Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities has 50 remote-ready activities, which work for either your classroom or remote teaching.
The Line between "Us" and "Not Us"
Though I think that I understand the principle definition of the “I-factor,” I am a bit confused about where the line lies between the part that is “us” and the part that is not “us.” From what I gathered, the parts of the body that we can control, along with our thoughts, are all apart of the “I-factor.” It is also the “experience of self.” What we can’t control or “experience as our self” is not apart of this factor. Our heartbeat, for example. This is why Christopher Reeve’s “I-factor” was considered to be the neck and above-he couldn’t control or experience his limbs, so they weren’t considered to be “him.” This definition may work most of the time, but I consider it to be rather fuzzy. The brain is a very powerful organism, and sometimes the thoughts that we have can influence the rest of our body. Two things that I am specifically thinking about are the placebo effect and false pregnancies.
People that undergo the placebo effect are people that are convinced that they are recovering from a sickness, or something along those lines, and because they think that they are recovering, they do. Women undergoing false pregnancies believe that they are pregnant even when they are not, and as a result, they begin to show signs of pregnancy, such as producing milk. In both cases this is not a fully conscious decision, but never the less, the people are thinking, and that thinking is influencing things in their bodies that is supposed to be beyond control. It would seem ridiculous for a woman to tell herself to produce signs of pregnancy if she’s not pregnant, and yet, if she is truly convinced that she is pregnant, even if she is not, she will produce these signs. Her thoughts do this, and I am assuming that thoughts are a part of the “I-factor” since it is our thoughts that give us perception and an “experience of self.” If someone truly believes that she is pregnant, then her “experience of self” becomes “I am pregnant,” whether or not it is true. And it may be true that false pregnancy symptoms and symptoms of the placebo effect cannot be controlled as easily as arms or legs, but it seems to me that they are still controlled because human thoughts create them. My way of thinking is this: we control thoughts and thoughts are a part of the “I-factor.” If we can control what we think, and our thinking causes change in the body, then we controlled that change. And, if something that can be changed, and seen as a part of the self, is a part of the “I-factor,” then would that mean that whatever is involved in these processes is a part of that factor? This is why I am confused. Generally we can’t control these things, so they aren't us. But sometimes we can control them-even if we don’t recognize it. Are they a part of the factor only sometimes? Or is the “I-factor” completely exclusive to only things that we absolutely know we are controlling when we are controlling them? So, what is the “I-factor” exactly?