Neurobiology and Behavior, Week 2

 
 
I think that science is limited because of its need for observation. In order to study something we need to be able to observe it. Therefore if something cannot be seen then science denies its existence completely. But we already know that there is an entire spectrum of light that the human eye cannot see. The only reason we thought of exploring other wavelengths is because we knew that there were wavelengths we could see. So the wavelengths of the visible spectrum were our starting points. In this manner there maybe so many things that we have never studied, because we cannot see them and there is no starting point for us to even think about their existence. Birds regularly use ultraviolet light to hunt and even to attract a mate. In class we had a discussion about whether animals live in another universe, and I think that we share the same universe; it is only our different abilities that allow us to see a different aspect of it.
            I don’t think that science can give us the complete truth, but I do think that it brings us closer to the truth. An example of this is a problem faced in quantum mechanics. Light is both a particle and a wave that allows us to perform observations. The light particle however is larger than an electron. This is a problem because if we want to observe an electron and we direct a light particle at it, the very act of observing the electron perturbs it. So all we know is where the electron was, and all we can do is estimate where it could be, but we can never know the electron’s exact position. Also we will only know how the electron behaved after it was perturbed, we will never know how it was before we threw the light particle at it. In this way science does bring us closer to the truth, but it never gives us the complete truth. Therefore we can say that there is a limit to how much we can learn.
            Hinduism however, says that it is possible to learn about everything in one lifetime. Science again can only bring us closer to the truth, hence we will be able to learn about the chemical, physical and biological aspect of something, but we will never know the complete truth. Let’s take water as an example. Hinduism says that we could learn about the chemical, physical and biological aspect of water, but we will never know how it feels to be water. According to Hindu philosophy, the soul is nothing but energy trapped inside a physical form and when we gain enlightenment through meditation, we are able to free the soul from the body and become part of the universal soul/energy. Since we are now energy, we are able to penetrate anything and gain complete truth.
 

I agree with Eve's comment: we need to define our terms, even if productivity isn't what we're after. Our discussion topics are focused on everyday words like 'brain,' 'mind,' and 'universe,' but from class, I could tell that everyone else's definitions differed from mine.

And the animal discussion--I think humans are way too species-centric. I read this article over the summer called "Watching Whales Watching Us," and it talked about how whales have started for forgive humans for the damages we've inflicted upon them: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12whales-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 . The author spoke about how 'human' whales seem to be: "Whales, we now know, teach and learn. They scheme. They cooperate, and they grieve. They recognize themselves and their friends. They know and fight back against their enemies. And perhaps most stunningly, given all of our transgressions against them, they may even, in certain circumstances, have learned to trust us again." Many of these observations would be cited to prove that humans have not just a brain, but a mind or a soul--but what about whales? They have complex social structures, language, and love. Should we open the Descartes vs. Dickinson argument up to whale brains, too?

This sounds sort of hokey, but I'm amazed at the difference of opinion in the Dickinson vs. Descartes debate. For me, the concept of an abstract 'mind' just doesn't make any sense. I don't get it the idea--you 'think' with your mind? ...which is in your brain? which is part of/equivalent to your soul? I know we said in class that observation can't prove one or the other, but you can open a skull, see a brain, and examine the neurons and connections and see how different behaviors and functions are wired to different parts of the brain. But a mind? You can't dissect that.

 When reflecting on this week’s discussion, I began to ponder the origins of morality. Last semester in my biology class we had a debate about this very topic in an effort to decide if nature or nurture was the bigger player. We watched a video documenting the abilities of primates to share with each other and work together to open a container of food. After much discussion, we came to the conclusion that both nature and nurture play a role in the development of morals.

In class we talked briefly about thought and whether it was a function of spirit, as Descartes claimed, or a function of the brain. This actually got me thinking about language as it is typically conceived of as being directly related to thought. Parts of the brain have been found to function in language acquisition, speech, word recall, etc. and if language is a function of a material object, wouldn’t that mean that thought is as well?

