The brain as interconnected boxes: autonomy, distributed signals, and an "I-function"

From our many discussions in class and over the forum, we have discussed the idea of inputs and outputs entering and leaving the brain. In some cases inputs can enter the brain, but no output can be generated and vice versa. However, I am having a hard time grasping the concept of the nervous system in terms of interconnected boxes that can generate signals on their own. How can the nervous system react without an input? Are there factors as humans that we cannot perceive? Like someone mentioned in class, dogs have a level of hearing that surpasses humans. Often they react to stimuli that humans are often unaware of. Could previous experiences integrate themselves in the brain and cause "inputs" later on in life?  Is it gene related? Is there a biological clock that generates an output every so often?  

After class on Thursday, Pr.Grobstein left us in suspense as to why mammals have a neocortex and amphibians/reptiles etc don't. After researching a bit on the function of the neocortex, I found something on www.brainconnection.com that I found very interesting. Catching prey requires highly tuned sensory and motor systems. The neocortex is made up of both primary sensory areas that receive input from the thalamus and primary motor areas. Mammals with a larger neocortex therefore have an advantage. Maybe the neocortex plays a role in catching prey? Just a guess....I know I have to be wrong at least one time per posting! 

Looking further into the question, of how there can be an input with out a resulting output, I found myself looking at the more biological aspect behind the nervous system. I think that such an occurance can occur if the input does not generate enough of a stimulus to result in an action potential, that goes above a threshold value. For an output to be generated, there has to be a strong enough action potential. So there may be an input that isnt strong enough to cause a reaction/output. Otherwise an organism would constently be reacting, and having an output for every small input that occurs.

Looking at the same question in a different manner, explaining the presence of an output with out an input, is still unclear to me, unless the inputs are so insignificant, that we do not realize them, or the inputs could be internalized and something that we can not obviously recognize as an input.

Yea, I'm at loss. I agree with Molly in that I am having a hard time finding traits that are entirely unique to mammals...

With respect to evolution, the neocortex is the newest part of the cerebral cortex and is said to be "involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, concious thought and, in humans, language." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocortex)

"In the more primitive section of the brain, behaviours and actions for the survival of the individual and preservation of species are generated. These include the mechanism of aggressive defence, sex, social hierarchy and defending one’s territories."
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Transcending_the_Primitive_Brain.html

The above would hold that nonmammals possess these charteristics and not concious thought, "intelligence", and language which are associated with the neocortex.

Other ideas regarding the neocortex implicate it in learning processes and voluntary action.

These definitions make me a bit uncomfortable. Where is the data to back this up? How can we really say that if neocortex=conciousness, for example, then non-mammals lack conciousness? What is conciousness anyway and how do you measure it? I can't help but think that such definitions come out of our own arrogance and necessity to validate our "inherent superioirity" as mammals, and furthermore as humans. I'm really curious to know how all of the aforementioned parameters were measured...

Now about intelligence: there is a long-standing belief that the growth of the neocortex is responsible for the evolution of "intelligence;" thus, it would hold that mammals would be inherently more "intelligent" than so called "lower organisms." Furthermore, this would also support the notion that a larger neocortex=more intelligent. Contrary to this, anteaters have a larger neocortex than do humans, yet many are reluctant to claim superior "intelligence" in anteaters. This in addition to many other anomalies in the Animal Kingdom hint that neocortex size is an unsatisfactory indicator of "intelligence."

So, I'm not quite sure where this leads me...but here is a starting place. More to come. ..

I anticipate some more satisfactory ideas (or questions, or failures) tomorrow morning, but I've been thinking about the role of the neocortex and decided to throw out a few thoughts.

One small idea: mammals are warm-blooded, so they may have a greater need to be aware of their own bodily systems. If the neocortex receives signals from the thalamus (as Margaux said), the reception of those signals may ensure that the brain sends out signals to other bodily organs, thereby carrying out essential processes like generating heat or cooling the body down. The neocortex could be kind of like a conductor, ensuring that one small box in the brain gets its message out to the rest of the brain and then the body.

What's really getting to me: in the previous comment, Nana brought up the idea of "intelligence" as a possible, but scientifically problematic, result of the neocortex. While her anteater example confuses me, it also gives me food for thought. What if "intelligence" doesn't just mean physical agility or sensory processing but relates more to self-consciousness? Awareness of the self seems to me like something humans may possess more of than other animals, even though others clearly have some level of it too.

