. I am disturbed by the implications that the opponents of Dr. Roselli’s research are suggesting; by implying that ‘sexual eugenics’ is even possible, they are essentially portraying human sexuality as no more than a cerebral phenomenon rather than something complex that is much more than brain structure and hormones. I do not think that Dr. Roselli is attempting to find a way to alter the sexuality of sheep, or of humans. I simply think that he is doing his scientific duty to learn more about the brain and about why certain events occur. The question that is ultimately being raised is ‘how much control do we in fact have over our behavior?’ Our sexuality seems like something that is not just a result of our brain but of our environment. The fact that by removing cells we could eliminate what many people consider to be a significant part of their identity is very disturbing to me. 

Everyone knows smoking is addictive. The nicotine is physically addictive and the motion of dragging or puffing a cigarette can also be mentally addicting. Our body does not really need to perform the motion of puffing or dragging a cigarette; however those that are addicted are compelled to do so. According to NY Times’ article, “In Clue to Addiction, Brain Injury Halts Smoking” injury to a certain part of the brain can stop one’s smoking addiction. Studies have shown that people with an injury to the insula.

The insula (insular cortex) is believed to be an important role in producing “emotionally relevant context for sensory experience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_cortex).” There is research that suggests the insula in conscious desires like food craving and drug craving.

The author of the article seems to be convinced that addiction is purely based on the brain. Researchers from the University of Iowa and the University of Southern California studied 32 former smokers, who had suffered a brain injury; the participants smoked at least five cigarettes a day for two years or more, and 16 of them said they had quit with ease, losing their cravings entirely. M.R.I. scans showed that the 16 patients who quit easily were more likely to have had suffered an injury to their insula.

How do people without injury to their insula break the habit of smoking? The article implies that those quitters have a harder time and will always feel a slight desire to smoke. “Most smokers who manage to quit do so only after repeated attempts, and the craving for cigarettes usually lasts for years, if not a lifetime (NY Times).” However they did accomplish their goal: not smoking.

It seems a little strange to say that you need a soul to quit smoking, but obviously there is more to one’s desires, actions, decisions, etc. than just the mind. Is will power something one produces through the brain or through one’s soul?

I believe that I am sitting on the fence between Descartes and Dickinson.

I marvel at the brain’s ability to function almost effortlessly.  Without being conscious of it, we are able to breathe, move, pump blood, maintain heart rate etc…  It’s truly amazing that we are able to accomplish so much without being cognizant of our actions.  However, it frightens me that our brains may be able to do other things without us realizing it ourselves.  

In a recent New York Times article (“In Clue to Addiction, Brain Injury Halts Smoking”- Benedict Carey, published Jan. 26, 2007), the author reports that addictions (this specific case references smoking addictions) are related to the insula region of the frontal lobes.  According to the study, patients with injuries to the insula region are more likely to break their habits than those with intact insulas.  Scientists are discovering that the insula’s strong connections to the thinking cortex and the brain stem provide a link between emotions and physicality.  The insula helps the body to anticipate emotions (pain, pleasure, etc...) unconsciously before we even realize it. 

While it might be comforting to addicts to blame their addictions on an intact insula, it causes me to the question the free will of my conscious brain.  If addictions are created/ maintained by our unconscious brains, what else are we incapable of controlling? As a huge proponent of free will (I’m a political science major), I find the idea of uncontrollable urges very unsettling…

I tend to lean strongly towards the brain=behavior side of things and I also tend to agree with Emily Dickinson's poem. After all if it weren't for the brain, I don't think that there would be any way for us to comprehend the world around us. The brain lets us take in images and put a name or a feeling to them. It is our only way to understand things and to form our ideas about things. Thus it seems to follow that the brain also is the main factor behind who we are as individuals. While I don't have an issue with the idea that there is a soul, at the same time I find it very hard to reconcile the fact that an intangible part of us could be in charge of who we are. We are, afterall,  who we are because of how we perceive the world and then react to it.

This, however, raises a question in my mind. Where is the line separating the brain from making us who we are and the brain just acting as a controlling operator of our body. For instance, when a person suffers severe brain injuries and is in a vegatative state are they no longer themselves? In other words is there a point in the brain that makes us who we are and without that point are we just machines carrying out bodily functions? Another question is how do we know when this part of the brain is gone? I tend to lean towards the idea that there are parts of the brain that are in charge of making us who we are and if they are gone we are no longer us. In other words I believe that it is possible to lose the essence of who we are, while still being alive. But how are we to know for sure?