Does one even need language to think? To connect? I believe that higher functioning animals like dogs and horses are capable of thoughts relating to their surroundings and to past and future events, but they are not capable of language in the way we are. Perhaps thought is just a baser ability; a prelude to language.

How much of language affects the ability of humans to have complex thoughts? How much do alterations to the brain affect the ability to communicate and understand language? Do these alterations affect one’s ability to think, to have opinions?

Damage to the brain in locations that affect language has been known to change one’s ability to communicate and comprehend language. For example, Wernicke’s aphasia is a neurological disorder often caused by stroke. The resulting syndrome is sensory dysprosody, “the inability to perceive the pitch, rhythm, and emotional tone of speech.” (See Article) Individuals with Wernicke’s aphasia can speak fluently but the language content is incorrect. They use incorrect or nonexistent words while maintaining grammar, syntax, and fluidity of speech. For example, one might say something like “I called the door to bark and she flew before.” Patients usually have difficulty understanding speech and are unaware of their mistakes. Watch this video to hear patients with Wernicke’s aphasia speak. There are examples of individuals who recover from Wernicke’s aphasia who report that they were cognizant but could not control or understand what they were saying and what others were saying.

Individuals with Wernicke’s aphasia perhaps demonstrate that the ability to think abstractly is only partly related to the ability to understand and use language. Could thoughts really be related to spirit, as Descartes suggested? Or are their more observations just waiting to be discovered to explain this phenomenon? I favor the latter notion because I know that there is so much about the brain and how it functions that we don’t yet know.

 This week I found it interesting that many people did not agree with the idea of loopy science as real science. I realized that if I never worked in a lab, I would likely think of the linear science as the definition of science. It comes down to the way science is taught to people in comparison to the way science actually produces the knowledge. If students were forced to look at a microscope slide of cells instead of read about cells in a book, what difference in their view of science would occur, if any?

Furthermore, I find it strange that we use our brains to question the way the brain works, it seems counterproductive.

All humans have brains. Most of our brains are anatomically the same. The neuronal connections are most likely the same.  If we think of our brains as the physical matter, then why/how are we different from one another? Is it really just differences in the firing of the neurons that distinguishes me from the rest of you? To me this fact suggests the thing that makes us have different personalities, and individuality is the idea of a mind(soul) separate from the brain. On the contrary, one could argue individuality in personalities arises from the environment. 

I was interested in two arguments that were made in defense of the soul/mind.  The first was that there are some aspects of observable behavior that can’t be explained by science but could be explained by the soul/mind.  The other was that it is comforting to think that there is something besides the brain controlling our behavior. In response to the first argument, I don’t see how “We can’t explain this” leads directly to “there must be a soul.”  I agree that the influence of a soul is entirely within the realm of possibility.  I just don’t think it’s very scientific to jump to such a conclusion and then stay there.  In response to the second argument, I don’t think being comforted by an idea is enough to count as evidence that the idea is accurate.  Being comforted by something is a very good reason to continue to try and learn more about it, but I don’t think it should be the entire justification for believing it.   

Reading the brain through the lens of Emily Dickinson’s poem seems to me to function as a better summary of accumulated observations than Descartes’. In Antonio Damasio’s ‘The Feeling of What Happens’ (this author also wrote a book entitled ‘Descartes’ Error’ so you can see where this is going...), Damasio writes, “some aspects of the processes of consciousness can be related to the operation of specific brain regions and systems, thus opening the door to discovering the neural architecture which supports consciousness” (15). Following this, he states that “consciousness and wakefulness, as well as consciousness and low-level attention, can be separated” (15), and these observations lead me to prefer Dickinson’s model of thought, since the correlations between behavior and its neural geography seem to be emerging more and more. Damasio goes further to divide consciousness into the “core self” and the autobiographical self,” which at first presents itself as a Cartesian split, but is much more nuanced and drawn from laboratory-generated observations (as opposed to Descartes’ internal observations of self and other, which are highly legitimate but derived form something less scientifically malleable/approachable than Damasio’s observations/source body of information). The “core self,” which is the self existent during “core consciousness” (“a sense of self about one moment – now – and about one place – here... does not illuminate a whole being...” [16-17] and lacks all continuity and repeatability, both features that typically define “The Self”), entails a total absence of identity (perhaps what Cartesians fear?) because it behaves as “a transient entity, ceaselessly re-created for each and every object with which the brain interacts” (17). Its counterpart, the “autobiographical self,” employs “systematic memories of situations in which ore consciousness was involved in the knowing of the most invariant characteristics of an organism’s life – who you were born to, where, when, your likes and dislikes, the way you usually react to a problem or a conflict, your name, and so on” (17).
 
