Biology 202

Trying to conceive of the geometry of a fourth dimension involves disregarding everything you thought you “knew” about reality, existence, and your ability to perceive the world around you. Typically when one hears about the fourth dimension, the mind goes directly to time, but in reality it doesn’t matter whether you call time the fourth dimension or the fortieth dimension. Each dimension must be perpendicular to all of the other dimensions, and it doesn’t matter what order you examine them in. In terms of this paper, the fourth dimension refers to a fourth spatial dimension.

Why seek to scale Mount Everest,
Queen of the Air,
Why strive to crown that cruel crest
And deathward dare?
Said Mallory of dauntless quest
`Because it's there.'

-Robert William Service

Inspired by George Mallory, a British mountaineer, Robert William Service’s poem, “Dauntless Quest”, poses a very interesting question (1). Why risk everything to climb one of the most dangerous mountains in the world for no tangible benefit? Or for that matter why risk losing your life for fifteen minutes of an adrenaline rush? For many years, extreme sports such as bungee jumping and skydiving, have appealed to many people despite the threat they pose to a person’s life. Personally, I have not partaken in many forms of extreme activity, but as strange as it sounds, I would very much like to satisfy my desire to jump thousands of feet out of a moving plane.

The Balance between the I-function (Consciousness)

and the Nervous System (Unconsciousness)

by Shayna Israel

1) Why does the I-function want to know why? Or why it “felt” something?

2) For the body to “move” it does not need the I-function to motivate it or even give it the energy to move. So, why does it not only need the I-function, but why does it even have it? Unless it actually does need the I-function to give it the energy, “will”, “a something” to move it. Is that what is going on with people who are brain (I-function) dead? They don’t have an I-function to motivate their nervous system? If we look at frogs, the nervous system does not need an I-function to move it, and not only that, it also makes decisions. Back to my question, why do we have or even need the I-function?

Lea Rifkin
Biology 202
Professor Grobstein
Spring 2007
Web Paper 2

Great Expectations:
The Effects of Neuroscience on the American Legal System

Most Americans take comfort in the legal system that has been built to protect them. Law in America is generally believed to be stable, secure, and solid. It is a system which has been in existence since the birth of our country itself, and which has served American's well with little modification throughout the years. The legal system in the United States of America has survived cultural change, political turmoil, and scientific discovery in the past, and it will continue to do so in the future. Today, exciting advances in the field of Neuroscience provide new opportunities for the American legal system. However, with new opportunities come new challenges. Brain scan technology could eventually provide us with the ability to determine whether an individual is prone to commit a crime, whether a jury member is biased, whether a convicted murderer was able to make a rational decision, and whether or not an individual is lying. Yet, these possibilities also provoke moral questions as to what responsibility entails, what the domain of the legal system covers, and at what point we consider evidence valid, tested, and accurate.

In many ways, Neuroscience is a new frontier of the legal system in the United States of America. With the use of many Neuroscientific techniques, concepts, tools, and ideas comes the ability to come to conclusions that were never possible before. For example, brain scans are being combined with Implicit Association Tests, or I.A.T.s. This new combination test can be used to test biases, which can be useful when attempting to compile a jury. In preliminary studies, such tests have been used as individuals have been shown images of both black and white people while having their brains scanned. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (f.M.R.I.) is also a relatively new technique with exciting possibilities. The f.M.R.I. technology allows Neurobiologists to see exactly what part of an individual's brain lights up when they partake in specific activities. Thus, although scientists are aware that specific areas of the brain handle specific types of action and information, this test allows them to see variation between individuals. The f.M.R.I. technology is also being used to develop new lie detectors. One of these new types of lie detectors compares the brain activity of liars with the brain activity of truth tellers. Another form of this new technology identifies when an individual recognizes an image, a smell, a person, a sound, or a crime scene that they are shown, versus when an individual is unfamiliar with what is presented to them. A third new development, known as positron-emission tomography, or PET scans, allow for participants to be injected with a solution that contains radioactive markers. These markers illuminate brain activity and allow Neuroscientists to identify damaged areas of the brain. These damaged areas may have caused an individual to have made a specific decisions or may explain why an individual reacted in a specific way. This new technology obviously has strong potential to both bring additional evidence into the court of law and to change the way the American legal system looks at evidence (1).

