Welcome ...
Submitted by Paul Grobstein on Tue, 01/23/2007 - 9:57am.
Glad you're here, to share thoughts about neurobiology and behavior. This isn't a place for polished writing or final words. Its a place for thoughts in progress: questions, ideas you had in class (or afterwords), things you've heard or read or seen that you think others might find interesting. Think of it as a public conversation, a place to put things from your mind/brain that others might find useful and to find things from others (in our class and elsewhere) that you might find useful. And a place we can always go back to to see what we were thinking before and how our class conversations have affected that. Looking forward to seeing where we go, and hoping you are too.
Do you believe in magic
After reading the article “Do You Believe in Magic?” in this week’s edition of the Science Times I became overwhelmed with a plethora of unanswered questions. Seeing that I now have a captive audience I would like to draw on your opinions and ideas. The article described magical thoughts as a way of soothing everyday fears and mental distresses; basically a way to relieve insecurity and form simple hypotheses in uncertain situations. Most people are aware that their magical beliefs and rituals are irrational, but there are those whose magical thoughts develop into delusion or psychosis. My question is at what point do these “magical thoughts” or superstitions move from the internal self to the physical self? Is there a point where a thought will manifest itself into a physical hindrance? I then recalled the concept of the evil eye. Many of you are probably not familiar with the evil eye, but coming from a superstitious Italian family I have been forewarned of its consequences and will share them with you. The folklore of the evil eye is present in many cultures and the most basic form is a result of envy elicited by the good fortune of a person eventually resulting in their misfortune. The envious person will unknowingly bestow a curse on a victim with a malevolent stare. In some cases the evil eye will cause misfortune and in others it may result in illness and even death (my grandmother insists it is the cause of her migraines).
The fact that this concept is present in a variety of cultures, in my mind, gives it a certain degree of validity, but that doesn’t make it fact. In my opinion, the wishes or thoughts of one person couldn’t possible effect another in the way described. I’m not saying that if you think about harming someone that it can’t happen because nothing is preventing you from getting up and physically hurting a person. In this case, could the noted physical ailments be the result of the internal anxiety of the fortunate person. It would be much more believable for me to assume that the thoughts of a person can manifest themselves physically in that person, and not in another. But can a thought, anxiety or desire of a person result in an illness? And what about other thoughts and beliefs that are said to manifest themselves physically, like stigmata? Is this further evidence of the idea, or just an easy way to connect two phenomena?
"magic"
This is something I toy with a lot, the whole question of whether or not thoughts can influence our external world and those around us. I think yes to some degree, but... It's all such a murky business. Too many variables are involved in this argument. Do fortunate people suffer because others are thinking negative thoughts or is it because the fortunate person is paranoid and projecting their own anxiety onto someone else? How is it possible to measure something like that? It's all so subjective.
Superstitions were a relatively simple way of making sense of the world in a time when not much was known about it. But does that mean that these modes of thought are meaningless in today's world? In a way, we're even more uncertain about the world now than we were a few centuries ago. Physicists in the beginning of the last century thought they had solved all of the world's great mysteries. Then they realized that they really knew nothing at all and we're still not any closer to unraveling our world's secrets. What's to say that the major points we're teaching in science textbooks now won't change in ten years? It's almost guaranteed that they will. What's to say that these superstitions don't reveal something important about ourselves and about the natural world at large?
I know that everyone and their brother has seen this movie and talked about it to death, but this seems like something straight out of What the Bleep Do We Know? And the whole concept does make sense in a way. After all, if thoughts supposedly arise from physical structures (i.e. neural connections) then why can't thoughts influence those physical structures in turn?
Not magic but intention; science & periodic paradigmatic changes
Heather, you bring up a two provocative questions. First you questioned the extent to which our thoughts can influence our external world. Non-denominational modern spiritual leaders, such as Dwayne Dyer and Deepak Chopra, have outlined methods by which we can understand how our thoughts can influence our external world. In The Secrets of the Power of Intention: Learning to Co-create the Your World Your Own Way, Dyer demonstrates several ways in which our thoughts contribute to the “realities” or “truths” in the real world. He argues that there is a source energy from which life is created. Essentially, what you focus your attention on taps into the source energy; you will manifest or bring into actuality. Similarly fears and thoughts of scarcity can be created if they are focused on.
Dyer states: “Our individual thoughts create a prototype in the universal mind of intention. You and the power of intention are never separate. So when you form a thought within you that is in harmony with spirit or commensurate with spirit you form a spiritual prototype that connects you with intention and this sets into motion the manifestation of all your desires.” (The Secrets of the Power of Intention)
While Dyer’s philosophy has some of the characteristics of magic which you mentioned and may be harder to credit, there are more clearly cut physically measurable to observe this connection. Dr. Chopra mentions a study in The New Physics of Healing. (Unfortunately, I am recalling this from memory and cannot provide more specifics at this time.) Two groups of approximately seventy elderly people were isolated over the course of a week. One group was told to pretend it was 1950. They were given 1950s style clothing, records, and newspapers. For them it was 1950. Another group was told to reminisce about the past and think back to former years. At the end of the week the first group who actively lived in the 1950s showed diminished signs of stress, lower cholesterol levels, and generally in better shape than when they entered the study to outsiders unfamiliar with the study this group looked younger than the second group. Although the second group which merely reminisced about the past demonstrated some improvement, they were not as extensive as the other groups. Once both groups were removed from outside influences dictating that their age was associated with decreasing mental and physical acuity, they became better. Without commercials telling them to expect urinary incontinence, brittle bones and dementia they both looked and felt better.
Regarding your second question about the nature of science, we all recognize (or should) that science will change even its current most fundamental truths may not stand the test of time. This is also why it is critically important for scientists to know history and to be familiar with the history of science. By history, I do not mean the superficial treatment of history which only emphasizes the discovery of developments currently favored—a crime which is often committed. History of both ‘failures’, false leads, temporarily accepted and rejected ideas, must all be considered. An appreciation for the different aspects of civilization must also be appreciated. In this respect the former 1979 television show Connections with James Burke, helped people to think more creative and less linearly about the development of science and technology. Though in and of itself a more simplistic presentation of the scientific, it nevertheless demonstrated how economic, artistic, personal, governmental interested merge together both in the development of new technologies and the in the development of scientific constructs.
We can understand that truths accepted now will soon be rejected. What widely held beliefs will we reject in 30 years? 50 years? The history of science reveals periodic paradigm shifts. In our attempts to ‘unravel our world’s secrets’ we plop down the jig saw puzzle pieces. With each new piece of information we think the puzzle will be fall into place, but some pieces don’t quite fit into place. Soon we realize that the puzzle which we thought was two dimensional is in fact three dimensional—like a rubics cube merged with a Sudoku pattern.