So what’s the difference between Descartes’ “body” and Damasio’s “core self,” and where does Descartes’ concept of mind differ from the “autobiographical self”? As far as I can tell, the workings of the “autobiographical self” – problems such as memory, mortality, identity, character – seem to match up with neurobiological functions more than one would expect. First of all, Damasio’s understanding of consciousness (as a largely biological phenomenon) is what mediates, filers, and even directs the way that emotions are processed, since “an organism may represent in neural and mental patterns the state that we conscious creatures call a feeling, without ever knowing that the feeling is taking place” (36). I feel pretty comfortable in the company of Damasio and Dickinson, but sometimes the classicist in me peeks its head above ground and asks me, “really?” Am I comfortable entrusting my selfhood to biological functions and a layered series of filters that are inextricably mine but not necessarily a product of something I “did,” or some way that I “am”? Can I operate as I always have, knowing that my selfhood may be secondary to the gook in my brain, with my only solace being that it is special gook: My Gook?
To be continued...

Simple is a relative term, in that, to a college student, multiplication is a simple concept, but to a 3^rd grader, it is immensely complicated. On the other hand, salt dissolving in water seems like a simple interaction to most people, but to a chemist, it is a complicated process, based on a complex system of rules. Some things that seem simple on the surface are complicated once you learn more about them, but at the same time some interactions are much simpler than they originally seemed once you learn their rules.

I've pretty much concluded that I prefer Descartes mind/brain/soul model, because it works for my own personal happiness.  I've been in therapy for awhile now (I think this is okay to just throw out there in the open...I wish it wasn't such a big deal) and the most beneficial part of this experience for me has been developing a sense of "mindfullness", awareness, and presence.  It has taught me to focus in and flush out all the bull shit affecting me.  This experience has suggested to me that it is possible to control the workings of a so-called mind, but perhaps this mind does not have to be distinctly separate from the brain and perhaps it isn't immaterial.  Maybe the mind is embedded in the brain and maybe we do exert an element of control over it.  It is difficult for me to accept the premise that the inner workings of our brain are simply uncontrollable chemical reactions. If I accepted this premise, I feel like I would be saying that meditation, "mindfullness", and any attempt to establish control over negativities and psychological issues is futile.  I do not believe that.  I cannot believe that. Like someone said in class, it is comforting to believe that you have a mind and a soul.  It would be disheartening if it was all brain because it would be accepting that one cannot control thoughts and actions.  This would suggest that drugs are the answer because a drug is a material thing that can allegedly solve material interferences.  It would mean that material explanations and solutions are the answer to psychological issues in all circumstances and that would just be a bummer.  I think humans can alter their minds and transform their perspectives through a will power that is perhaps not accounted for in any material form. However, perhaps the mind is the part of the brain where we have some say and where we have the power to reverse some things and change some of the chemical reactions inducing unfavorable outcomes.  Maybe mind and brain don't have to be such divided ideas.   