However, as many who work in both the fields of Neuroscience and the law have noted, it is important to cautiously and slowly analyze how this fusion, which has begun to be called “Neurolaw” will look (1). Along with the many benefits that Neuroscience has the potential to bring to the American justice system, there are challenges as well. The most widespread concern amongst professionals in the field is that the Neuroscientific techniques that are beginning to draw attention and appear attractive have actually not yet “gained general acceptance in the particular field [to] which [they] belong” (2). Although the United States Supreme Court has ruled that evidence should not be considered unless Judges have looked at “whether the underlying theory or technique is testable (and whether it has been tested), whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, and its general acceptance in the relevant scientific community” (2), even Neuroscientists involved in created in techniques which have the ability to effect the law are wary. In fact, The American Association for the Advancement of Science held an invitational meeting in 2004 to discuss “Neuroscience and the Law” (4). At this meeting, lawyers, Neuroscientists, judges, law professors, psychologists, and psychiatrists all agreed that:
“The use of flawed or incomplete science, or the reliance on scientific predictions beyond what the science is prepared to support, are exactly the kinds of concerns that should be foremost in the public mind when contemplating the potential social impact of predictive technologies or techniques” (4)

However, there are also more specific concerns within the field of Neurolaw. For example, even some of the scientists involved in developing the brain scan and I.A.T. combination tests explained that results cannot necessarily detect bias. They are more apt to notice whether or not participants have an awareness of “social reality,” or the disadvantage that certain groups face (1). Neuroscience based lie detection also brings difficult questions to the table. Currently, Neuroscience based lie detection is only as accurate as traditional lie detection techniques (1). However, even if Neuroscience based lie detection reaches a 100 percent accuracy rate, important legal issues will remain. These include freedom of thought under the Fifth Amendment and concerns over safety issues involved in these tests (4). Thus, unless courts found these tests to be inappropriately invasive, such as stomach pumps, would we force people to testify against themselves? Would the American legal system make lie detection tests mandatory (1)? Another popular use of Neuroscience in law is to determine what is different about a particular criminal's brain. However, as a culture Americans will need to make decisions regarding responsibility and choice. If a criminal had pressure on his or her amygdala or an abnormal cyst nestled in his arachnoid membrane does he or she abdicate all responsibility for his crime (1)? Although in the future Neuroscientists are looking at the possibility of memory downloading, or the ability to retrieve an individuals memory from their brain and store it in an alternative location, which presents numerous issues including whether or not police would need a warrant to search an individuals skull, presently technology is being developed which focuses on predicting the future. This technology aims to predict whether an individual is prone to violence or criminal action and must be utilized with extreme caution (1) as “it is near the core of our justice system that we reward people, punish them, or hold them responsible for their actions, not their thoughts (or potential actions)” (4). If at all flawed, this technology could also lead to the punishment of many innocent individuals.

The possibilities that Neuroscientific discovery provide for the American legal system are ever expanding, inspiring, and thought provoking. While Neuroscience does have the potential to revolutionize the justice system in the United States, more proof must be provided before lives are put at stake. Although brain imaging results have already been utilized in the court of law (3), it has been argued that Neuroscience has less potential to revolutionize the legal system than it does to change the way the public views criminal activity, responsibility, free will, and choice (5). However, as has already been shown, Neuroscience will play a role in American law. Thus, techniques must be further developed and refined, which time will allow for. It is also important that both scientists and those involved in the legal system cautiously analyze both the methods used and the outcomes such methods will provide. Until new Neuroscientific measures can be proven, they cannot be trusted in the court of law. Only time will tell whether our faith and excitement in “Neurolaw” will show fruitful results, or prove to have been just a great expectation?

