Neurobiology and Behavior, Week 14: Reflections

 In the beginning of the semester I was not quite sure where I stood on the spectrum, but now I am on the Dickinsonian side. While I still acknowledge the possibility of something bigger than us, that there is a mind within everyone. However, I do agree that the brain does equal behavior and I think the course definitely helped me expand my understanding of how much of behavior can be accounted for by the brain.

I think the most novel idea from class that will stick with me is the I-function. I probably had some idea of what it stands for before taking this class, but I didn’t have a definitive understanding nor did I have a label for it. For me, the most exciting conversation in class revolved around perception, especially visual perception and how much of what we experience is a construction of the mind. I’m not sure I really ever knew how active our unconscious is or how much of a role it has in how I perceive the world. I also really enjoyed being challenged by this course. As a biology major, science has always been a right and wrong answer. But now, I like that I can recognize when there isn’t always a right answer or when there are a thousand more possibilities to explain a phenomenon.

In the future, I would like to see more research on artificial intelligence and how achievable it is. Is this something that would even be useful or desirable? Also, it would be great if there were non-pharmacological treatments for psychological disorders. Finally, I would love to see advancements in the area of those unexplainable sensations, including but not limited to, pain and itching.  

I stayed as Dickinsonian throughout the semester, but I think it doesn't matter anymore.  The most important idea I learned in this class - and will keep in mind - is constantly questioning every theory. To me, the name "Dickinsonian" is more of a lable for the summary of my thoughts on our brain and behaviours.  As for my actually thoughts, they have changed a lot, and they will surely keep changing. Maybe one day I would believe there are souls in us, and then I could call myself a Descartian.

I'll surely remember our discussion about vision, and all of the amazing tricks our brain played with us.  After that, I could and will never regard our brain as something completely "objective".  I once thought no matter how we interpret something, there had to be a "reality" as its base. It turned out that the supposed "reality" and our interpretation of it actually don't have a one-to-one correlation. Now I can understand why "everything is the construction of our brain". Yes, for a bio major, it sounds a bit unsettling. But I guess that's what science is supposed to do - to challenge our worldview, to push us to find new explanations and ideas. I'm feeling fortunate to take this class in the first year of college; now I can constantly remind myself how little I know, so I can always revel in exploring the new.

And here is a newly found vision trick: http://www.neave.com/strobe/

3 Questions:

1. How do our brain abstract the words from various handwriting styles? More particularly, sometimes when the handwriting is rather indicernible, we can still recognize some words by looking into the context; how is this achieved?

2. I also find our accents very interesting. My English accent changed after I come here; I can tell that it's americanized, with a clearer "r" sound. But when talking to a non native speaker, my accent sometimes shifts back to my old accent. It seems that although we can change our accent, there is a "default" accent that we tend to get back to. I wonder whether there is research on this topic?

3. I read an article about dream: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/health/10mind.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=lucid%20dream&st=cse  What interests me is that scientists observed that when we are lucid dreaming, our brain activities have similarities with both REM state and waking state. To me it seems to suggest that our "waking self" and our "dreaming self" are actually different. I wonder if and how these two "self" are different?

When the semester began, I was on the Dickinsonian side of the spectrum. I am still on the Dickinsonian side of the spectrum, though this course has given me a different perspective on my position. Instead of arguing that it is possible that nothing exists outside of the brain because I don’t believe in the existence of a creator or the necessity of a soul (the way I did at the beginning of the semester), I now argue that it doesn’t matter if there is anything outside the brain because our experiences of the outside world are limited to the stories we construct in our brains. There may be such a thing as input from the outside world, but each and every one of us perceives it slightly differently. The reality that I perceive has always served me quite well, so for all intents and purposes I am comfortable with the notion that my perception is limited.

I think the ongoing discussion of the role of the I-function is the most interesting one we’ve explored. At first, I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of the I-function because I thought it sounded too much like the concept of a soul. However, I now think the I-function is an important part of understanding behavior. I especially like the notion that it is not located in one place in the brain and that everyone’s I-function works differently and can serve different purposes in different situations. In my mind, this allows us to account for differences between individuals without asserting that one kind of behavior is “normal” and anyone who behaves differently is “abnormal.” It also feels less mystical to think of the I-function as a portion of the nervous system that can be engaged and disengaged like a program on a computer but at the same time does not reduce the human brain to a mere machine.

Several of the questions I want to see explored have to do with collective consciousness. Why are certain fears virtually universal? How come different cultures come up with remarkably similar mythologies without having interacted? How come we are capable of spontaneously developing language? I am also interested in finding out more about the similarities and differences between the nervous systems of other organisms besides humans. If no two humans perceive the outside world the same way, what staggering diversity of perception must exist among the rest of life on the planet!   

I don't think this class has changed my view on the Dickinsonian/Descartian debate. I'm still confused as to where I lie on this spectrum, but I know that I don't identify with one or the other. And that's certainly nothing against the content of this class! This debate is one that had been in my mind for a while, just without labels, and I'm still trying to figure out which one I believe in more.

I think the most interesting aspects of this class that will stay with me are the most recent discussions on vision. Originally, all I had understood about how vision worked was that our eye picks up information and sends it to the brain for interpretation. We delved far beyond this simple understanding of vision. I also think I'll remember the counter-intuitive ideas, since they most surprised me. Some examples of this are the optical illusions, outputs generating inputs, and Christopher Reeves' non-isolated nervous system. These ideas were the most interesting to me because they changed my original views on these topics.