It seems to me that we are always being asked to choose sides. Is there a soul/mind, or is the brain responsible for all our behavior. I understand many peoples opposition to choosing sides, maybe it seems too early in the debate, that we don't have enough evidence either way, or simply that its scary to proclaim allegiance to one or the other. Most of all I hear the claim that there is not enough evidence, that there is no proof for or against the existence of an soul, so how can one be asked to make an intelligent choice about its existence. As well as the fear of the implications made by saying that brain=behavior

I feel that the lack of evidence stance misses something key. Indeed there is no evidence for or against the existence of a soul, and we must admit to ourselves that there may never be, but there is a substancial body of work that points strongly in the direction of brain=behavior. PETs. fMRIs, studies of brain injuries, and mental health disorders have given us grains of knowledge that seem to say that as of yet, there is no functional need of a soul. I think most importantly we must realize that there may never be the "hard" evidence we yearn for showing the existence or nonexistence of the soul, and we should stop waiting for it. We must learn to debate and think about this question taking into account the current body of observations and base or inquiries of that.

In response to the fear that come from admitting there may not be a soul. I get it. But I also believe that admitting that the brain might be all there is is not as limiting as people might think. We do not all have the "same" brain, and claiming that the brain is responsible for our behavior is not saying that we must all behave the same, or that we cannot change. Indeed the brain can change quite easily and always is. The existence and strength of the synaptic connections are the medium for change. When we learn a new fact, when we meet a new person, when we spend lots of time with a person (someone we conside a new friend maybe) changes are being made in our brain, every moment. And the specific configuration of strengths and connections amoungst our neurons are what make us individuals. The infinite capacity for permutations of neural connections is mind blowing. I feel that it is hardly limitting at all to think that the brain may be all there is, the brain may be something we will never fully comprehend, something as complex and mystifying as the idea of a soul.

An article from the New York Times, An Image of Consciousness Creates a Stir, addresses the correlation between brain activity and awareness. This particular article revealed the brain activity results of a woman in a vegetative state who exhibited neurological signs of awareness.

Each time I read an article regarding studies on the brain, my first reactions formulate themselves as lists of questions: How does one define awareness? What does it mean for the brain to show signs of awareness, a number or beep on an EEG monitor? Is awareness measurable? If so, does this mean there are varying levels of awareness that can be quantified?

We know there are different levels of awareness simply from our everyday experiences. From sleeping to being engaged in class to day dreaming, our mind is capable of tuning our surroundings in and out at a range of degrees. I wonder how the EEG would monitor the brain activity of a Bryn Mawr Student for one 24 hour period. Would the monitor’s recordings of brain activity correlate to the student’s own perception of her awareness? In the article, it sounded as if the words brain activity and awareness were interchangeable. The definitions of these words are multi-faceted and don’t necessarily go hand in hand. How does the presence of brain activity relate to consciousness? This is a big question that I don’t believe has any one answer. As we are learning, our brains are complex and hold information and possibilities of which we are unaware.

This week is all about picking sides. Are you on the brain side or on the soul side? Was Emily Dickinson crazy or was it Descartes that was off kilter? I will freely admit that I am currently associated with the ‘brain’ side, but I see no need to be mutually exclusive. We need to be honest: we know so little about the brain and so little about the human soul (even if there is such a thing). I challenge anyone to prove to me that ghosts/spirits don’t exist. I challenge you to prove to me that behavior is solely governed by the mind. Granted, these challenges seem both outrageous and a bit ill-conceived, but they illustrate the point that we do not know.

When it comes to understanding behavior, history hasn’t been very kind to us. We, us right now, at this very moment, are the pioneers discovering the brain. Look where we were a couple hundred years ago: first we believed that the heart determined our actions and then we measured our brain’s capabilities and our own relative intelligence levels by the size and location of bumps on our heads. Right now, it feels like we are in a guess-and-check phase; in reading some of the articles about how we are learning about the brain I seriously question if scientists even know what they are doing in there or what they are looking for. (This is not to say there isn’t fabulous technology and gadgets out there, it just means that we have the tools but we can’t always understand the results.) What we know about the brain are answers to questions science doesn’t even know how to pose.

