Nervous system architecture: from the output side II

In class, we arbitrarily decided that a choice constituted a selection between two options which were for all intents and purposes equal. What I tried (and apparently failed) to get across in class is that there is no way for any two "choices" to be absolutely the same: even temporal arrangement can constitute a history effect significant enough to alter the "reinforcing" capability of one behavioral consequence over another.

The slug who will not withraw when chewing is actually a pretty neat example of the above phenomenon. While foraging, and not chewing, there is nothing to support the probocis extending behavior, or rather, nothing to make such an extension with its while. There are significant chances for injury from predation, however, so with no reason to keep one's nose to the grindstone, withdrawing the mouth becomes the most "adaptive" manuever. When there is food, however, the schedule shifts - there is now a very good reason to leave one's proboscis out there, so there is a very good reason to evolve a CPG which can override a stretch-relfex input. So while the tapping scientist may control all he can to keep his nose-boppings topographically equivalent, they will never be the same to the snail because the contexts are different.

Further in class, someone mentioned how we can come to decisions when two options have the same probability of reward. This equivocation is supposed to be us weighing the options and deciding on the superior selection. I would argue that instead what we're witnessing is a search for that one critical aspect which would make one decision superior to another. As time mounts, the context changes, and eventually some characteristic would become significant enough to drive the "selection" one way or another. Adding time pressure to the system alters the context, and altering the context alters the choices - even if they hypothetically could be the same for a moment, the context would eventually change them in such a manner that one would appear "better" than the other.

Talking about making a decision always comes from an observer's point of view, even when we're viewing our own behavior. I don't think animals have that perspective with regard to themselves or others. Could the I-function be a heavily-specified homeostatic mechanism for detecting subtle shifts in our environmental contexts to help us behave in (presumably) more adaptive ways?

            Melatonin is a hormone that is secreted by the pineal gland, which is found in the brain.  Its function is to regulate and maintain the body’s circadian rhythm, which is a roughly 24-hour cycle of physiological processes that the body endures.  A large part of this circadian rhythm is regulating a human’s sleep pattern. 

             Melatonin is activated by lack of light and the secretion of this chemical induces drowsiness.  And, of course, light inhibits the secretion of melatonin. 

            After our class discussion on jet lag and the response the body has to traveling through time changes, I thought that this would be a relevant process to discuss.  Because this chemical’s regulation is dependent on light and darkness, abnormal exposure to light can alter the body’s natural clock. This is a perfect example of the Central Nervous System interacting with another major system in the body, this being the endocrine system.

            Interestingly, melatonin can be taken as a dietary supplement that people can use to regulate their sleep patterns.  It is often taken by those who suffer from sleep disorders.  

A bit further up in the forum there was discussion about meditation and it's effects on the body and possibly on corrilary discharge signals. In my abnormal class, we are currently talking about how meditation and just being "mindful" of your surroundings can not only improve your mental health, but your immune system as well. I wasn't so much thinking of the meditation as a way for your I-function to better "conduct" corollary discharge signals, but for corollary discharge signals to be in sync. Here are my thoughts: if through meditation and mindfullness you become more aware of your experiences, emotions, and senses, perhaps the I-function is now just more in sync with the sensory corollary signals it was receiving? That is, the I-function now experiences these experiences just as the sub-conscious systems do and therefore the two signals agree. I was thinking that this could be beneficial b/c of the whole motion sickness idea where you feel ill when what you perceive and what you sense are different. Maybe the immune system workds better with meditation because what the sensory system experiences is actually in tune with what the I-function perceives. I realize how much of a stretch this is, but does anyone else have any ideas about why this may happen?

I think the posts above regarding dreams are really interesting. I had the same thoughts in class on Thursday. If auditory hallucinations in schizophrenics has been attributed to low levels of corollary discharge, then when we dream do our levels of discharge decrease? This would make sense since discharge has been associated with input and many of our sensory inputs are altered when we sleep. However, I'm not sure I agree with Madina in that we don't know who we are when we dream. As far as auditorial perception goes, that is probably an input that is altered when we sleep, explaining why it takes longer to answer when someone calls your name than when awake. I do like the idea of I-function on standby, though. When we dream we sometimes see ourselves from a third party perspective (at least I do) but when I'm watching myself in my dream, I'm still aware of my self. I would be curious to know if there is any link between I-function in dreams and being unable to die in our dreams (since it's not something we've experienced before). I'm not sure if that's been proven, but it's something I've heard and it makes sense. Where do I-function and experience overlap?

I also want to review the reafferent loop, its function, and its relation to corollary discharge levels.

I'm worried that our conversation is pulling us away from the idea of the "mind," since I-function seems to be becoming less and less impressive or necessary. However, as someone who is still on the fence of dualism, I want to make sure we are aware of all of our options and don't just dismiss the idea of dualism because I-function is not as important as we previously thought. The idea that I-function is not necessary for decision making does not entirely convince me that it is completely irrelevant to the process. Along the same lines, we were discussing choices and behaviors, and, while it is important to look at simple behaviors like clapping or any output in response to two simultaneous inputs, we have to remember that there is so much going on inside our brains when we make decisions that it might not be comparable. If choices are made based on the I-function (which I believe it might be), why can't the I-function just be another pattern generator? or that which all generators refer back to? In terms of risk taking, competing pattern generators would look to the I-function (or personality of the self), in order to determine which generator "wins out" in the end.