A perhaps more important question to ask: can we only accept truths which we can handle? Are truths already accessible, only revealing themselves when a group is ready to accept them. Or do truths matter? "Untruths" —beliefs judged to be false—are just as influential and powerful if not more so.
science and magic
Talk about mind over matter. I've always wondered how exactly thoughts could influence our physical well-being so directly... Especially stress. How could stress-inducing thoughts fire off the release of certain neurotransmitters that result in the release of particular chemicals that produce physiological/ behavioral evidence of stress? Or are the chemicals resulting in the thoughts? Or is this whole thing worded much too incoherently to be followed? Probably. It's been a long day. In any case, it's amazing what happens when outside stress is taken away.
I love science and the history of it. It's not until you read about the actual theorizing processes behind much of modern science that you appreciate the fact that most scientists are nutjobs. So much of science is driven by competition, individual egos and pride. So much of what has been suggested in the past to explain natural phenomenon seem too ridiculous to believe... But then again, most of what we're taught today seems too ridiculous to believe. Am I really supposed to believe that I'm composed of tiny particles that I can't see? That negatively charged particles are attracted to compact positive centers and that they travel in standing waves? That when I touch a door or sit down, I'm not actually touching anything? I mean, hell... If we're made mostly of empty space, how come we can't walk through walls? How do I know that atoms really exist? I can see "evidence" of them in particle accelerators, but so what? What does it really mean? It's hard to place faith in something that we can't even see, that we have no direct evidence of. Yet we do it all the time, just because authority figures with the right degrees tell us so.
But I guess that's another neat thing about science... It's not really the absolute truth. It's just one systematic way of processing that we impose on the world- another way to label and categorize it. We can have fun changing things around and adopting new explanations of how things really work as we reach dead ends and find new routes to get around them.
What the Bleep...
You know, after watching that movie and reading about the individuals involved in the commentary, I really started wondering about the "truths" that we take for granted concerning our brain and perception of reality . I'm reading this book called " The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot, and he discusses a theory that is more similar to the one involving Dickinson, that everything is a projection of the mind. However, more than that, we have within us the ability to acess everything that ever was and ever will be. He discusses universal conciousness and how it could be possible with a holographic model to be instantaneously connected to everything in the universe.
One of the most interesting examples I read about involved controlled experiments with LSD. Patients who were put on LSD therapy almost unanimously experienced 'memories' of being in the womb, recounting facts about their mother's pregnancy, heartbeats, birth, ,that were amazingly detailed and medically accurate but beyond the patient's education level. Patients also experienced hallucinations in which they relived wars, the lives of their relatives, ancestors, plants and animals. One even hallucinated that she was a female dinosaur and identified a colored patch of scales on the head of male dinosaurs that she thought was particularly sexy. The scientist who conducted the studies researched all of the information in these hallucinations and discovered that it was true, from the materials used in mummification, to battles fought in wars, to even the fact that certain male lizards have bright head patches that females find irresistable. Talbot argues that by changing the brain's chemistry with drugs ( and other, less dangerous methods) it is possible to tap into a collective consciousness that is normally inaccessible.
How cool is that? I mean, it could all be a coincidence, but I'm convinced that there is so much more to the universe than we consider in our day to day lives, and that even though the brain may control a great deal of our physical body, there is something else that we remain ignorant of.
About dreams
Wow. That reminds me a lot of dreams friends have told me about... Dreams of past lives, like of being warriors in feudal Japan for instance, that are amazingly detailed. Although the people I've heard these things from could easily have made these dreams up, I somehow doubt it. It's a recurring theme and I think there might be something to it. The idea that we can access things with our minds that we usually think are impossible to access is just... incredible. But it's just so hard to really look at these things objectively. We're not outside observers, looking at consciousness and how the human mind really works and interacts with the environment. We're very much human and we're stuck inside of the system. I don't see a way in which we could look into ourselves and figure it all out, especially when one gets into metaphysics and starts questioning whether or not what our senses tell us can be trusted.
How much of "me" is my choice?
I just had a long conversation that got me thinking.
I possess a unique character, or at least I hope so for everyone else’s sake. I have some things that I am just awful at, and some things that I will admit I am good at. For example, if you give me a pencil I can draw a pretty handsome stick figure, but I can barely plunk out “heart and soul” on a piano. I’m just not “a natural” pianist. I think most people would agree that the fact that piano doesn’t come easily to me is a genetic trait (but feel free to contradict that statement). Now, if I wanted to, I could practice piano every day for 15 years and I’ll bet you that eventually I’d be good at it. With time and work, I can teach myself a skill that I don’t intrinsically possess. In other words, though I didn’t inherit a talent for piano, I can force my brain to learn it. Truthfully however, I’m still not “a natural” pianist, so, did I really change anything about my inherited character? I certainly did not change my genes. Can we really change our characters, or is it the most we can do to make choices to act out of accordance with them?
This was a silly example, but you can see that it could be applied to more serious topics as well. Take someone who gets addicted to things really easily. That person could fight their tendency toward addiction and not ever actually be addicted to anything, but does that change the fact that he or she has that character trait? Then again, maybe that’s just the point: You can’t change your genes, but you have the ability to act against your natural tendencies from them, which is an interesting idea in itself.
Always love to hear feedback~
I think it was John Watson
I think it was John Watson who claimed that if he were given a dozen infants and a specific world to raise them in, he could bring each one up to be any kind of person with any kind of talent and career. I personally think that's impossible to that degree, but there is some truth to it, just as you said about practicing the piano and possibly gaining a skill you don't currently have. I think we do have a certain amount of control when it comes to acting against our "natural tendencies" as you said. I also think that timing has a lot to do with it. We have more opportunities to develop skills when we're younger, though certain skills may come more easily to certain people.
There was a study done a few years ago on perfect pitch and tonal languages. Perfect pitch is a relatively rare gift (at least in our culture), but in countries that speak tonal languages, it is more frequent. In the study, people speaking tonal languages, such as Mandarin, were recorded saying the same things at many different times and in different situations, and each time, they used the same pitches. Perhaps many skills we believe to be "gifts" are actually possible for all people to learn, but we don't exercise them enough or learn them early enough to make use of them.
