Biology 202 Neurobiology and Behavior Spring 2004

I think that, in the conversation started by Laura and continued by Anjali, that it is important to acknowledge that not all behavior is conscious or voluntary. There are many things we do without thinking about them: we breathe, our heart beats, we get angry or sad or happy. Emotion is a particularly interesting involuntary behavior. And it ties directly in with what Michelle was saying about trauma. I'm reading a book called The Myth of Sanity by Martha Stout, Ph.D.. Dr. Stout is a trauma specialist, working mostly with victims of childhood trauma: severe abuse or neglect, tragic circumstances. The book examines the "reality" of sanity by applying the themes of trauma-indcued dissociation to "normal" people in every day life. Essentially, she says, we all experience some dissociation, mostly not of the trauma-induced kind. But we are not always "here." And yet, sometimes, like those with dissociative disorders, we continue to function, to behave even when dissociated from ourselves to varying degrees. We may lose track of time and place when engrossed in an interesting project. We may go through an entire day distracted by something, going about our normla routines, but not really conscious of what we're doing. Obviously, the routine is behavior. But what of the dissociation? Is that behavior, too? I think so. It's happening only in that unobservable internal universe. But it is just as important in the consideration of "behavior" as a whole, and its residence in the brain, as more physical, observable behaviors. Perhaps it is more important, because it shows us that behavior can exist only within the brain, or the internal world created by the brain (are these two different or one and the same??), totally distinct from the outside world. Is this not direct evidence that the behavior resides in the brain and the brain alone, even if it at times seeps out into the world around us?

Mine had to do with the thought, related to Emily's thoughts above, that if Dickinson et al were right, that the self is in the brain, and if it were also true that the brain is always changing, that suggests that the self may also always be changing. Which, of course, in turn relates to one of the general questions I suggested for writing about here .... what DO you think of the "brain = behavior, there isn't anything else" notion, and why do you think whatever you do? It would be worth leaving some thoughts here at the beginning of the semester so we can look back and see what's changed (if anything) at the end.

Another thing you might want to write about that we talked about this week is the science as "getting it less wrong" instead of determining Truth idea. What's your reaction to that?

A couple of other issues that stuck in my mind from last week:

• We talked about consciousness as the "unobservable" by others, but it was suggested that we can observe the EFFECTS of consciousness. Is that really true?
  
• Do we always need some kind of go-between to mediate from ourselves to the universe? that could be either a preist or a brain?
  
• (as above) Is the self a stable entity or is it always changing?
  

I think this is important to note especially when thinking about neural systems in less evolved organisms. An organism such as a hydra has no centralized nervous system, certainly no "brain." However, it moves, takes in food, are these not behaviors?

A question I would like to look into from this point is "how complex must a behavior be to involve the brain?"

1. Mathews, G. (1998) Neurobiology: molecules, cells, and systems. Malden, MA. Blackwell Science.
2. http://www.hmc.psu.edu/sciweb/anat/anat4.htm

"How small the cosmos (a kangaroo's pouch would hold it), how paltry and puny in comparison to human consciousness, to a single individual recollection, and it's expression in words!"
-Nabokov. Speak, Memory. 1967.

Nabokov seems to be getting at the same idea expressed in "The brain is wider than the sky." The question then is, what is consciousness? Obviously there is more in the brain than consciousness. Also, the brain in brain=behavior is not literally "the brain" but the entire nervous system. See course notes. Also, I wanted to agree with Maryam- there is certainly a danger in saying "the effects of consciousness," as the behavior/effect which is observable likely dervies from many different places/experiences/memories/feelings, of which the person expressing may not even be aware. This references what Eleni said about her sister and being afraid of getting carsick- was her sister aware of why she felt that way? Probably not. In all likelyhood, that memory was completely lost to her-without other witnesses to make the connection for her, she would never know where it came from.

The mind vs. brain debate is really interesting to me, especially in regards to the use of psychological medication. Were psychoanalysts completely wrong in thinking that talking could help patients? Or did the dialogue between doctors and patients somehow create a change in the brain similar to the change now achieved by taking an SSRI? If the brain is the self, and the self changes through psychoanalytical therapy, then the brain is ultimately changed. Similarly if the brain receives more serotonin and a person's mood is uplifted, the self is changed by changing the brain. Is it a two way street of change? Or are they the same, and alterable from a number of pathways?

Just my random thoughts...

Jenny

PS I read Girl, Interrupted over break, and there's an interesting chapter "Mind vs. Brain" that discusses some of the issues we've discussed in class. It's a really interesting book.