As for our discussion and description of science, I am satisfied with it.  I think the reformed scientific approach model is the best I have encountered.  I think when science is considered as this unending process of "getting is less wrong", it is more fun, less intimidating, and more approachable.  I have always believed it unrealistic to assume that because this or that has scientific evidence, it is true.  I am always proving theorems in math and accepting them as total truth because I have been programmed to operate in that way.  I wish we were introduced to theorems and proofs as partial truths.  I think it should be acknowledged that this seems to be the best way to prove this so far, and it seems true, but of course there is always room for further inquiry. I feel like my generation is losing that inquiry instinct because we've been taught science and math in a very structured and closed fashion.     

I was quite intrigued by our class discussion on linear science versus loopy science.  From our class discussion, it seemed that our understanding of what science should be inched from the standard linear model (hypothesis → experiment → conclusion) to a loopy model (summary of observations → new observations → implications).  But what I find most interesting is that while the “hard” sciences may be increasingly looked at from the loopy science framework, it seems like the social sciences, like anthropology, are still trying to emulate the “hard” sciences by trying to fit into the linear science model.  
In class, we came to the conclusion that:
    
-empirical knowledge cannot be universal
-science is unable to establish truth
-there are an infinite amount of summaries for any given observation
-science cannot be completely objective, there is always some degree of subjectivity in science (the crack)

These are all tenets that the study of anthropology has adopted and thus early and modern anthropologists have naturally used the loopy science framework in their studies because it is the model that is most accommodating to their line of work.  Yet, the field of anthropology still feels the pressure to try to fit into the linear science model to help legitimize its work.  So what happens when the loopy science model does become the model that is presented to 1st graders in their science classes? Will anthropology realize that maybe they did have it right all along?

 

 Perhaps this is a testament to my general lack of interest in a lot of scientific inquiry. I have always held that there was more to life than science and what scientists decide, so I am left unbothered by a lot of stuff. Science also deals with the material world, and not the immaterial, so.....yeah. A brain and a mind/soul do not have to be mutually exclusive of each other.

  The thought of whether there is nothing else but brain was something I dealt with a long time ago (when I came across different philosophies while reading Sophie's World) and came to the conclusion that the brain exists, and so does a mind, a soul, a spirit (Just ask Asaase Yaa and all the people at the Nogokpo Shrine).  

This conclusion was also reinforced by religion (I'm Christian) and my own personal experience. And since what I have experienced in my lifetime has always been more important to me than what scientists say or what the general consensus in the scientific community is, I am pleased to let it rest at that. 

When deciding whether I agree with Descartes or Dickinson, I like to believe in Descartes’ belief more than Dickinson’s.  Although I do agree with Dickinson’s argument to an extent because of all the scientific progress that has been made, I don’t like to think that everything comes from matter.   However, the reasons for why Dickinson’s argument is becoming popular were very convincing.  The idea that altering the nervous system can alter behavior was particularly interesting. It is surprising to hear that altering something physical, the brain, could have treated something that was thought to be part of the mind years ago, such as epilepsy.  In fact, those with epilepsy and schizophrenia are probably relieved that these illnesses are no longer looked at as problems of the mind since generally problems of the mind are a lot harder to get rid of than problems that has a physical origin to them.  I would also imagine that this particular idea about altering the brain gives hopes to those with other mental illnesses that don’t have proper treatments currently.  Despite all of this, I still want to believe there is a lot more to a human being than just their brain and body.  Just as other’s have mentioned, it is a lot more comforting to believe in a soul living after death than a physical body after death.   Even though Dickinson’s argument is becoming more popular due to the observations we are able to make of the brain, there is still possibility and time for more to be discovered about the “soul” and “mind.” We have much more to learn and perhaps in the future, Descartes’ argument will become more popular.  

 I've been dealing with anxiety issues since middle school and have only recently been diagnosed with mood disorders-- the treatment I receive now is effective; I take anti-depressants and, PRN, a drug that helps stop panic attacks. All of my symptoms are largely controllable now, but in extenuating circumstances I still have anxiety symptoms, disassociating from my body and panicking as a result.

