Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2001

It was suggested at the beginning of the course that studies of the nervous system weren't in fact a way to "explain" behavior but instead a way to look at behavior from a different perspective which would yield new and different understandings of what behavior is. The study of the properties of neurons would seem to be a long ways from behavior. Do you think that studying the properties of neurons could itself change your understanding of (and questions about) behavior? If not, why not? If so, in what ways has this already happened? In what ways can you imagine it might happen?

It was suggested at the beginning of the course that studies of the nervous system weren't in fact a way to "explain" behavior but instead a way to look at behavior from a different perspective which would yield new and different understandings of what behavior is. The study of the properties of neurons would seem to be a long ways from behavior. Do you think that studying the properties of neurons could itself change your understanding of (and questions about) behavior? If not, why not? If so, in what ways has this already happened? In what ways can you imagine it might happen?

That's all for now....

If we learn how a neuron chemically communicates with another neuron we can then go on to ask how changing that neurochemistry can change that communication and how that will change the observed behavior. So I say, try and get through the dry stuff so we can apply the concepts to the more interesting stuff.

I am still perplexed by the question of free-will and this study of neurons seems to complicate that question. As we have talked about so far with regard to action potential and resting potential, there must always be a stimulus, something that starts the battery moving. Where does this stimulus come from if a behavior is simply spontaneous? Is everything we do a reaction to something whether we can observe it or not?

Before I began to study these things, I had never really thought of behavior as in any way related to electricity or "batteries." In my fairly oblivious conception, fundamental life energy was supposed to be more abstract somehow. As I begin to make this connection, however, the mystery of behavior becomes a little bit more tangible - and what's more exciting than that?

One thing that interests me in our discussions on the neuron is how it fits into the box model. On the surface, it seems slip neatly into the model, becoming the smallest ‘box’ of all the boxes. But in behavior that is exhibited without outside input or stimulus, does the neuron emit its own signal to be passed on to other neurons and eventually evolving into visible behavior. And if not, where does the spontaneous action come from and why? Are there boxes smaller then the neuron? After all, biologically, the cell is the smallest living component in an organism.

Also, learning of neuron's functions as the brain allow us to see unobservable behaviors. So perhaps there are other structures yet to be discovered that could explain how the "I" function (made of a cluster of neurons)does things that the brain cannot or the mechanics of the soul.

The neuron is the tiniest box we will be talking about. We mentioned the other day in class about the permeability of the membrane and depending upon how it works a certain there will be an action or resting potential present. I see form this that something is controlling the behavior of the membrane. What makes it work one way at any given time? I wonder if there is some relative of the "I-function" in each neuron. I believe this could explain the actions of each individual cell. They communicate with each other much the same way whole organisms do. What is the level of sophistication in the cell and how does this influence or even create behavior?

On a completely different note, why do people cry? Certain physiological responses to external stimuli seem to be directly related to evolutionary advantage (e.g. adrenaline rushes that prepare us to cope with immediate physical threats, etc.), but crying seems to do no such thing. Any ideas?

I've always been told that the KISS theory is the best way to explain something: Keep It Simple, Stupid. What could be more simple than the flowing of ions across a membrane to generate an electrical potential? Could this be the solution to all of the lofty questions of brain and behavior? It definitely falls under the KISS theory. But, those who study philosophy of mind, like Churchland, would not be so quick to proclaim that the properties of neurons are the answer to our prayers as students of the brain. Simple is good, yes, but simple is not necessarily the solution.

I find that I appreciate the explanation of the brain in terms of neurons and potentials. As a chemist, it seems very physical, and therefore, very real to me. I would much rather learn about the brain in this way; the chemical why's and how's of things are much easier to grasp than the fuzzy questions that we have been trying to answer. Unfortunately, it's those areas outside of that KISS theory which are the most interesting to me. Ideally, I would be able to apply what I have learned about the actual physical world to things like the "I-function" or "consciousness." Our discussion of neurons gives me some hope that this kind of connection is possible. Maybe, if you "keep it simple" to start with, the places you can go reach into those fuzzy and not so simple realms. Studying neurons is an important foundation for learning about behavior.

The brain of an addict is clearly different from the brain of a normal person. Drugs such as cocaine and heroin (among others) increase the concentration of dopamine (a neurotransmitter), which has the effect of overstimulation of the pleasure/reward circuit of the brain. In an effort to control the overactive pleasure circuit in chronic drug users, the brain reduces the number of dopamine receptors. The effects of the phenomenon are twofold: first, an addict must use higher concentrations of drugs in order to achieve the same high he did before; and second, experiences that formerly brought pleasure no longer do (which is why anxiety and depression are often seen in addicts). This example of addiction clearly demonstrates how the neurons are directly related to behavior.

For two, this means that the complexity of behavior is producible from nothing more than the random interaction of a series of simple actions: it's chaos theory! Granted, I don't really understand chaos theory well enough that this could help me, but seeing the connection is exciting. And it means that someone, if not me, could understand behavior in terms of chaos theory.

For three, this "all or nothing" conception of action potentials is starkly reminiscent of the 0/1 logic that underlies all digital technology. In other words, put together a trillion or so transistors, and we ought to be able to reproduce human behavior -- artificial intelligence guaranteed! And if not, then that means there's still something important missing from this understanding of behavior.