Because of certain questions and comments raised last time, I ought to recommend a psychology course (at least an intro level). It is very helpful in finding out how we/brain perceive, recognize, evaluate, store, and retrieve information. This could help clarify how the mind/brain evolves and grows.

Otherwise, I must ask myself the following: When we say "Brain=Behavior", what "behavior" are we talking about? I think that many of us are quick to accept this "Brain=Behavior" formula because we seem to discuss it as though "Brain = Personality". This is maybe because our discussions are human-centric.
How about those certain species which do not posess a brain, nor by that an organized nervous system (maybe ants? or certain bugs? or snails? -- I maybe wrong here). We all agree that these species DO indeed have observable behavior, and maybe unobservale too (although, I won't argue about them having personalities). My point is, if this "Brain=Behavior" formula is universal, we should question it a bit more. In my opinion, this formula is too exclusive, and I believe that more variants affect and contibute to behavior in a species.

I think that this and other studies can be used to indicate how brain has so much control over behavior. So is there a neurological reason that women tend to be stereotyped as the emotional gender, and men are the stereotypes as more easily aroused? Just curious. It's a great article, I highly recommend people reading it if they have a chance.

In effect, I think that the true nature of the scientific process, making observations and analyzing them, should be the process initially taught in schools. In this way, children will learn early on how the true nature of any inquiry is applicable to everyday realizations. Once that personal nature of scientific inquisition is established, the standard scientific method will make more sense – creating an avenue for others around the world to follow their intuition and contribute to the already observed phenomena that help make things "less wrong."

I first read this story in "Descartes' Error" a book by Dr. Damasio (as a mentioned in a previous posting). I found this case so interesting because it seems to suggest a relationship between behavior and the anatomy of the brain. Though I am not ready to say that all of self is contained within the brain, I thought that this case may be valuable for future discussion.

On a similar note, I'm curious how much genes affect a person's behavior. Behavior is certainly not 100% genetic, but how much of that percentage belongs to genes? I have noticed that I possess certain personality traits that are very similar to my father's. I find it odd that I would be prone to behave like one parent over the other. Additionally, I don't like the notion of genes dictating behavior... it's a very trapping feeling.

To wrap up... how much of our behavior comes from within? How much is influenced by the outside world?

My reaction to the statement that science means "getting it less wrong" is very accurate. The research process is so complicated that arriving to a definite right answer is very difficult to do. On the other hand, arriving to a definite wrong answer is very probable, but this allows us to make the right changes to guide our research interest in the correct direction. Every time you work on your project you are less wrong. This was an interesting factor to get cleared out since many people think that when you are a scientist you have to derive to the right answer.

The question I pose to the class is how many of you can really relate your emotions to chemicals in your body. When one thinks of the sky, do you think that picture you hold in your head is really in fact some sort of molecule which is a compound of some organic molecules that trigger your hypothalamus to envision a sky? This correlation is simply to clear to me. I think this adds to the discussions we've seen about how science cannot seek truth, but rather less falsity.

I hope someone can grab some idea from this...

I wanted to emphasize that based on the lack of evidence between memory and some biological aspect of the brain, I have to side with Descartes about the notion of a dualistic Soul/mind from the brain. The brain as I understand it is something that is composed of chemicals and organs which reacts in a very mechanical manner. Although we may know the organs involved in memory and emotion, I think that this abstract idea of a soul/mind is in fact the missing link between these feelings and the scientific aspect.

Being a religious person, I find it interesting to see how ancient religious texts (such as the Hindu Gita, or even the Bible) can still clearly relate to people. Whereas science, which is a fairly recent field (in comparison to religious texts), is constantly struggling (proving and disproving theories) to understand people.

In having moved throughout different countries, cultures, and language zones, at a young age, I have had an opportunity to observe, experience, and blend into a number of different cultures. This places me at an interesting viewpoint in being able to observe several different cultures but as an insider in each. Each individual person has their own behavioral characteristics and ways of dealing with issues; however, in the broader scheme of things, it has been observed that certain aspects of behavior are greatly influenced by one's culture and the society by which they are surrounded.

I feel that without the many other things that play into behavior, the brain alone can not accomplish the task at hand, though I do believe that it is the central coordinator and regulator.
For example, speaking a language is a behavioral characteristic. When a child is born, any existing language can become their native tongue. We are predisposed to learning the language, and the process takes place via the brain. However, someone who is locked away in solitary confinement from the day of birth will not miraculously learn to express themselves in the form of spoken language. For this behavioral task to work there needs to be collaboration between the surrounding environment and the individual's brain.

Maybe that is what I am always Home Alone 1, 2 And 3 : )

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