I'd say more, but I'm about to be late for this class.
can practice make perfect?
eden--
i think you answered your own question toward the end of your response when you wrote "you can't change your genes, but you have the ability to act against your natural tendencies." i too, find this a very interesting idea in that it seems to go against all we have been taught about how our dna makes us who we are. as you said, despite your lack of piano viturosity, if you were to practice everyday you would become competent at the piano. although you would not be changing the message from your genes which says that you are not a natural pianist, everyday that you practice you would be building new and stronger connections in your brain which would allow your fingers to respond more and more easily to the messages from the brain telling them what to do. i'm sure as the course goes on we will able to answer more thoroughly how these new connections occur, but for now we must settle with the idea that although your genes cannot change, their must be processes within your brain that are changing to enable your skills to improve.
you also asked whether this practice would change your inherited character and i think that it does to some degree. although your chemical "character" does not change, your starting position from birth told you that you would unlikely be able to play the piano well. by fighting this tendency and becoming a fair musician you have changed your outward character although not chemical.
as a music major and bio minor i am very excited to learn more about subjects like this which can combine my too interests. i hope we can talk more about topics like this.
re: How much of "me" is my choice?
Hi, Eden. I'm glad you brought up the topic of effort vs. ability, however, I cannot unreservedly agree with your assertion. I agree that with practice we can learn skills that we do not have an innate knowledge of or ability for, as this is the nature of learning. Though I disagree with you when you argue that with 15 years of practice you could become a good pianist. Maybe you could, I don’t really know you, but the point I’m trying to make is that while one would certainly improve with 15 years of practice and, as Leigh pointed out, they would develop muscle memory thus altering their consciousness, they could never become the next Franz Liszt. Effort is certainly important for improving one’s skills, but ability is imperative. If success were only a matter of effort, maybe I wouldn’t have to watch Peyton Manning play in the super bowl.
However, I do think that your main point/question about our ability to go against our natural tendencies is very interesting. How autonomous am I really? Who knows? But I am interested in your point that we do have the ability to go against our natural tendencies. But then how much of our decision to go against these tendencies is really our own choice and how much is ruled by heteronomous factors? I suppose the question doesn't really have an answer.
brain = behavior?
Yes, brain = behavior seems like a pretty good story right now. The technology of the day has allowed us to witness the brain and nervous system activity in correlation with behavior. Perhaps is another 100 years there will be some new type of microscope or scanning device that allows us to see something else –something incapable of being seen using the technology that we have today –that we might identify as “mind matter”, but until that day, that equation will suffice, for me. That is not say however that the equation is perfect. Brain = Behavior seems far too simplified. While I do believe, as Francis Crick proposes, that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells ... and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them", I do not think it is quite as cut and dry as that quote suggests. I think it is likely that the brain is influenced by other factors? I am not suggesting that the brain works in conjunction with some sort of ethereal spirit, mind or soul. Rather, I propose that the environment influences chemicals and/or hormones in the brain and throughout the body that in turn react with neurons that ultimately determine behavior. We have the technology to monitor chemicals, hormones and brain activity. It is apparent that something of this nature is going on, yet the debate continues. Why?
Perhaps people are unhappy with or disturbed by the thoughts that run through their “mind”, or the voices, emotions and urges that they recognize but suppress rather than act out. On one hand, it is seems easy to simply write these things off as the result of some supernatural power (mind or spirit). On the other hand, it seems equally, if not more convenient and legitimate to explains these things by saying that they are the outcome of a chemical imbalance. One possible explanation is that the latter justification (the chemical imbalance story) makes people feel like they are to blame for their emotions, urges and inner dialogues because they can control their environment which may subsequently determine the release of chemicals and hormones. My placing the blame on some higher power it leaves people free of guilt.
The theory that mind and body are indistinguishable, and Emily Dickinson’s view that everything is a creation of the mind is somewhat troubling to me. If everything that we perceive –the sky, trees, computers, food –is all just a creation of the mind, then watching my own hand type this is simply a creation of my mind as well. Furthermore, it is just down right confusing to think about the implications of seeing an MRI of the brain.
Questions that arise for me while pondering this theory are: If humans do have this thing called a mind, evolutionarily why do we have it? Genetically speaking, how is it passed on? If brain=behavior is the entire equation then what sort of impact does that have on things like religion?
Placing Blame
Stacy, I think you bring up a very interesting idea about guilt. It presents the question: what is the human motivation for believing in a “higher power?” Certainly, many people would argue that their belief in a higher power is for religious reasons, for guidance or for assistance in answering those “difficult questions” but those may not be the only reasons. I interpreted from your post that you are suggesting that the higher power can potentially act as a scapegoat so that people who have behavioral or emotional difficulties have an outlet or a target at which they can attribute their difficulties.
The difficulty that I see with being able to place blame on some higher power is the fact that then you must question the nature of the higher power. Is this a loving higher power? Is it fair? Why would it give someone a condition such as depression/epilepsy/cancer/etc.? I feel as though these are common questions even among those who are highly religious. And true, being able to place blame may eliminate my own guilt but it doesn’t seem to eliminate frustration with the higher power in which I believe. Why would this higher power do such a thing to me and let me suffer? If I have depression, and the higher power is responsible in some way for this condition, then I am not truly in control of myself or my actions. In some ways it seems to contradict the human belief that we have free-will.
I am not sure that being able to blame a higher power for the possible guilt associated with a chemical/hormonal imbalance is actually going to resolve the issue. So then for me, I am led to question how I should generally feel about my behavioral condition and I am stuck in my Western ideals in looking for someone or something to blame.
Moral Code?
To extend Holly and Stacey’s lines of questioning, what are we to make of moral/ethical behavior in the context of brain vs. spirit? If morality is inextricably linked to spiritual constructs of right and wrong in Western thought, does this mean you cannot behave morally without a belief in a “higher power?” Are morals always present in behavior? In my mind, at least, the term virtue is nearly indistinguishable from moral. I think of church sanctions and the Golden Rule but I cannot wrap my mind around why, biologically speaking, most human beings follow these “virtuous” imposed standards for behavior. What is keeping us (for the most part) on the straight and narrow? Are we simply programmed to be good or is virtuous just a label used in the material world to describe accepted forms of behavior?
Some other lingering questions: Is there a chemical in our brains which makes certain people act in a reasonably moral way while others are hopeless social deviants? Is immorality/amorality just an excuse, as Holly proposes, for people who don’t fit the mold? Can we scientifically rehabilitate people’s behavior? This wraps back around to the question of accountability, blame, and the ultimate by-product, guilt. I would argue that guilt is a verifiable physical response to feelings of uncertainty. Guilt manifests itself in various ways, but in the context of moral issues, guilt makes us weigh our actions as either right or wrong, even though we may attempt to reason our way around being reprehensible. Is there a sliding scale to morality? Am I getting too far into philosophy here? Can any of my more esoteric-minded friends help me out?