In thinking about the child-rearing example mentioned in another comment, I'm also starting to think that a complex web of social behavior might be a result of the neocortex. Maybe that is like a kind of awareness of species -- or awareness of the self as one among many? as a human? as a function of society? Although it is difficult to separate humans from other mammals, the idea that all mammals do a certain amount of teaching and babysitting, even though some mammals end up as solitary creatures, does seem to suggest that the neocortex causes some sort of instinct to form a community, to ensure the success of procreation, to pass on behaviors not just through genes but also through parenting.

Another idea that isn't fully formed: why do humans have so much of the spongy stuff? Tuesday's class made me think that most of the stuff we see from the outside, when looking at a brain, is white matter -- tracts, paths, connections. Thinking back on things I've learned from PBS, the Discovery Channel, and high school, I also know that the human brain constantly forms new passageways as we learn new things or change our behavior. (To use the lingo I've learned from class, our neurons are always rearranging.) Most of the brain -- or at least the white stuff? -- isn't even in use, at least not until our neurons carve our new connections. What are those new connections? Are they skills, calculations, friends, memories?

Lots of other creatures can recognize things or relations, like their young or their nests, but does that mean they remember when they befriended their egg-layers? I'm not sure. I do know that humans, as they grow, learn not only to be aware of their current environment, their status in relation to the outside world, and many of the stimuli they're receiving, but also to compare the current moment to past moments, to associate themselves and their identity with other people, to study their inner states and thoughts, and to perceive or infer emotions and thoughts in others. Maybe the number of available white folds in the neocortex -- the density of its connections -- determines how much of that awareness or ability a mammal can develop, regardless of the overall size of the neocortex or the brain.

I mentioned metacognition before, and I think it really gets to a lot of what eambash is talking about in terms of studying ones own inner states and reflecting on self-identity. I would like to guess that all of that is found in the neocortex, but from everything I've ever learned, only humans have metacognition. Thus, if other mamals also have a neocortex but no metacognition, metacognition could indeed be located anywhere. However, eambash also talks about how much white matter there is and I think the size of the neo cortext. Maybe humans have crossed the threshold size and have thus acquired metacognition. Since metacognition is the awareness of oneself, could the "lower" version found in non-human mamals be just general consciousness? That is, the ability to consciously think?

"Although it is difficult to separate humans from other mammals, the idea that all mammals do a certain amount of teaching and babysitting, even though some mammals end up as solitary creatures, does seem to suggest that the neocortex causes some sort of instinct to form a community, to ensure the success of procreation, to pass on behaviors not just through genes but also through parenting."

What could be more sophisticated than the multiple communication systems of bees? And ants for that matter. They have very highly-developed social organizations. In addition, it is commonly thought that "behaviors and actions for the survival of the individual and preservation of species" are part of the more "primitive brain," which is not exclusive to mammals. I don't know how I feel about that, but at any rate, "survival" and the "perpetuation of the species" seems to be an innate characteristic of all living organisms. I believe that the neo-cortex transcends such fundamentally basic functions.

ok, not really related to this topic, but this was one of the headlines on the BBC this afternoon:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7231226.stm

It discusses a new way to potentially fix spinal cord injuries

I see above that Nana and Molly have a heated debate on what the neocortex actually does. And I must admit, I seriously have no clue.

But I remember in class when Dr. Grobstein asked the question of what is the difference between mammals and all other organisms, we had a lot of things to list. There are simply so many evolutionary traits that provided the mammals with the ability to survive into the status that they have reached now (or we...haha.oopz.).

Anyways, i see that some suspect that the neocortex provides the ability of mammals to communicate or learn, and then there are questions applying to other organisms that have a way of communicating. Then comes in the aspect of learning and instinct vs. non-instinctual (is that even a word?) behavior.

I think that we need to stop setting this boundary. Yes, some can argue that the sophistication of mammals' behavior vs. non-mammalian behavior is much higher, but if you think about the traits that evolved in mammals, the abilities required to pursue those evolutionary traits are not all instinct or not our instincts. It is all a mixture of consciously thinking and performing certain behaviors as well as also having the instinct to notice the fact that one is given these traits. Thus, the neocortex is probably a supplementary add-on along with the rest of the evolutionary traits of mammals in order to completely know how to take care of themselves. It's probably, really not that complicated.