There seems to be quite a bit of fear on both sides of the argument in my opinion. Let’s say that the brain really does control all behavior and that over time we will find out all the details and nuances. Maybe Dawkins was right, maybe it is all about our genes and our behavior is just another manifestation of evolution and survival of the fittest. If everything that we know about ourselves, our friends, our lovers, everything about the world and our behavior in it is determined by formulas and hormone levels then it would seem that we aren’t as amazing of a species as we make ourselves out to be. That is a scary thought for many people. I would not even attempt to fathom the implications of defining, formatting and characterizing the human brain. I don’t mean to be bleak here, but I am just laying it out as it could be. One of the most attractive things about the human race is that no two people have the same thoughts, perceptions or behavior. And regardless of how much we know about that anterior organ of our body, I don’t think the human species is in any way made less complex or interesting.

I don’t understand why you need to be on one side or the other: the problem seems to be that we have a “higher-power”-of-the-gaps idea. Right now, when we know so little about the brain it is easy to pick a side and feel valid in doing so, since we don’t know enough to rule out one or the other. But as we learn more, it seems to me that a spirit or soul could have increasingly less presence if science can explain the same phenomena that we attribute to the soul now. I don’t think it needs to be so black and white (and no, I am also not advocating for a Design model of behavior).

Human behavior, perception and beliefs are currently beyond the scope of what science can understand. However, in my mind, regardless about how much science “knows,” not everyone will be a textbook case. It comes back to the good ol’ debate of nature versus nurture. The idea of ‘behavior’ itself is a loaded, complex and complicated concept and one that we haven’t even scratched the surface of its foundation. There is a lot that we don’t know about the brain and about human life in general, and so until we know more I don’t feel the need to lock myself into a team. We’ll just have to see where this goes…

I also agree with the theory that brain equals behavior. Data from fMRIs and PET scans is pretty convincing for me, but at the same time I think it is important to realize that these machines do not yet show “real time”. “Such images can be acquired with moderately good spatial and temporal resolution; images are usually taken every 1–4 seconds...(Wikipedia)”. Thinking about how quickly one can feel pain or think or react to any stimulus tells me that taking images every 1-4 seconds doesn’t give a very clear picture. So much more is most likely going on within the brain during those 1-4 seconds than the final image shows. Although the parts of the brain that were activated are still shown, they are not precise pictures.

The brain may be responsible for the chemical actions that physically cause behavior, but I think it is very short sighted to think that the brain causes all behavior. Environmental factors, upbringing, role models, culture and situation all influence behavior. The brain cannot stand alone as the reason for all behavior.

The hip hop culture slang term original gangster refers to a someone who laid the foundation of cultural practices previous generations, which is now being expanded on by new generations. The OG's sole contribution is something of the past.

To me, Descartes was part of the group of Original Philosophers who laid the foundation for the thought of trying to figure out being, who we are, the I and the me. But thats where it ends. We must recognize Descartes, Aristotle, and the rest for leading our minds in this direction and allowing us to be where we are today, we must recognize their importance in laying the ground for our thoughts to grow.

However we must also recognize that Descartes lived in the 17th century. Descartes did not live in a time of FMRI's, single-cell recordings, lesion studies, PET scans. These relatively recent advances in technologies have allowed us to discover circuitry in the brain responsible for behaviors like executive control, fear, depression, sexuality, hunger, sleep and with time probably much more emotions and behaviors will be added on to this list. It is well known that the brain can explain many behaviors. Something to think about is that if Descartes was alive right now amidst these technologies and discoveries would he still believe in his mind and body theory?

My own personal theory... 

 We all have time to spend and attention to give and how we spend our time and where we focus our attention determines our individuality. How we spend our time and focus our attention is determined by a person's beliefs and goals which is a product of the interactions of our inherent personality, physical characteristics with environment. We have inherent personalities determined by DNA combined with physical characteristics that influence how we interact with our environment, who we are friends with, the experiences we have, what is important to us and what we do in life.

I think  the brain is responsible for certain behaviors but if we all have the same brain wouldn't we all act exactly the same? One way to look at it is that we all do act the same, we are all capable of experiencing the same emotions, of having morals, of thinking the same things, we all feel pain when something hurts us, etc. But the degree to which we feel emotions, or when we feel these emotions is different. These differences largely influence and are correlated with what I referred to as our inherrent personalities in the last paragraph. Why do different people react differently to the same situations? Some might call this the mind but we must remember that it is known that personality can be temporarily modified with drugs (both legal and illegal), alcohol, through their effects on the brain.