Morality and Gender Identification
"Is there a chemical in our brain which makes certain people act in a reasonably moral way while others are hopeless social deviants?"
I am inclined to believe that the chemicals in our brain do influence the way we act. If they didn't, then antidepressants, OCD, ADD, ADHD, etc medications would be compeltely out of business. This would suggest that we can scientifically rehabilitate peope's behavior, but I don't know if it's meant to be in accordance with "morals." I guess morals are in and of themselves subjective, when you really get down to it. Is giving someone antidepressants conforming their mental state to a moral code, since you are biologically interfering with the way they operate? Do a person's morals change once on these kinds of mood-changing medications, since the goal is, ultimately, to change one's actions/ways of being in the world?
This ties in to one of the New York Times articles I was reading, the one called "Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn't Clear." It's basically about how (some) parents are encouraging their children to explore different possibilties of gender identification before making a "final" choice about which gender to identify with. Some parents put their children on medication to delay puberty in an attempt to give their child enough time to "find" her/himself. At first, I thought this was a brilliant idea, maybe only because any kind of avoidance of the confusion and embarassment of puberty seems worthwhile. I think these parents are ultimately delaying the inevitable, though, and fail to realize that figuring out which gender you identify with may be a lifelong process, and may even change during the course of your life. Is medication really worthwhile in this instance? How exactly does this medication affect the behavior of these children? And couldn't there possibley be emotional side effects from staying a "child" while your peers enter maturity?
I read that New York Times
I read that New York Times article as well, and have some of the same doubts. On one level, some of the ideas presented in it are very practical; I, for one, would be very much in favor of lining up children in class by sneaker color instead of gender. But in the end, how much is that really going to help anything? Even if you take every possible step to discourage gender stereotypes in the classroom, kids who identify strongly with the opposite gender (or don't identify strongly with either gender) will still feel left out, because the world outside that small classroom is still very much divided in binary gender. I'm reminded here of a case from the 1960's where a boy who acccidentally had his penis cut off as an infant was raised as a girl for a time-the common belief then was that gender was a social construct and completely malleable for 18 months or so. But this "girl," Brenda, never felt "right" in a female body, was teased and had severe depression throughout childhood and adolescence, and eventually chose to live as a man again. Clearly in this case there was some sort of biological factor at work-if gender were completely socially constructed, "Brenda" should have had little trouble adjusting to female life. But how much of this identity is biologically based? And what specific biological factors are involved? There are probably people in the world who would reduce the gender identity issue to hormone and brain chemical imbalances, but I'm positive there's more than that. (I was definitely a Descartes supporter in class). How did "Brenda" instinctively know that she didn't belong in a female body? And for other children in that position...would medications to delay puberty or adjust hormones relieve the problem or only add to the confusion?
some thoughts on behavior
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.
mind/soul versus brain
I was also one of the people who said they believed in Descartes' mind/soul theory... but I did so with some trepidation, as I believe very strongly that the brain, and its chemicals and neurons, etc., must be largely responsible for behavior. Genetics would come into play, as would brain damage, and many other things.
But I find it simplistic to argue one way or the other... and as I say this, I acknowledge that perhaps this is in itself a simplistic argument... but I can't imagine that the brain is SOLELY responsible for one's behavior. It is active at all times, and is definitely an essential aspect of a person's personality/behavior. I wouldn't dream to say that this isn't true. But, perhaps out of personal weakness (who was it that said that religion... I'll substitute spirituality here... was a crutch for the feeble-minded?), I just find it impossible to believe that there isn't something else... perhaps an energy, or something. I would find it unscientific to say that Descartes' theory explains everything. I would also, however, think it is perhaps too simplistic to think that the brain (with all its complexity) is responsible for one's behavior. It is always present, but can it really be the only part of a person that affects their actions, emotions, beliefs, etc?
Maybe I've just gotten the wrong end of the stick, and misunderstood the question... but I just wanted to put this out there, and see what people would say.
Why not a brain AND a soul?
I agree with the conversation above. It seems illogical to me to classify behavior as being caused either by the mind or soul. Rather, I believe that it is a combination and interaction of the two that cause behavior. As an ex-biology major and current lover of science, I have been conditioned to find the “right” or “logical” answer. I’ve always been drawn to the explanation that has the most hard data and information to back it up.
However, when it comes to the brain and behavior there remain a lot of gray areas. Although limited, our knowledge of the brain— for example that there are neurons, that different areas of the brain impact speech, movement, etc.-- leads me to believe that the brain must play a part in behavior. But what about the myriad of unexplained events and actions that occur over the course of a lifetime? There is no hard science to back these up. Cases abound that defy scientific precedence and explanation; with our limited technology it seems silly to attribute all behavior to the brain.
On the other hand, it could be that we have yet to develop the technology necessary to answer the questions we’re asking. Perhaps someday we will have the means to completely explain why people behave the way they do. However, if another entity or soul is partially responsible for our behavior then perhaps it will be impossible to ever nail down that explanation. Until we develop the technology to explain away all behavior, I’ll have to abandon my quest for a traditionally “scientific” explanation and believe that there is something else besides the mind that influences behavior.
On the fence (ouch!)
In the choosing of sides, I was a fence sitter (or an other) for some of the same reasons as listed above. I am a scientific person and I do understand that the brain is largely responsible for our behavior and our personality. I do understand that neurotransmitter and electric signals are responsible for our behavior, and yes I do believe this. Yet there is something that bothers me about this. Perhaps Savage Garden summarizes it best for me in their lyrics:
“Love and other moments
are just chemical reactions in your brain
And feelings of aggression
are the absence of the love drug in your veins
in your veins
Love come quickly
Because I feel my self esteem is caving in
It's on the brink”(Gunning Down Romance)
For me breaking down love into neurotransmitters is just too much for me, I feel like there has to be something else. In fact I am glad to see that there are other people who feel this way too. In light of all the scientific data and testing how come I cannot let go? Maybe it’s a feeling of control and, let’s replaces self esteem in the lyrics to self image or control. If everything is controlled by rapidly firing chemicals in our brains than who are we? Are we all just different proportions of these chemicals that determine our personalities? Maybe I simply cannot except the Emily Dickenson view because it would cause me to change my complete image of who I think I am (or lack there of?) and have to give all control over to my neurons.