I found the idea of corollary discharge being related to possible eating disorders very relevant to my last webpaper about body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) which my paper goes on to discuss how this disorder acts very similarly to over compulsive disorder (OCD). BDD is a mental disorder that involves a distorted body image. It is diagnosed in those who are obsessively critical about their self-image even if to everyone else there is no noticeable disfigurement or defect.Bringing this in to connection with corollary discharge, perhaps those individuals with this disorder have something wrong in their corollary discharge. The findings discussed in my webpaper suggested dysfunction in a 'circuit' or 'loop' connection between areas of the brain. For example if someone is tweezing her eyebrows with the intent of removing all the stray hairs from her original shape, through corollary discharge that individual is able to decide when she has tweezed enough--however when the corollary discharge is dysfunctioning the person may not receive the signal to "stop" or of satisfaction with the shape of her eyebrow--and so she may continue to tweeze away until no hair is left.

Another part of last weeks discussion that I found very interesting was the idea of losing weight. It was mentioned that our body has a set body-weight---and so if one attempts to lose weight till they reach their goal weight they may be able to accomplish it temporarily as they are conscious about it and are able to override the i-function by concentrating on their weight. However once that concentration is broken then that individual will gain back the weight lost--does this mean that weight loss is more about concentrating on your goal weight and about mentally feeling skinnier rather than regular exercise and a balanced diet?

Yes, I, too. DOn't know exactly what that I-function is.

I think it is that little voice that comes on in your head when you want to do something or are about to do something. "I am going to walk. I am going to eat. I am hungry..." etc. Hence, its name, the "I"-function.

But how does this rope in with muscle memory?  Somethings, you don't order yourself to do.  You just do it.  Like what Molly said before about locking your keys in the car. You just tend to close the car door after you get out and if I function was really the case, then wouldn't you have been able to stop yourself before locking yourself out of the car?  The line seems so hazy and so complicated, I feel that I'm constantly questioning even my own thoughts....

So...I think we should have a uniform definition of "I-Function" and then move on, because I do not understand certain people's comments or arguements since I think we all have different ideas of what the i-function really is.

Over the past few weeks, we have spoken a lot about the I-function and many debates have risen around the fact that animals may or may not have an I-function. I think this all depends on our definition of the I-function which, unfortuantely, we haven't yet teased apart completely. But as I understand it, the I-function is one's sense of self awareness, and for humans it includes theory of mind, or the mental reasoning of the feelings and thoughts of others. Cognitively, children develop a theory of mind near 2 years of age. Dogs function at about the same level of intelligence as a 2 year old, or so I've heard (maybe that's an overstatement) but i often wonder if animals, or dogs in particular, possess a theory of mind. we have discussed this in the forum before about how domesticated animals express guilt or shame when doing things wrong, but for the longest time i was not convinced that animals have an I-function. i just assumed the simple explanation that the I-function is a higher cognitive mechanism that we posess and animals lack and this is what sets us apart as superior beings.

maybe i was wrong.

i am interested in animals' psychological processes. animal behaviorists basse their entire careers studying such concepts, so maybe i should give this idea a second thought. i came across an article http://www.strato.net/~crvny/sa03002.htm which briefly mentions several examples of animals' psychological functioning. for example, it states that a birds often groom themselves, expressing self love, but when they are angry or frustrated they may pluck out their own feathers to express punishment. this idea is not entirely new to me, but i guess i hadn't given it much thought before. anyway, these observations lead me to reconsider animals' potential abililty to have a working I-function. now the question remains, what are the limitations of their I-function? and what are the I-functions' responsibilies for animals as compared with those conducted by humans'?

In class on thursday, we debated whether or not animals have the ability to make choices. if so, we also wondered whether or not the I-function was involved in the decision making process. the article i mentioned above seems to support the idea that animals have "thoughts, intelligence, instincts, and feelings" all of which are important for the decision making process. but i am still not entirely convinced that animals make choices. mostly, i would assume that animals' choices, if any, are related to survival. as humans we have free will and less constraining consequences of our choices, so not all choices are survival-related. are they? if i choose to paper clip my report or staple my report, there is no influence on my survival. (unless you're taking it really literally and you follow the theory that each move we make influences subsquent actions, leading us to an ultimate predestiny. ok, i dont really agree with that at all so i wont even go there!)

basically i just left class yesterday with a bunch of slightly irrelevant questions and felt the need to post about them. i dont know if anyone else is as interested in animal psychology or if anyone else has thought about animals and their presence/lack of an I-function, but if you do, please respond because i'd be really interested to read your thoughts!

In our clapping activity with the class last Thursday and on Tuesday, the issue of there being a single conductor was raised. If anything I think the idea of everyone being their own conductor is still very valid; everyone’s I-function definitely controls corollary discharge and thus helps render people being aware of the other movements, noises, and presence around them, regardless of their five senses. A person’s being aware has to do with their ability to react to those around them, and how they can control their reactions to those around them. I read an interesting article about songbirds and mirror neurons, a type of neuron that fire both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another animal. Known to be expert mimics, songbirds’ singing abilities result from their mirroring neurons located in the “high vocal center (HVC)” of their brain, where they react to specific songs using precise timing; this particular pattern of timing the nerve impulses are the same whether the bird is listening to song or singing them. This coordination of delaying motor signals is an example of corollary discharge, where the neural representation of the output the song being sung is programmed to compare with the auditory input of hearing the song being sung. This corollary discharge pattern is significant to the songbird’s ability to actually learn the song they sing and to recognize the songs of other birds singing in their same vicinity. Thus corollary discharge is important to introducing variability to the song pattern itself, an integral aspect of a songbird’s mating abilities. In this way, I think the corollary discharge pattern can be seen as being related to the I-function because it allows the songbird to have a sense of its surroundings and thus makes it more able to determine its current state. Knowing how to perceive itself in relation to its surroundings help to center the bird and is central to its ability to perform and function.