For example, mammals have mammary glands.  The fact that we put the baby against our breasts to feed them is a conscious thing.  The whole  maternal usage of mammary glands is instinct.  Thus, this action and knowledge of its purpose and usage is a mixture of voluntary movement as well as animal instinct.  However, the knowledge of mammary glands is knowledge that only mammals will know and no matter how hard we try to educate an ant, lizard or eagle about mammary glands, they will never know, especially since they have none.  

Thus, the neocortex is simply a supplementary part of pursueing the evolutionary traits that have come along when becoming a mammal.  

I hope this made sense.... 

I liked the idea of the I-function being incorporated into the box we said was the nervous system. I was reading an article online by Steven Pinker that related well to this dilemma that we seem to be facing by trying define where this "I" sits in the brain.

 In the article, he says, "Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion." 

He goes on to explore the different reasons why we might be sealed off from what goes on in our mind; our unconscious and conscious minds separate.

 "Evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers has noted that people have a motive to sell themselves as beneficent, rational, competent agents. The best propagandist is the one who believes his own lies."  

This is an interesting point to think about; that perhaps we are really just removing ourselves from reality to increase our own biological fitness and assure our survival.

 I especially like the idea of the philosopher Colin McGinn, whose ideas Pinker summarizes as, "The brain is a product of evolution, and just as animal brains have their limitations, we have ours. Our brains can't hold a hundred numbers in memory, can't visualize seven-dimensional space and perhaps can't intuitively grasp why neural information processing observed from the outside should give rise to subjective experience on the inside."  

I feel like this hits the nail on the head in terms of defining the problem we have been struggling with in class. We cannot comprehend how sensory input + a hunk of meat = emotions, consciousness, us. This has good evolution reason behind it, there is no need for us to understand; it wouldn't do anything to increase our biological fitness. In fact, subjunctive experience, our personality, everything we hold sacred, might just be side effects of cerebral cortex expansion due to its ability to increase group survival due to language skills for communication and reasoning for reciprocation.

I was thinking a bit more about what we discussed in Thursday's class about the "I-function" and the way that the brain is related to the rest of the nervous system. I was really amazed by the small activity that we did in pairs; the nervous system helps us make smooth eye movements when we focus on a moving finger, but when the finger disappears, we, as the "I-function," cannot mimic this smooth movement without the finger...no matter how hard we try. I think this example tied in perfectly with our discussion about Christopher Reeve as someone who had an "I-function" and function in the rest of his body...but the two could not work together, they just coexisted.

On this line of thinking I tried to find evidence of other ways in which we can see how the "I-function" is, in fact, just a piece of the nervous system that can function by itself. While researching I stumbled on a rather interesting topic that is less severe and more temporary than Reeve's case, something called OBE (out-of-body experience) that is associated with lucid dreams and sleep paralysis: One site (http://www.psywww.com/asc/obe/faq/obe16.html) said "During REM sleep, the muscles of the body, excluding the eye muscles and those responsible for circulation and respiration, are immobilized by orders from a nerve center in the lower brain. This fact prevents us from acting out our dreams. Occasionally, this paralysis turns on or remains active while the person's mind is fully awake and aware of the world..." and this would be termed sleep paralysis.

And for a little more on sleep paralysis I checked Wikipedia, which said: "OBEs are often initiated through lucid dreaming, though other types of initiation also used. In many cases, people claim to have had an OBE, reported being asleep, on the verge of sleep, or having been asleep shortly before the experience. A large percentage of these cases referred to situations where the sleep was not particularly deep (due to illness, noises in other rooms, emotional stress, exhaustion from overworking, frequent re-awakening, etc.). In most of these cases, the subjects then felt themselves awake; about half them noted a feeling of sleep paralysis. "

With all of the above stated, I think my main observation is that the sort of coexistance between the brain and the remainder of the nervous system exists even when the "cables" connecting them are NOT cut!!!

Like Jackie, the first thing I thought of when Reeves' name was mentioned was our capacity to dream. How does I-function come into play when we are running in our sleep, yet laying still in bed. Also, there are individual differences (some people twitch in their sleep, some people sleep walk, some experience sleep paralysis as noted above) so how can any of this be accounted for? Dreaming states have always particularly interested me, so while I don't really have answers, I have many questions. I am tempted to say that perhaps the neocortex has something to do with dreaming or perhaps I-function awareness, since REM activity (I don't think) has not been studied much in animals other than humans.