If this is true if we are all just neurons and neurotransmitters what does this say about our actions? Can we be held responsible? I know we often look to these chemical imbalances to fix things such as depression and anxiety. I am okay with seeing these things as controlled by chemicals but, how come I want to be in control of love or happiness? I just cannot seem to decided, I feel like there must be something other than the brain. For now I am still on the fence (although pretty uncomfortable sounding) it is comfortable for me now and I look forward to making new observation and summaries so that I can explore this issue for myself, not just because a text book says so.
mind vs. body
Adding to the last few comments on mind= behavior, I do not agree with this equation either! Instead, I have come to see the relationship between the mind and brain (body) as a causal relationship. Through meditation I have learned that these are two distinct and separate entities that work together. This may seem extreme from a western perspective, but observing the impermanence of feelings and thoughts, I have come to believe in the Buddhist canon that there is no self, just the mind and body. I think that is the beauty of seeing the mind separate from the brain. It helps one understand that all things barely last a moment in time, and the mind has the ability to interpret the information in a better way. As a result, one’s behavior ultimately changes for the better. Non-living and living things do not need a mind to possess behavioral patterns. Behavior seems more simply how anything reacts in a given situation.
If the effects of the mind and body during meditation could be recorded and researched, I wonder if it would become popular. We all want facts and hard scientific research to validate observations. I only have my observations from personal accounts, those from teachers, and others who also practice mindfulness meditation to support that the mind is separate from the body (or brain). For me, it crudely, but succinctly explains why people behave the way we do. It is rooted in the idea of having an “I”, a self, or an ego, a belief in a creator, and the notion that things tend to be permanent. (Forgive me if I sound dogmatic- just putting out there my take on things!)
Innovation
I am a strong supporter that the brain’s physical properties control most of behavior. MRIs, neurotransmitters and the brain’s physiology are the logic behind many mental illnesses that were once considered as demonic possession. Based on neurobiology and other scientific fields, affective treatments are designed to correct any physiological deviations from the physical norm.
However, I feel behavior has a spiritual side because there are some aspects of human nature that seem unexplainable. My best example is human innovation. The most intellectual people do not always come up with new thoughts and technology. Sometimes, bright ideas come from the most unlikely people therefore any type of person is capable of innovation. There isn’t a pin point physiological reason for creativity though reasons such as environment or religion are often considered contributing factors.
What in the brain formulates new technology that drives our world forward? Why is there a varying range of people who have this ability to generate new and creative ideas? What common physiological link in their brain makes them inventors?
Perhaps, there is an intangible factor to behavior that science cannot justify. In my opinion, Descartes theory of dualism between the brain and the soul seem to explain the unexplainable.
Dickinson was off her rocker!
So, when it comes down to it, I think Emily Dickinson was crazy. I am not at all in implying that Decartes was right, and found truth, because as we addressed in class, and as I believe, science isn’t about truth (or even being right). But, if you ask me, DeCartes was on to something. Without getting too philosophical (and all scientific proof aside), I think that there is a mind. But, the mind and the nervous system are not mutually exclusive. I would like to think that there is free will and that I possess the capacity for individual thought. But the ability to choose does not come from some outside influence—I think it has everything to do with the brain. Maybe the brain has the capacity to serve as both material and “spiritual,” although I hesitate to use that terminology.
Dickinson was right—the brain’s capacity, like the sea, is infinite, and I am a strong believer in that. But, the idea that you, and I, and everything I can see right now is somehow only present because I perceive it is a crock. I think these things exist, with or without me, in my reality and in yours. But, I believe my presence allows me to perceive it my way. It just reminded me so strongly of that old conundrum: If a tree falls in the forest… you know the rest. Though there is no way to prove it, because there are in fact no witnesses, I am inclined to say that if while I am present a tree makes a sound, and makes one every time as I am present, then my summary of these observations is that when a tree falls, it makes a sound. Whether or not I am present is irrelevant, and I see no reason to doubt it. So why should “reality” be any different. Time and time again, I see you (in a very uncreepy way) and others see you, and you see you. You are acknowledged; you exist. My summary of these observations: you exist; even if I wasn’t present, you would still exist—maybe not as my friend, or my classmate, or whatever you are to me (my perception of you), but you still exist.
And this brings me back to my first point/contemplation: perception is most definitely a working of the brain. Specific cells are involved in the process, and all we see and hear and do is perceived by us through this process. And, how I perceive a certain situation influences a choice I make about that situation, choosing being a function of the mind. So, the “mind” cannot exist without the brain, and the two are most definitely overlapping—can I say—functions of the same system.
Dickinson and Perception
I think that Dickinson had a great point. Everything around us is an invention of the brain. That’s not to say that my perception of an apple is any different from your perception of the same apple. It is red with some patches of yellow, somewhat spherical, and has a stem on the top. We are both human and are both wired to ‘see’ the apple in the same way—our eyes see the same red, our hands feel the same smoothness of the skin. Perhaps that apple was grown in Minnesota; I’m from Minnesota so that adds another connection for me. But it is still my brain that is making the link between the time I lived in Minnesota and the apple, not some outside mind. My perception of something makes it real to me, and my other experiences—stored in my brain—give perception more meaning.Just because our world springs from our brain, that doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as individual thought. Our source of individuality is different genetic make-up and life experiences. Through our own development we become individuals. Nicki brought up the “If a tree falls...” example, and her summary of observations is that if no one is present, the tree will still make a sound. I’m inclined to disagree, if only to be the devil’s advocate. The trend is that when trees fall in forests, they make noise, but that’s only because we are there to perceive the sound. Something only happens if it is observed. You’re walking in the forest and you come across a tree that is no longer upright; the assumption is that it fell because of your summary of past observations. But who knows, the tree could have gotten in that horizontal position by some phenomena other than falling.Something is real if it is observed. Not all observations of the same thing are the same. We are individuals, but only through the perception of our experiences.
Are all apples created equal?
Sarah, I think it is interesting that you bring up the apple example as it links to something that I often ponder. Yes, we both say that the apple is red and spherical, but is my red your red? We agree to call that color red because that is what we are taught but maybe my red looks more like what you call your green and your red look more like what I call my purple. So then what does this mean for our perception? Is it like Dickinson said and our perception is only in our brains, or is there something else? As technology grows will we ever be able to know if my apple = your apple. I guess it would be rather frightening to think that it might not as this opens up the doors for lot of other complications. Might this explain preferences? Why we all do not enjoy spicy food? or why your friend at the coffee shop doesn’t think that person sitting in the corner is all that cute?
An ongoing argument perhaps?