For example, take the case of lobotomies, which in its heyday in the 40's was used to control violent and pathological disorders of the insane and even young children - that is, before prescription drugs became a more popular and humane way of controlling behavior. The American neurologist Walter Freeman was the first to popularize "ice-pick lobotomy", in which an ice pick is pierced into the brain to destroy the prefrontal lobe. This procedure took no more than a few minutes, but it could alter a person's behavior permanently. 1/3 of patients improved (i.e. "became more calm") but also 1/3 became worse in behavior. Furthermore, such procedure was used cruelly to silence political opponents and hyperactive children. But my main point is that the ice pick undoubtedly alters the physical components of the brain (i.e. it damages neurons), and could change an individual's behavior.

Therefore, I do believe that studying neurons does give another perspective to understanding behavior, including the correlation between the modification of neurons and resulting human behavior, although I belive more studies can help us better the relationship between the two.

This way of thinking is common- we must understand the individual pieces that make up the whole before we can fully understand the function of the whole. We cannot understand a society's culture and way of life without first looking at the people who live there and make up that group.

I anticipate learning what kinds of behavior are controlled by these seemingly simple neuronal impulses. How big a part do axons and dendrites actually play in determining who we are? I look forward to learning what kinds of behaviors require the functioning of the mysterious I-box.

I have a friend who has Tourette's syndrome. I knew him for a year before I ever knew and I found out only because he told me in passing. His tic today manifests itself in him sniffing just once, every now and again. This tic just became part of him that I knew. I don't know if I assumed he had allergies, or was trying to be tough or just never noticed it because it was so inconsequential. When I asked him about it he said his tics used to be a lot worse and he was made fun of a lot as a kid until he learned to control them. He learned to control his facial muscular tics that came from Tourette's syndrome without medication. If Tourette's is truly a neurological disorder due to errant levels of neurotransmitters, and my friend was able to learn how to control his through fear of childhood torture, then what else about our selves or our brains can we learn to control? If tics can be overcome, can attentional difficulties? Or depression? or OCD? It makes you wonder if all there is is the brain. You could argue that here, the self was able to overcome the brain. My friend's fear of childhood rejection was able to control his neurological disorder. I don't mean to bring us back to the whole discussion of brain vs. self but I can't help wondering where he would fit into all of this...

I found the "backward" way of thinking to be very interesting and useful as well. We proved that since the frog doesn't possess a neocortex, the frog doesn't need the neocortex for functions such as seeing, moving, eating, mating, etc. By utilizing these techniques, we can continue to learn the process of becoming "less wrong."

the question I have relates to the article on Tourettes Syndrome and the actions that result from (what seems to be) involuntary muscle contractions and neuron stimuli. The sudden outbursts and violent activities do not reflect the "mental behavior" (that is what is normal behavior) of the person suffering from Tourettes. The question is, is it possible for people suffering from this disease to control themselves, or is it mearely a drug which helps people (like Jim Eisenwright (sp?)) continue with complicated jobs and tasks. So are these outbursts behavior or something else??

Possesion of this conceptual framework helps us navigate the world. Similar to a Global Positioning System in a car It is a bunch of maps that shows the driver his global position with trajectories for certain paths.

Someone in the audience asked him, "Who is reading the map?" He responded,"Well, I guess you are referring to the 'self'. In order to talk of this,we should talk about the assembly of all the maps. Think of it that we are not possessing a bunch of maps but rather we are a bunch of maps."

Anytime someone knows something exists and does not quite understand it, many hypothesis have to be made and tested in laboratories before any real "truth" can be accepted. For now, I am open to any logical explanation of the function of a neuron.

Kate brought up tourette's syndrom, which is another interesting aspect of this. I read something by Oliver Sacks about a prestigious surgeon who has severe Tourette's. When he is performing surgery he exhibits no tics, but as soon as he is done they start again. I think I agree with Kate that controlling Tourette's is an instance of the self overcoming the brain...so how does it work that you can't overcome it all thhe time? How is the self working here?

However, there a multiplicity of different pathways in the brain which could add up to all of the behaviors and responses given. Obviously though, there must be more to life and consciousness within the brain than these chemical signals, becuase the signals may exist, and have current injected in them..but still would resemble real living tissue and deliberate action. I think these differences must be explored to gain an understanding of how the boxes function. The boxes appear to be simple on the surface, butafter study show how the brain uses them for learning and acting all through the use of chemicals. But, perhaps we simply do not just know all the facts about these chemicals yet to make conclusive statements about neurons.

On that note, I was glad that Mary posted some info on Churchland's lecture. I wanted to attend but was unable to get over there. She mentioned that he discussed synaptic maps, but didn't have much to say about who interprets these maps. I think the idea of synaptic maps is feasible, although I don't know nearly enough yet to say why I feel this way. I took a Philosophy of Cognitive Science class a few years back, and the Churchlands were constantly labeled (and mocked, even) as "radical behaviorists" for focusing so much on neuroscience to understand behavior, and the self. Although I think it's difficult for most of us to envision the self as emerging from interaction of neurons, perhaps the Churchlands' views aren't as radical as they first might seem.

The more I read, the more I see connections between brain and behavior. Drug use, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, strokes, and Parkinson's Disease all bring about changes in behavior that seem to be linked to changes in neuronal communication. The concept of brain equaling behavior is becoming more of a reality to me as we move forward each week in class.

| Course Home Page | Forum | Brain and Behavior | Serendip Home |