I also liked Jean's (jchung01) mention of evolution. We haven't had a similar ancestor with reptiles or amphibians for millions of generations, so I'm not sure this is a question that can be answered with "Well, we have this ability and they don't so that's must be attributed to the neocortex". Although the warm-blooded argument intrigued me, I don't think the function of the neocortex can be so easily surmised.

So many things to address! I really liked Lyndsey's queries concerning animals as related to the I-function. The philsopher A. MacIntyre wrote that while animals can feel pain and joy and intelligence in the same way that humans can, the key difference between the two lies in the human ability to self-reflect, or, the more or less physical manifestation of the I-function. We constantly ponder the human condition, the connection between morality and virtue, and even the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious mind. During class on Thursday, I had the suspiscion that perhaps the neo-cortex was strongly linked to the I-function, but after reading Lyndsey's comments and recalling MacIntyre's argument, I'm not so sure anymore. While, for example, my dog knows when he has committed a crime in our household, I am fairly sure he does not spend his days wondering why certain rules have been set in place or even the legitimacy of the institution which has created those rules. I am now beginning to believe that it is this mode of self-reflection that somehow links the mind and the brain.

 Another interesting point of contention was the discussion we had at the end of class on Thursday which mentioned the I function model as an illustration of distinct dualism between the conscious and the unconscious mind. Although this next thought may be painfully irrelevant, the point of dualism reminded me of the Manichaen belief in dualism as inherent in all aspects of life-the same type of distinction which can be made between the mind and the brain. I've forgotten what my original point was with this, but I'll think on it...

            In response to Lyndsey’s last few lines, I think that the issue of whether or not other animals/organisms have consciousness, and, if so, to what degree they are aware of themselves and other individuals, is an intriguing one.  However, I don’t think that we will ever be able to find answers to this question, just as we will never be able to know what another human is thinking.             

           That said, I really enjoyed class on Thursday.  The “I-function” discussion gave me so many new things to think about, and I was surprised by the results of our finger-waving experiment.  Based on my experience, many people (outside of our class at least) seem to think that the “I”, or whatever it is we have inside of us that makes us aware of ourselves, and makes us identify ourselves as individuals…is sort of like the control center of behavior.  To put it in terms of our class model, the “I-function” is seen as the “all-mighty” box, capable of integrating the patterns of signals that we receive from all of our sensory neurons, and sending out signals to our motor neurons to generate behavior.  Some people in the forum have suggested that the “I-function” could be “the mind”.  However, I think that such descriptions tend to overstate the importance of the “I” box in relation to the other parts of the nervous system.  During our Christopher Reeve discussion, we decided that he was not able to move his foot because “He” was no longer connected to that foot.  To me, this seems to emphasize the fact that the foot’s function has been compromised by the severing of the spinal chord.  In reality, though, the “I-function” has more of a handicap than the limbs—while the limbs still retain their ability to react to many kinds of input, the “I” box can no longer send signals to the majority of the body.             

            The experiment that we performed in class (trying to create smooth eye movements without the aid of a visual stimulus) is another example of how the “I-function” needs input from other sources in order to take full advantage of the actions that the body is capable of performing.  When I tried to rotate my eyes smoothly simply by visualizing a smooth movement, it didn’t work.  However, when I started waving my finger back and forth in front of my face, my eyes moved smoothly.  The visual input was needed to make up for the shortcomings of the “I-function.” It may be true that 99% of the neurons in the body are interneurons.  However, sensory neurons are clearly still crucial, because “We” are evidently not very powerful without them.