Perception and existence are frightening things to think about. Several people have commented on this already, but the more I sit here and think about them, the more confused and baffled I become. Part of me says that the tree falls whether or not I am there to experience it. That makes sense, right? A part of me that begs for normalcy, consistency, and predictability wants the tree to fall so badly. But another part of me questions it. If nobody sees it fall, hears it fall, or otherwise, then how can we say what happened? Niqui also ventures to say that a person exists even if she never knows him, never hears him, and never sees him. He exists still. But does he? If somehow nobody in the world ever knows of, sees, or hears this one single person, then how can he exist? So define existence. Legally its having records. Having a name, an age, a family. Socially its being seen and heard and noticed. But if you have none of that? He exists only to himself, to his own mind and to nobody elses. And when he dies? When the only record of his life is erased, could this really mean that he never existed at all? But I can hear Niqui now....Physically, he took up space, his body was created out of matter that existed and will decompose into matter that still does exist. Matter cannot just form from thin air and disappear when it so chooses. So then it becomes clear: existence is two-faced. Physically he exists, but that pile of decomposed person doesnt say anything about the thoughts that went along with him. There has to also be a more psychological, or philosophical existence that accompanies this.... This isn't to say that I'm not still confused-- because I am-- this is just to say that maybe Dickinson was right, there has to be a mind behind the physical matter to make things plausible....
brain and behavior
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.
Hard To Define
I think that attempting to define behavior as the product of the brain is a good start in trying to understand the connection between brain and behavior. Behavior is based on many more influences than just brain activity, such as an individual's upbringing, the environment in which an individual chooses to surround themselves with, etc.
Although I agree with Dickinson's idea that the without the brain our surroundings would not exist, I feel as if her theory is incomplete. She does not go on to explain the actual mechanics of the brain, which is a critical component of understanding behavior. I believe that Francis Crick's hypothesis fills in the gaps that Dickinson failed to address, in that he uses the behavior of nerve cells to explain behavior. Decartes theory, that describes a spiritual element of the brain, is also true but the spirutual component is not so intangible. In the article "Is God in Our Genes", published in Time Magazine, it describes how some people have more of a capacity for spirituality than others and how a gene has been located in the human genome that codes for spirituality. I do not consider myself to be religious or spiritual by any means, so I find some truth and comfort in the fact that we can understand how some people are predisposed to being more spiritual than others.
Descartes, The Original Gangster
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.
Descartes, The Original Gangster
The hip hop culture slang term original gangster refers to 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 Descartes for his importance in laying the foundations for thought in this field.
Brain = Behavior
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.
Good point! There are
Good point! There are other techniques that allow researchers to record directly from cells in real time. However I believe this is also limited because it gives a skewed perspective of only the patterns of activations of those bunch of cells, what about the other hundreds of thousands of cells that are simultaneously being activated. Hopefully one day technology will allow for the real time recording of everything that is going on in the brain, this task probably much easier said than done.
brain <=> behavior
I don’t disagree with your statement that environmental factors, etc. affect behavior, but it’s also important to be aware of how they alter the brain. For example, brain scans of patients receiving treatment for OCD have shown that both cognitive behavioral therapy and drug therapy produce the same changes in the brain. It’s also interesting to note how behavior itself can alter the brain. I think the brain is intricately linked with all behavior, but we simply lack the tools at this time to understand its full capabilities.
I agree with an above poster that people don’t give the brain enough credit. Current research, to me at least, increasingly suggests that the brain is involved in everything we do. Our environment influences our behavior, yes, but I believe this influence is mediated through the brain.
So I guess I agree with brain = behavior, but I’m also torn because I don’t fully agree with Emily Dickinson’s view.
Picking a Team
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…
Language-Behavior with biological and non-biological influences
Sorry I wrote this message in response to a post on brain and language in another course forum (362) by a student there. Although parts of the message responds rather directly with the original post, I do explicitly deal with the issue of brain and behavior. Here, the issue of socially vs. biologically determined language use is taken up. In variation of the “neurobiology vs. soul” dichotomy we’ve developed, I argue that this specific set of behaviors (language use) has both a social and biological constitution, or in other words is influenced by both biological and non-biological (this is how I interpret “soul”) factors. I don't think its particularly useful or informing to develop absolutist "soul" vs. "brain" camps while talking about human experience, but I do think it will make for more lively class discussions.
James
(message below)
I’m also interested in the development of language. In the case of Creole, however, I would argue that the language itself involved not the spontaneous generation (or ‘invention’) of a completely novel linguistic system, but rather the modification of preexisting linguistic conventions in a social space inhabited by speakers of different languages. This process was probably more gradual than spontaneous (in a temporal sense), in that it didn’t develop in the space of a few weeks or months, but rather over the course of years and decades, through the everyday interaction of different groups of people. In the example of the deaf boy who learned to gesticulate towards his family, one might question the extent to which the invented sign language constitutes a complex language system as compared with more traditionally conceived systems (languages). Also, if the boy were absent from the social companionship constituted by his family, would he still have developed the ability to use hand signals? Here, I think, the “critical age hypothesis” is worth mentioning, if for no other reason that it suggests an inborn biological component to language acquisition. This hypothesis suggests that the first years of a child’s life constitute a critical period for language acquisition- Within this timeframe, a child will naturally acquire language in a social setting; After this time period, the individual will be less able to acquire language in a social setting.
There is some reading available on the internet pertaining to so-called “feral child syndrome” in which case children growing in the absence of human contact will be either
for periods superceding the “critical period” (roughly, the first four to five years) of language acquisition, the individual has severely limited language and communicative faculties, and is minimally able develop socially and linguistically thereafter. One well-known (and tragic) case study was that of “Genie”, a child left alone for a number of years, and thereafter brought into contact with linguists/scientists who tried to help as best they could. Here is the first link found on Google when searching for “Genie”, but if you are interested, there is quite a bit of reading on both the critical period hypothesis and feral child syndrome:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php
Another interesting series of observations relate to stroke victims and aphasiacs, whose language disorders have been causatively linked with damage to specific regions of the broca’s center, a region of the left cerebral hemisphere linked with motor mechanisms governing articulated speech.
That said, language might not be an all-or-nothing ‘biological vs. social’ phenomena, and there are observations and theories that suggest to suggest that both anatomy and social setting contribute to early language acquisition and subsequent use patterns. I’m not sure whether this is at all relevant to messages other than Natsu’s, but her original message made me think about language as a biological or social construct. I’m interested in reading more rigorously scientific material, if anyone has any suggestions for a textbook or articles explaining specific aspects of brain anatomy as they relate to language use and motor skills.