I think we each have very similar brains, with different default settings, that allow us all to be capable of experiencing the same things but also makes it so that we each have different personalities which then influence our life. I think one procedure that could confirm this would be when technology allows us to do a brain transplant and if the personality of one person is seen in the person that his or her brain is in.

Simplified, I am a believer of brain= behavior but recognize Descartize for his importance in laying the foundations for thought in this field.

I think it's interesting to think that maybe our brains do account for our behavior... that we are, who we are, mainly, if not solely, because of our brains. If our brains are the processing centers of our perception of the world around us, then it seems logical that they must shape how we observe and respond to the world, making us who we are.  I think that some parts of behavior are almost universal, defining us (the best we can) as being alive, and that it's important to figure out what exactly our behavior is that we're trying to account for, and even what we want to want to believe- whether we want to believe the brain does in fact equal behavior, or whether it does not- if there's a pattern, some life experience, in common between the people that believe one way, or the other.
 
In Why We Believe What We Believe (by Andrew Newberg & Mark Waldman), they discuss how our brains are equipped, from birth, to do sorts of things, like to be able to absorb and learn language, and the ability to learn/ perform math.  If that is the case, that our brains are equipped to do these tasks, then the question is raised as to how our outside influences effect who we are by the different ways our brains choose to percieve them, but that still seems to suggest that the brain equals behavior, overall.  Some could account for this by saying that aside from the tasks we're born with the ability to do, that maybe the rest that develops is the soul- I prefer to believe the other story, that the differences are due to perception- that because of how our chemicals and properties in the brain are arranged, that makes who we are.  I think it's hard to draw a line between what some would call the "soul" and what others would call the brain- I think, more or less, they may be accounting for the same thing- the same effect, the same mystery in a way- and if that is the case, how much of a difference does a name make? Do we choose one or the other to make ourselves feel better- more relieved that something could perhaps be scientifically accounted for- for the meantime anyway, until the story changes, or more special, that there could be this great mystery in the world?

I think every environmental and social influence, has to be taken in through the brain, and processed in such a way as to gain a response, and store the experience in its own way for later consideration.  I think we are, who we are, because of the way we respond and react, because of the behavior in which we are characteristic of, due to the way we've processed the world.  I think it's possibly more meaningful- more of a romantic notion- to think of a person as having both these physical brain responses, and a soul.  At the same time, I think that our brains can account for this notion of a soul, in a less romantic, but maybe, more logical kind of way.  I do like the idea of having a soul- of having something not physical, not visible, and not measurable- it makes life seem more rare, and maybe more special, but I think that the brain could account for all characteristics attributed to the notion of the soul.  I think it's a human desire to want to make more out of life- to want to have mysteries that could possibly never be solved.  I like the idea that, if the brain could equal behavior and by that make us who we are, that we have the ability to isolate parts of the brain, figuring out what does what, and in that.. breaking us down as humans piece by piece.  It's sounds sort of like figuring out humanity, in a way.. and that probably does take away from the mystery of life, maybe making it less exciting, and more predictable, since perhaps one day a scan could tell us a personality, but, I think there's a comfort in that. I think that since we can never know a truth- that stories keep needing to be made "less wrong" and altered a little bit each time, that we'll never be able to solve any mystery, only get closer.. to being less wrong.. that we have something so huge, so involved in all of our lives, to figure out..and I think that's pretty interesting.

In class on Wednesday I was one of the people who agreed with the Descartes explanation for behavior. Not that I necessarily believe in the soul/mind…it’s just that I think the brain alone cannot be responsible for all behavior. Many things that exhibit behavior do not even have a nervous system to speak of. Plants and fungi for example do not have a central nervous system and yet they undoubtedly show characteristic behaviors. The same could be said of bacteria or really any cells that have certain functions to perform in the body. Individual cells within an organism have their own separate behavior and never would you find that an osteoblast takes over the function of a lymphocyte. One can even go so far as to say that things that are not alive, like viruses for example, most definitely exhibit characteristic behavior that is intrinsic to their existence.
Whether all of these behaviors most definitely not associated with the nervous system are due to a soul or mind or something else that is present in all creation I really don’t know and would not hazard to guess at. However it does make me realize with wonder the truth in Emily Dickinson’s poem. The world as we see it, the wideness of the sky the vastness of the sea, our ability to comprehend philosophical ideas like infinity, morality and spirituality is ours alone. Only with the development of the brain do these things become possible. Only with a very advanced nervous system can we exhibit behavior that shows our ability to perceive things outside ourselves.