There were so many things that were addressed in the forum so far- it’s a bit overwhelming so first I am going to address the neocortex and then the “I-Function”. To back track a bit to Jean’s post about the actual function of the neocortex, of course, it seems that there is no way to actually determine all of the functions that it can do but, I did ask my best friend, Wikipedia, about it and it says that the neocortex is “involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and in humans, language”. Utilizing that general definition of the neocortex, it seems that the function of the area of the brain essentially defines us as an individual which is kind of a scary thought. If this part of the brain is damaged, it erases of us being the humans that we are today. Jean also brought up another important concept along with the use of the neocortex and that is evolution. It is imperative to understand that the neocortex has evolved over thousands of years to reach the point that it has in human’s today- if we didn’t have the function of the neocortex that we can safely assume that we just wouldn’t be as highly evolved.  Nana brought up the insects in her post and justifies that even though these organisms lack a highly developed brain they still retain certain instincts including survival, reproduction and social community. The neocortex is extremely important to us as human beings but could we survive without it, yea, we could.  This thought involves the thoughts of the philosopher that Anna brought up that summarized the brain as a product of evolution that in fact has limitations. We all possess limitations in higher thinking- it could be that we lack stellar mathematics skills or problem solving techniques…all of these things could be rectified if we were to concentrate on these certain things and improve upon them thus making our intelligence increase and hopefully, these skills would be passed on to the next generation. The brain which includes the neocortex is clearly a product of evolution in my opinion.  Also changing the subject to the “I-Function”, this concept absolutely fascinates me. When we were discussing Christopher Reeve, the power of the brain and the nervous system and all that came with it was simply mind boggling to say the least.  I am not exactly sure how to formulate my opinion of the “I-Function” into words so I will not attempt to confuse myself and others but I will say that I look forward to hearing more about it and the importance and role that it plays in the conscious and unconscious.

I really like the idea of having an "I-function" within our brain. It provides people with awareness and a sense of self. The fact that Christopher Reeves could not feel the pain in his leg and feel his leg move shows he has a sense of self because he was unaware of himself moving his leg. Even though "he" cannot move, "he" still has thoughts and is aware of those thoughts. I feel that the "I-function" is the most important part of the brain and without it, there would be no point in living because it gives us who we are. Even if we are still able to act without the existence of the "I-function", how is it worth living when we are not aware or conscious of what we are doing? It would be as if we were robots. 

I think the problem with this "I-function" is that only the individual is able to know if it is still functioning or not. No one else is able to know if another person is aware if no action is produced to communicate that they are conscious. It makes me think about people in vegetated states and why there is this debate about whether people are conscious or not when they are in this state. 

 I think that the movie "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" provides a great example of the "I-function" in the way it was filmed. (It was really good and everyone should see it.) The way it was shot was that the audience is able to look through the eyes of the character who was paralyzed from head to toe. We, the audience, are able to hear his thoughts and experience his consciousness. This showed me that an "I-function" does exist and even though the character was not connected to the rest of his body, he could still exist. 

While I do find my peers' posts fascinating, all this talk of neo-cortex has left something a bit wanting - without all that "useless" white matter, cells in various regions of the neo-cortex couldn't even hope to talk to each other. Those globs of white matter are the axons of somas in the neo-cortex, their white color springing from the fatty sheath of myelin which allow electrical signals to travel faster along the nodes of Ranvier rather than measly simple conduction.

While CAT scans, MRIs and, more recently, fMRIs have begun to illuminate the space between our ears, not much could be said of the white-jumble between various processing centers thought to be responsible for various. Thought about how the brain worked leaned towards localizing processes to specific regions of the brain, and the methods of neuroimaging available to researchers at the time supported such hypotheses by providing data on the grey matter structures of the brain. This, however, only told half the story, as can be seen by a more recent move away from localization theories after the incredible plasticity of the brain came to light.

Enter diffusion tensor imaging, a form of neuroimaging I find so freaking cool that I actually mention it on a dating website profile. By measuring the movement of water molecules across tissues, the tracks of myelinated axons can be traced and the connectedness of structures in the brain observed. The applications of this new imaging technique are only now being realized; from tracking plaque development in multiple sclerosis to observing abnormal connections in the brains of schizophrenics.

My absolute favorite application of DTI has been in the study of the underlying physiology of synesthia. Two warring camps attempting to explain this abnormal union of sensation developed over the years: one arguing that it was due to poor feedback inhibition which allowed activation to spill backwards to other “associated” areas, the other arguing that synesthesia resulted from a higher degree of connectivity in the brains of synesthetes presumably from a failure in the first cell apoptosis in infants. By comparing connectivity in normal humans and color-grapheme synesthetes, Romke Rouw and Steven Sholte were able to show that at the very least synesthetes DO show a higher degree of connectivity in their brains. Another influential researcher in synesthia, Dr. Cytowic, argues that synesthesia is an inherently “mammalian” state and that humans are alone in not experiencing their worlds in a synesthetic sense. He cites some very difficult to understand studies which show that neonates seem to experience their world synesthetically, a trait which disappears as the child develops.