A more tangential (but interesting) topic that comes to mind when thinking about neurobiology and language is that of the evolution of language and handedness as interpreted through the fossil record. When I was in college, a current topic in archaeology and physical anthropology was the development of the biological capacity for language use, as marked by morphological variation in our archeologically unearthed ancestors (Archaic Homo Sapiens ). One argument suggested that the increasing complexity of brain anatomy correlated with the development of handedness and language systems. While it seems fairly straightforward to suggest that, as our brains became more complex, they were better able to perform the mental functions associated with language use, the interest in handedness involved analyses by archaeologists that suggested the preferential use of left or right handed instruments, based on tooth decay patterns in individual skeletons, as well as on wear patterns on stone tools, which corresponded, chronologically, to changes in brain anatomy (or at least cranial anatomy) and remnants of writing. There was also some speculation about the correlation of handedness and language use, but it might be best to consult anthropology or archeology journals and articles for a more accurate account of the research. I also think Janet Monge, who used to teach at Bryn Mawr may have done some relevant research.
Stuttering and the Brain
I was really interested by the article in the New York Times ("To Fight Stuttering, Doctors Look at the Brain"), which basically said that the brains of people who stutter work almost entirely differently than those of people who do not stutter. The discovery that stuttering is actually somewhat caused by the brain is revolutionary, not only because it has the possibility to disprove the current belief that stuttering is caused by someone who is suffering from a nervous disorder, but also because it will vastly improve the lives of a myriad of people.
Over the years, I have known many people who suffered from stuttering; most had mild case of it, but others were plagued by severe stammering. In many situations, it gave them unwanted attention and made them feel embarrassed. My boyfriend, who has stuttered his entire life, did the same things that were mentioned in the article as coping mechanisms; he answered questions in class in different voices, because he didn't stutter when he impersonated someone else, or he didn't answer at all, because it was so debilitating that he complete an entire sentence without fighting to get it out. Though it is possible for him to go for weeks without stammering, it invariably returns during times of anxiety and stress. Personally, I was one of the children who stuttered as a small child, but grew out of it without needing the aid of speech therepy; however, I am still prone to bouts of stammering at random, normally stressful, times.
By treating stuttering as a legitimate disease, it is possible to pinpoint the source, which scientists are currently in the midst of doing, and find a drug that will be able to minimize the amount and severity of stuttering that some people suffer from. This could not only improve their speaking skills, but also their general quality of life.
A different equation
I don't think that brain=behavior is a solid equation for the relationship between the two. When I see this equation (being a math major) i see brain is behavior and I completely disagree. I believe the brain enables behavior and that behavior is a function that uses the brain as an operator or i guess the way i am thinking of it would be more similar to a calculator or pencil and paper, something that can compute. Its a larger equation that maps thoughts (input) onto actions/feelings/etc. (output). However these inputs do not necessarily have only one output or even different outputs for any given situation. I think these combinations are what make the brain wider than the sky because no matter what values are put in we recieve a calculation and have the ability to manipulate those calculations. I also have been thinking about active changes in behavior, and maybe i to my last sentence it is just a manipulation, but if one makes an active effort to change a behavior and suceeds in doing so then does that also cause a change in the brain? This question I think makes more sense if you think of the brain and mind as seperate things because it's hard to think of an actual change in the brain on a material level as if rewiring the calculator. Or is it that people can't actually change their behavior and we have no control over it because brain=behavior and you have what you are born with although in many other areas one being learning you can most certainly posses more knowledge. So is behavior learned?
Hear hear!
"I believe the brain enables behavior and that behavior is a function that uses the brain as an operator or i guess the way i am thinking of it would be more similar to a calculator or pencil and paper, something that can compute... I think these combinations are what make the brain wider than the sky because no matter what values are put in we recieve a calculation and have the ability to manipulate those calculations."
Word.
How Aware is Your Brain?
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.
I think, therefore I am . . . a bundle?
I certainly do find it instructive to consider the Cartesian take on the self—mind and body as separate entities—in order to better understand the rather modern, ever-evolving scientific study of the brain and behavior. However, I much prefer Hume's notion of the self as a great big bundle, or mass of predications.
As opposed to Cartesian dualism's rationalist approach, Hume forged a far more empirical conception of who we were, who we are today, and perhaps who we will become. The thought that each of us is an intricate web constructed entirely of ideas personally appeals to me, as someone who views experience as a crucial ingredient of life. On the other hand, this raises a handful of somewhat frightful questions: are we nothing more than a collection of attributes? And if so, do we have any say in the matter? Or are we hardwired from birth with certain associations and configurations?
Nevertheless, even if we were nothing more than a bundle of properties, with no distinction between mind and body nor physical and non-physical, we would still be in a constant state of flux and change. An individual's newly changed self would be one and the same as his or her so-called true self or identity. And that's what human beings seem to be; we are works in progress, more or less.
It seems to me that we
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.
Brain=Behavior
I think brain=behavior is an excellent story. I personally have a hard time accepting ideas without substantial evidence to back them up, and I don’t see any evidence to support the idea of a separate “mind” or “soul.” I especially enjoyed reading “Confessions of a Lonely Atheist,” because it echoes many of my own personal beliefs.
Evidence gathered from MRIs and PET scans strongly suggest that the physical brain controls all, as do case studies of people whose personalities and behavior were greatly altered due to some physical change in their brains. There may not be evidence that definitely proves beyond a doubt that all behavior arises from the brain, but there is a good amount of evidence to suggest that this is the case. So much of behavior is universal, even in very different cultures. People who don’t speak the same language as each other and have different cultural backgrounds can still communicate with each other and understand basic messages and emotions. These similarities are reflected in the similar structure of the human brain. Yet each person’s brain is still unique, accounting for the many differences in the behavior of individuals that also exist.
I feel that the arguments in support of theories like Descartes’ are supported more by philosophy and theology than science. I understand why so many people like the idea of a separate mind or soul. It gives a sense of people being greater than the sum of their parts. I, however, feel that this belief doesn’t give the brain enough credit. Why couldn’t the brain be responsible for all aspects of behavior? There are so many discoveries currently being made about the brain; it seems to me that we have barely scratched the surface of the many abilities of the brain.
Brain vs. You
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?
I think for brain=behavior
I think for brain=behavior to not be wrong (not that its true, per say), the equation must be reversible. Thus, I would like to bring up the idea that behavior=brain. At least to some level. Russel Fernard points out that evolution is a physical change in the brain and sensory systems that changes in behavior has brought about. If humans can said to be the most advanced species, but we can see that other, closely related animals such as apes show similar behaviors we feel are intrinsic to humans (love, sophisticated reasoning, etc) then Fernard is correct and behavior controls the brain. Behaviors get more refined as evolution of a species progresses, and the brain must evolve as well to keep up. A more short-term example was found by researchers at MIT. The response pattern of neurons in mice drastically changed after they learn how to find a reward in a maze. That is what learning is, a change in the brain. So then, perhaps brain does solely control behavior. But if we look back at evolution, we are the only species (I believe) that has created, or conceived of, or shown the ability to believe in a god (this last bit is important, because even if god does not exist, we still have the capacity to believe he does, which no other species does). It seems that somehow this must put the god factor back in the equation, though I’m not sure how. Any thoughts??
