Reply to comment

I have really enjoyed reading everyone’s comments!
The idea that brain=behavior is simultaneously alluring and unsettling. For, the notion that, like an automaton, we are all a mere collection of wires, impulses and programmed responses undermines the notion of free will. Or does it? The following website geared towards children compares the brain to a computer http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/bvc.html Is a computer capable of rational thought and of feeling? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E5DB1230F932A15752C0A9659C8B63 This New York Times article, upon which I stumbled a few weeks ago, discusses the advances in computerized chess programs, such that the computer is sometimes able to defeat world champion chess players. The issue the article raises, though, is the computer program only as capable at chess as the best programmer? “Teaching” a computer to respond in programmed ways cannot be the same as the human experience, which is ever-nuanced and intimately knowable by the individual alone. There is comfort in permitting the idea to germinate that there exists “reason” behind behavior and that the excitement of love and the agony of defeat can be deeply personal experiences as well as mediated by the brain; the two need not be mutually exclusive. Choice, belief, perception, interconnectedness and the like are not undermined by the symbiotic mind/body relationship from which behavior is borne.

Emily Dickinson’s poem rather than purporting a solipsistic vision of the world is an exquisitely expansive one. We do not exist in isolation a mere collection of perceptions, as the philosophy of solipsism would have it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) Indeed, to suggest that the brain has limitless capacity, as Dickinson does, and moreover is the genesis of sky, ocean… is to probe the very nature of existence. It seems the essence of the Dickinson argument is that the mind and body are inextricably linked. Our thoughts and feelings are shaped by our perceptions, all of which are rooted in the brain. On the surface, Dickinson’s must have been a radical notion since the brain, while a popular topic, was something about which much was speculated, but a comprehensive summary of observations was evolving. There was a shift from the brain as the realm of the philosopher, Darwinian evolution and the cleric to that of the scientist (and the poet).

It is only very recently that some of the mysteries of the brain have been unraveled, with a plethora of research supporting the involvement of particular regions of the brain in feelings, decision-making and other behaviors. Techniques, such as fMRI (http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=fmribrain&bhcp=1) have elucidated particular regions of the brain and their functions. These observations do not unto themselves answer the question of whether the mind lies within the brain, along with the "spirit," but they encapsulate one layer of observations that are quite compelling. Scientists, like Crick have pioneered the underpinnings of genetics as a basis for behavior. And Dickinson’s poetic outpourings suggest the sky resides in the brain, a lovely idea and one, which I believe, has merit. This is compared to Descartes’ assertion that the mind and body were largely distinct entities, reasoning, “I think therefore I am.” This doctrine of thought as evidence for existence fails to account for the complicated, often murky, world of the brain. Yes, I think, but I also feel, weigh decisions, make decisions and observe others’ behavior, amongst other things and therefore I am.

It is disconcerting to depersonalize one’s existence by embracing the power of the brain in molding and executing observable and unobservable behavior. However, acknowledging the brain’s power does not undermine one’s subjective experience or free will, rather the beauty in mind/body synchronicity can be fully realized and our interconnectedness undeniable. None of this is an argument for a particular "truth" above all others, but for a somewhat related collection of truths in support of a unified set of explanations for the brain=behavior theory. There are many lingering questions. What role do genes play in determining behavior? Where does the balance lie in nature versus nurture in terms of behavior? Did Dickinson’s personal experience give her particular insight into the brain? Etc...