Interesting Reads:

Increased structural connectivity in grapheme-color synesthesia.

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n6/full/nn1906.html

Diffusion Tensor Imaging

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=emergingtech&id=16473

Cytowic’s Website on Synesthesia

http://cytowic.net/Synesthesia/synesthesia.html

The notion of the "I-function" is an intriguing concept, however it still does not summarize completely observations of how the nervous system functions. Thinking about the nervous system in this manner, as a mechanism of input and output boxes sometimes capable of generating outputs without the presence of inputs, and furthermore containing an "I-function" that is responsible for what we are able to recognize as something happening to us, again brings to mind Phantom Limb Syndrome. Here is a situation in which there is no input of pain, yet there are mere "nonsense" responses that are processed in the brain and interpreted as pain in a limb that is no longer present. The patient claims that they feel the pain in that limb, an affirmation of their ability to sense the "self" or in other words the "I-function", even though there is nothing there to feel.

Is this a glitch in the I-function model? Or does the I-function strictly apply to nervous system disorders, and can only explain the loss of feeling of the self when a particular area of the spinal cord is injured? How about patients who undergo amputation and do not experience any form of PLS, rather it is understood that the limb is no longer present and therefore they can not feel anything in that region? Is this also not a loss of the "I-function" without any damage done to the spinal cord resulting in paralysis?   

I thought a lot about the end of our discussion on Thursday and the mention of pain.  I decided to do some research on the subject after it was suggested that pain is only experienced in the brain.  I found some interesting results that seem to reveal more about the already complex nervous system that has been laid before us this semester.   Upon the discovery of the nociceptor, a specialized sensory receptor that is only activated by painful stimuli, I realized that pain is much more complex a sensation than I had originally thought at the end of class.

One of many specialized sensory receptors, like photoreceptors or olfactory receptors, nociceptors relay information to the brain.  In this case, the information is relayed in order for the brain to seek cessation of the stimulus causing the activation of the nociceptors.

Although this sounds extremely simple and straight forward, I began to think about reflexes.  A reflex is an involuntary action.  This could be anything from the blinking of the eye when the sun is bright to rapidly removing a hand from a hot surface. To me, these actions are incredibly interesting because they are done without the use of the brain. Signals from the sensory neurons are sent only to the spinal cord, which relays information back to the motor neurons that signal an action to occur.  This pathway, known as the reflex arc, allows for minimal damage of the body by responding in the quickest possible manner.  I just thought this was worth mentioning given our discussion of paraplegia on Thursday.  I read some sources that mentioned thatthis same type of reflex arc is employed by paraplegic patients as well.

I left class wondering if we are going to talk about definitions of consciousness in class this week. It seems that humans have been questioning consciousness for centuries and yet we don't quite know what it is.

I read the article posted by Jessica Varney above. It addressed one of the things I have been thinking about: theory of mind and how it relates to consciousness. Cheney and Seyfarth, two researchers mentioned in the article, came to Haverford last semester and gave lectures on primate brain and behavior. They said primatologists still haven't come to a conclusion as to whether nonhuman primates demonstrate theory of mind, attributing mental states to others. One researcher in the article thinks that upbringing by humans influences awareness, so so-called feral children might not have the same "consciousness" we do, and nonhuman primates raised by humans might have a more similar version of awareness to humans than their relatives raised in the wild. It seems that there have been conflicting observations on both the issues of self-awareness and theory of mind in nonhuman primates; I wonder if one can exist without the other, and if both are necessary for what we call consciousness.

I watched a show a while ago about a phenomenon that sometimes occurs during surgery in which people are conscious, so they are completely aware and can feel everything, though they can't move because of the paralyzer given to them. Medical researchers are trying to develop more sophisticated measurement devices so that surgeons can detect when patients could still be conscious and adjust their anesthetic accordingly. I find this fascinating. First of all, it's interesting that some of the cables between brain and body can be active while others aren't; nocireceptors still send pain messages to the brain, though the brain can't send messages to motor neurons. Second, it's amazing that we have such advanced surgical techniques that allow us to fix problems even in the brain, but we still can't reliably measure consciousness.