There are many intriguing aspects of the brain and behavior that I am still wondering about that were not discussed in this class, but of course we don't have time for all of them! I'm still interested in learning how the mind can control physiological symptoms, such as in meditation. Also, I'd be interested in learning about the other senses in the manner that we learned about vision. And lastly, I wish we had gone slightly more into social interactions among people instead of just remaining in individual behavior. All in all though, I was very interested in our discussions that we did have in class and have a better general knowledge of the brain and the nervous system.

I was more on the Dickinsonian spectrum at the beginning of the semester. I didn’t disagree or find it hard to believe the Descartian side of the argument, but I believe more in the Dickinsonian idea, because it seemed like it can be based on scientific proof more than the Descartian can do. And I always find scientific proof more concrete than other types of proof and comfortable believing in them. However, now, I am not so sure. I think my view basically changed everyday based on the topic we discussed in the class that day. Sometimes, brain seemed so capable of everything and others, it was more vulnerable and deceptive that I thought maybe mind actually be separated from the brain.

It’s hard to pick an idea from the class that will stick in my mind the most, because all the topics were so interesting and eye opening to me. But if I had to choose, I would definitely say that when I first heard science does not give definite answers, which was against all my beliefs in science, and also the idea of getting it less wrong to make more right. I think these are very valuable lessons that I can carry on beyond neurobiology class and keep in my mind forever from now on.

I would like to learn more about nature vs. nurture debate and views from each side, cultural influences in thoughts, and more deeply in some neuro-psychological disorders in the brain.

This class was very different from my other classes and I really enjoyed it. Thank you!!!

When the semester started, I was a bit unsure about my stance on the Descartian and Dickinsonian arguments. I think I was leaning more towards Descartes' opinion. I preferred Descartes’ opinion because to think that the brain and its chemical reactions solely control my being made me feel like I had no personal control over myself. I also felt like I was not a unique and individual person if all that controlled me was my brain. In this way, I found Descartes’ theory much more comforting because it made me feel like I was more than my brain.  Now, I agree with Dickinson’s opinion. The evidence supports Dickinson’s claim because a person’s behavior (which is thought to be controlled by the mind) can be controlled by pharmaceuticals that change brain chemistry.  The fact that my behavior is controlled by my brain no longer upsets me. We have spent this semester exploring individual differences caused by unique neuronal pathways in the brain. So, even though our brains control our behavior we are still individuals and have control over ourselves.

The conversation that will stick the most in my mind is our discussion about color and vision. I found this topic very interesting and eye-opening. I think the most important thing for other people to be aware of is the I-function. People should be aware of the fact that many things (that aren’t connected to the I-function) go on beneath their consciousness. Learning about the I-function, has made me think of things in a different way and see things in a new light.

Three questions involving the brain and behavior that I would most like to see pursued in the next few years are:

1.      How does personality develop? Which has a greater influence on personality, genetics or environment?

2.      What is the most effective way to treat mental disorders?

3.      Why isn’t it possible to reconnect or repair neurons after they have been destroyed? Many diseases are caused by cell death or weakening, so would it someday be possible to transplant or regenerate neurons?

 In the beginning of the semester, I was on the Dickinsonian side of the spectrum, and I maintain my stance now. I also believed that the soul was part of the mind/brain, because I did not see any proof otherwise. Where else would the soul be? From this class and from the book I read for the commentary, "Proust was a Neuroscientist", I can conclude that not only does the soul come from the brain, it also comes from the body; the soul, mind, and body depend on each other. Surely without the I-function, we would have no sense of self, no consciousness. We would have no body and no soul. However, our feelings also depend on our body as we are in tune with many of the fine changes going on within our bodies (sensory input, muscles moving, pain, etc).

I thought this class was very interesting and I would recommend it to other people because I think a lot of the ideas are important for others to be aware of. One in particular are the ways our brains/ns are malleable and those in which they are not. For example, we have certain set points, but on the other hand, we are more creative/imaginative than we think. Our neural connections can change, but many of our actions depend on established patterns of activities across motor neurons.

One idea I am still considering is the nature of sensation. How interconnected are our senses really? How do we distinguish between our interconnected stimuli, how different (how interrelated) is vision from our other senses?

Another question I have is how we build concepts of things: how do these connections grow and how dependent are they on our sensory input?

I also have lots of questions about artificial intelligence and connectivity that I hope can be answered in researching my last web paper as well as taking some computational methods classes!

 When the semester started, I was on the Descartian side of the spectrum. The idea that mind and body were separate seemed appropriate. I always understood the Emily Dickinson argument, that the brain is all encompassing. From a scientific standpoint I suppose the Descartes view was less supported in a scientific sense. However the Dickinson argument always seemed the "cop out" explanation that the brain is just EVERYTHING, and this is the view which neuroscience believes. I don't know where I stand after the class. I understand the arguments that everything in our life is a construction of our mind, but I still want to believe there is a "me" separate from my brain. A me that is not the "I-function", a me that does not depend on the anatomy of my brain. 

So many of our class discussions have influenced the way I think about the world. I find myself talking to friends and bringing up the random things we talk about in class and asking about their opinions on the subject. I love it when a class can make me do that. I was always questioning what I thought was right, feeling wrong all the time, but being totally okay with that. I think the discussions on the senses and perception will stick out most to me as my scientific interests lie in understanding the visual system. However I always find it hard to disconnect/connect what I have learned in this class with the rigidity of the research lab. Yes I investigate this molecule through all of these experiments but then I think about all the questions we've raised in this class and then wonder where should I be focusing? Is the lab or my mind(thoughts) the best place to answer these questions about how the mind works? I don't think I will ever view the world or my research the same again. 

In the next years, I would like to talk a lot more about perception and I would like to talk more about dreams. I never took a psychology or philosophy class but I always had questions about these topics lingering in my mind. How we perceive the world?