Isn't it kind of funny that
Isn't it kind of funny that we're using our brains to think about the brain?
We can only examine it via the very organ we are seeking to understand. Reminds me a bit of trying to smell one's own nose...
Good thing we're not looking for "answers", only useful, generative stories--
I'm not a big fan of Descartes (I sort of blame him for a lot of the pseudo-problems of modern Western philosophy), Ibut find the mind=brain camp even less appealing. Here's why:
1. I'm not comfortable with the idea that my experience of being is ultimately reducible to a series of brain states. For instance, what, exactly, is an MRI of a brain in a God-aware or ecstatic state supposed to demonstrate? That certain neural pathways light up when particpants report profound spiritual feelings? The MRI's interesting, but it has very little explanatory power. WHY are those pathways lit up? What's happening in this person's consciousness such that his or her brain is processing information in this unusual way?
Do we ignore the mystics' self-reports regarding their states of consciousness because they are not empirically verifiable? I think so. For knowledge claims to be taken seriously they seem to need to be cast as sceintific claims. It's kind of a shame, I think. There are so many kinds of knowing, but it seems that we only take a very few kinds seriously. Imagine someone looking at Picasso's Guernica and saying, Yeah, neat painting, but is it true?
Or on a more ordinary level (or maybe not)- say a neurologist shows you an MRI of your brain that was taken while you were deeply in love. Your brain looks a particular way. Other in-love brains look the same or similar. What is this MRI showing/explaining? It certainly doesn't tell us what being in love feels like. Can you imagine going to your friends and showing them them the image: "I was having such a hard time explaining what's going on with me, but here--*this* is what I feel like..."
2. While I don't think that morality requires a belief in some sort of soul or god or afterlife (we can find other grounds for morality in philosophy-in our capacity for rationality, according to Kant, or in a shared conception of the good human life, as in Plato and Aristotle), I DO think that a belief in justice (that is, that justice exists)requires one, or maybe all of these things. Because I am not yet ready to reconcile myself to living in an indifferent- if not ACTIVELY HOSTILE- cosmos, I need to believe that somewhere, sometime, somehow accounts are settled, the stricken are comforted, etc. You know, that our suffering counts for something...and our loves and joys do too.
If you could be any animal, what would you be?
Wow. This was such an elegantly written post, and I couldn't agree more. I think that breaking down our minds/souls/whatever you want to call whatever it is that we are debating here into mere evolutionarily imprinted reactionary electrochemical impulses is a tad presumptuous and quite frankly I hate the idea.
I believe in the power and usefulness of science, and in fact I am borderline obsessed with evolution theory (Alfred Russel Wallace is my soul mate), but what is truly amazing to me is that from scratch the human mind can explore and discover and disembowel and put together and wonder and imagine and distort and manipulate and conclude and dream and a whole slue of other things to boot. I mean, honestly, that's pretty cool.
Nothing strengthens my belief in a deep and inexplicable human element more than the weird stuff that kids do. I love kids, and I think they are a great way to observe what our minds would be doing if we weren't so busy trying to get them to do something else. For instance, I'm leaving the house and my neighbor Xavier, a 2-year-old boy, looks up at me when I say hi to him and says:
"Actually, my name is Troy, and I'm a giraffe today."
I promise Xavy wasn't programmed my evolution to pretend he's a giraffe. Let's face it, it just wouldn't be favorable from a natural selection standpoint. And I don't think he even knows anyone named Troy. Like I said, I'm a sciencey-type gal, but sometimes I just have to shake my head and say, "Who knows?"
behavior=brain
I think for brain=behavior to not be wrong (not that its true, per say), the equation must be reversible. Thus, I would like to bring up the idea that behavior=brain. At least to some level. Russel Fernard points out that evolution is a physical change in the brain and sensory systems that changes in behavior has brought about. If humans can said to be the most advanced species, but we can see that other, closely related animals such as apes show similar behaviors we feel are intrinsic to humans (love, sophisticated reasoning, etc) then Fernard is correct and behavior controls the brain. Behaviors get more refined as evolution of a species progresses, and the brain must evolve as well to keep up. A more short-term example was found by researchers at MIT. The response pattern of neurons in mice drastically changed after they learn how to find a reward in a maze. That is what learning is, a change in the brain. So then, perhaps brain does solely control behavior. But if we look back at evolution, we are the only species (I believe) that has created, or conceived of, or shown the ability to believe in a god (this last bit is important, because even if god does not exist, we still have the capacity to believe he does, which no other species does). It seems that somehow this must put the god factor back in the equation, though I’m not sure how. Any thoughts??
Mind vs Brain
If science has taught me anything it is that things are rarely (if ever) definite; they exist in a continuum or spectrum, and to define them as anything but the latter unjustly limits the concept. What do I mean by a spectrum? Well consider the idea of resonance in a molecule. In order to easily comprehend the structure of a molecule with resonance two or more structures are drawn in their most “extreme” forms. However the molecule exists in neither of these forms, but somewhere in and in between both simultaneously. This is how I am choosing to view the mind/brain argument; I am refusing to choose a “side”. Instead I choose both and neither in tandem. I am proposing that the mind and brain are two functional systems that work with and feed off of each other. Their relationship is so intertwined that without one the other might not exist. This is not to say that I am disputing the arguments made for both mind and brain; it would be better stated that I disagree with the arguments made for either mind or brain.
How much is out of our control?
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…
Hey, emo kids, it's all in your head
Here’s an article I found interesting…may haps you will enjoy it as well. The article covers research conducted by Enter Eisenberger et al. which suggests a connection in the brain between physical pain and the emotional pain of social loss. Jaak Panksepp’s article Feeling the Pain of Social Loss from Science (Vol. 302, October 10, 2003) summarizes the findings of Enter Eisenberger and colleagues from an experiment where they measured brain activity during a simulation in which a subject was led to feel excluded. Search Science magazine’s website (sciencemag.org) for the article – I don’t want to post a link since I’m not sure what the policy is for links on this site. Anyway, using fMRI, the research team essentially saw that the same regions of the brain that became active during times of physical pain be