Last week, we were introduced to several new observations. One of those observations was that the neocortex was found only in mammals and in no other animals. We were shown a picture of our brain (with the identified neocortex) and then we were shown the frog brain (missing a recognizable neocortex). After being shown these observations we were asked, what is the behavioral difference between mammals and all other animals? To that, we have had many responses in the forum. Some are revealing that we are having difficulty finding behaviors that are entirely unique to mammals. However others, many others, have jumped on board behind the wiki definition of neocortex stating that the neocortex, “is involved in higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and, language” and that therefore, it is these behaviors that separate mammals from all other animals. This is where the problem begins.

Just because the difference between mammals and all other animals appears to be in the existence of the neocortex, this should not imply that mammals (exclusively) are “capable of higher functions such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and, language” and that all other animals are not. Let’s think carefully about what observations/behaviors we are looking at to come to this conclusion.

Perhaps this analogy has been carried too far. Perhaps we humans are being too self complimentary. Frogs do pretty well for themselves. They perform some if not most of the said neocortex behaviors. Reptiles may not have a distinctive 6-layer neocortical structure, but so what? That should not necessarily imply that they are not capable of performing complex behaviors. They could, for example, be performing complex behaviors in different areas of their brains. I guess what I am saying is that just because we have a neocortex and we have higher order thinking, we should not imply that the neocortex is the only structure capable of thinking.

I read an article in the science times about a bird (a godwit) that flew non-stop for 8 days from Alaska to New Zealand. Scientists are trying to study the brain to see how that can be possible. I guess I think there is just a lot more we have to learn before making too definitive cross mammal comparisons.

(see : http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/science/23migr.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bird+flight&st=nyt&oref=slogin

The new incorporation of an I-function in our brain model was a signficantly more less wrong model than our last.  This model accounts for the self-recognizing property that we humans have.  However, a problem that is still not accounted for is what differentiates that I-function input-output boxes from other boxes.   Perhaps it is located in the neocortex, a part of the brain that makes us and other mammals unique.  But is that suggesting that organisms that lack a neocortex lack an I-function box? It is difficult for me to believe that some organisms lack I-function.  Maybe, my inability to believe is attributed to the fact that I possess a neocortex which prohibits me from accepting that some organisms are simply more primitive than I am.

Much of the science i've been taught in my high school and college years is in essence reductionist theory.  We give lip service to the idea that other animals may have "at least some concept" of self, that the "mind" or "soul" exists outside of the physical nervous system and then we quickly dismiss these ideas or at least let them take second place to theories that are easier to support.  Off of what EB Ver Hoeve was saying our observations of animals are really just that-external observations.  Some of the things that we do, in all of our glorious consciousness, would probably be hard to prove as the workings of the neocortex if we did not have the subjective view that we do.  Unfortunately it seems as if all of our observations of other creatures will have to be from outside their minds unless we find a better means of cross species communication.  It is tough for me to believe that as humans, we are the only animals with a sense of self when my only evidence/observations toward this end are a lack thereof.  I could just as easily attribute my observations to naïveté on my part as to the internal workings of an animals "mind".  A cute quote from Douglas Adams that sort of has to do with this (okay, so mostly i like it and want to share it with you all):

"Man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins believed themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reasons."

so here is a site that i stumbled upon:
http://www.neurotransmitter.net/reptilebrain.html
many links related to reptile brain research.
maybe a few will bear fruit worthy of contemplation for some of you... i'll hold off on my reactions for the moment for there are too many of them to choose between.

one thing though:

i think it's important to state that we should not confuse our lack of knowledge about non-mammalian neurological function with non-mammalian neurological inferiority.

we have a lot to learn.

This whole discussion regarding the I-function and the idea of a “self” inside of us has been really interesting to read about. It reminds me of a Law & Order: SVU episode that I watched about this teenage boy who reportedly could not control his sexual inclination due to some increased levels of --- in his brain. When asked whether or not he had a sense of himself or a sense of right and wrong while he was infringing on the law, the teenage boy responded that he knew what he was doing the whole time—he just could not control himself. This convoluted storyline kind of got me thinking about that idea of “self-awareness” and people who break the law. Having poor “executive functions” in the brain, meaning an impairment in controlling one’s actions, planning, or abstract reasoning, are symptoms of aggressive boys, according to an article I found online (http://www.crimetimes.org/96c/w96cp8.htm). Researchers noted that aggressive behavior has been linked to hyperactivity in the brain and that reasons behind such behavior might only be answerable by some unknown neuroanatomical chemical or physiological handicap. </