One of the main issues about the concept of color is whether color is a physical property of something in the world around us or whether it is a mental property which is not present in the external world. (1) I had always tended to take for granted that what I saw in front of my eyes was reality. Similarly, I assumed that color was an external property of the world; the red car that we are driving is universally red, the green tree is always green regardless of whether or not we are there to perceive it. However, upon entering this neurobiology class, I learned quite the opposite; according to what I have now been taught, there are in fact scientific theories that suggest that color is not an exterior property, but rather a construction of the brain completely independent of wavelengths. The fact that there could be two opposite theories, both with substantial and valid evidence supporting their claims, made me question the things that I so readily believed and lead me to investigate each side’s arguments in an attempt to make my own evaluation. I therefore looked into the arguments both of scientists who believed that color was and was not a physical property of the world presented and the research that they believed supported their claim. Their claims rely on elements such as research conducted which proves the existence of conscious color perception in certain blind patients, the existence of color constancy, afterimages and simultaneous color contrasts, and research suggesting that early visual experience is indispensable for normal color perception. This paper will first describe a few of the arguments in favor of color subjectivism and then compare them with research and studies that seem to indicate that there is wavelength realism to color in order to then come up with an opinion on which one must adequately describes color.

This paper addresses the question of the definition of suggestion and some of its effects. More importantly, I address the overall or basic question of the power of suggestion. To do this I have chosen to look at scientific and non-scientific notions of the effects of suggestion particularly focusing on hypnosis and hypnotherapy. I do this with the intent of showing how much we as people are susceptible to forces that can alters us in powerful ways as well as bring into question what are those filter mechanisms that we use to counterbalance the potentially powerful effects of suggestion.

Obesity has been described as a condition in which the human body’s natural energy source, fatty tissues, has increased beyond a threshold and is thus attributing to other serious health risks, including higher mortality rates. It has become a serious public health problem, especially here in the United States, for more than half of the U.S. population lies in this category. Excessive weight on the body has, over time, shown to lead to cardiovascular diseases, diabetes type II, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, sleep apnea, and osteoarthritis, just to name a few. Researchers have been studying the causes behind of what seems to be such a preventable condition; however, many whom have dieted unsuccessfully have found that losing the weight is not as simple as it initially seems. It is not as easy as society has made it seem, making obesity a disability of this country, much like color blindness or tone deafness. Researchers studying obesity have looked to the set weight theory as a probable cause for much of America’s obesity problem, and have learned that the set weight theory holds some truths.

Laughter can be heard during the most inappropriate times; during a funeral, without any noticeable reason, or after a very bad joke. Others may wonder why a person would laugh without what people would consider as normal stimuli for laughter. Most would consider tickling, a funny joke, or a release in tension as normal stimuli for laughter. Is a person rebelling against social boundaries and expectations or being insensitive when he or she laughs as he or she administers shocks to someone next door? Parts of the limbic system are involved in laughter. The limbic system is a primitive part of the brain that is involved in emotions and helps us with basic functions necessary for survival.

“The brain is a full-fledged sexual organ,” wrote Nicholas Wade in the New York Times Science section (1). Although the not first bodily structure to spring to mind—I can think of a few more prevalent organs—this idea follows logically with what we know about the brain, as well as how the brain relates to other systems within the body. Like the gonads, the brain has an active role in the endocrine system. There are physical differences between the brains of the two sexes, just like the genitalia, which lead to differences in sexual behavior. Our sex behaviors, whether involving the I-function or not, all stem from the brain.

Abstract:

Previously consciousness has been a concept to which only philosophers, and later psychologists, have aspired to describing. However, it is now believed that neuroscience may offer a means for reaching a better understanding of consciousness, including locating a neurological correlate of consciousness (5). The phenomenon known as “blindsight” has given rise to several rounds of research that have produced multiple theories pertaining to visual consciousness, the consequences of which force one to question previous notions of awareness, experience and the mind-body relationship. This paper begins to examine some of the major theories that have emerged from studies of blindsight and discuss their implications on our previous notions of consciousness, including as it relates to Aristotle’s notion of the soul. Within this subject, there are yet to be any truths to conclude. Consequently the goal of this paper is not to innumerate truth, but instead to provoke thought about everyday experiences of consciousness.