And I think that is one of the reasons why I really like Dickinson's point of view. Other than my general lack of spirituality, this depersonalization, where I feel like an observer of my body and of the things around it, terrifies me in anxious situations. (This is kind of like a trance-like state; everything feels foggy, swimmy, I often experience dizziness or vertigo.) Likewise, I have intense daydreams in moving vehicles that makes me feel unattached to my body. Staring out seems to initiate these moments sometimes, which can be from reading a book or using a computer. (These moments are not as scary because they do not seem to come on by themselves.) I hate those spontaneous moments where I lose control of myself. Everything feels like a dream, like nothing is real. In those moments, I don't know if I am... anything. But by using different techniques, including reciting a mantra in my head, I am often times able to pull myself back into my body.

I do not want to be a body and a mind. Those dissociative moments terrify me and make me feel less real, less in my skin. I know it sounds like I should be embracing Descartes idea because of these experiences-- that I seem to observe the separation between the material and immaterial. But that's not how I feel. I like being a whole, entirely physical being. I find the idea comforting; it's what pulls me back into me. Sometimes I need a shock to my system, like cold air or plunging my hands into icy water. When I am me, I am real. 

To meditate does not mean to fight

with a problem.

To meditate is to observe.

Your smile proves it.

It proves that you are being gentle

with yourself,

that the sun of awareness is shining in

you,

that you have control of your situation.

You are yourself,

and you have acquired some peace. 

  -  Thich Nhat Hahn

This is the mantra I recite. I think it may have some interesting significance with our course, and I felt like sharing it. 

These are not the only reasons why I think I align mostly with Dickinson, of course, but when I tried to pin down why I felt more comfortable with "just brain," this is what came to mind.

I don't quite understand the poles toward which we are gravitating. Rather, my belief lies between the two -- one has a material body with a material brain that generates material thoughts, which compose a seemingly immaterial mind (I think mind and soul are interchangeable terms, but I prefer mind); however I do believe the mind has an entirely physical basis, which probably means I'm in the Dickinson camp. I also like her explanation better. The idea of there being an immaterial part of me actually makes me feel less comfortable and less connected with the universe.

I was perplexed in class on Thursday when some people said they didn't think animals had minds or thoughts, because I have two pet rats and firmly believe that they are little thinkers. I read this interesting National Geographic article on animal minds. It raises the question of what intelligence is and gives examples of studies that showcase animal cognition. I don't know how else to explain the animals presented in the article or ones like Koko the signing gorilla and Chantek the signing orangutan other than to conclude that some animals have conscious minds. To think that humans are the only conscious beings on this planet seems implausible to me.

 Looking through my notes and how society is leaning more toward Dickinson view of the brain as matter instead of Descartes view of the brain and the mind. Society has made many discoveries of using drugs and chemicals to treat certain neurobiological symptoms. Seeing that instead of treating a person's spirit it is better to treat their physical body. I was thinking about other inventions that have been created over time making us more dependable on matter instead of the spirit or soul. But how did we come up with these inventions? Maybe it's just for the money or maybe it;s the passion the excitement, etc. What if the push behind making new discoveries is our mind, the soul, the spirit trying to find new understands instead of matter making us pursue the new realms we have yet to explore. Personally I like to agree with both Descarte and Dickinson in that yes we have a brain, neurons, all of the matter that makes our body function and all of the chemicals that interact with other matter that we can manipulate. But I also feel that we do have a soul or mind that also contributes to how the body works. I just can't seem to grasp that everything is just matter and that all that we think and create is due to chemicals coming together and saying You know what you should try to make, something that flies, or you know that bouncy ball could go in a hoop and you can make a game, yes and wonderful game that is fun and new. I just think that there has to be something else behind our thoughts, something else that is behind our thoughts and pursuits. It is the mind and spirit that makes us question and explore, brings out our passions. I just feel that if you say everything is just matter it makes everything seem one dimensional whereas if you then add the mind there is much more excitement and much more things to explore.