Science; "Brain = Behavior"

To respond to some of the things I heard in class on Tuesday...

Saying that humans are operated by neurons and chemicals does not, from what I can tell, mean that those neurons and chemicals operate the same way in all of us. I don't think choosing the "brain = behavior" model is the same thing as saying that we're all the same, that there's no free will, or that the brain doesn't interact with the environment. Instead, I think the effect of the environment on the brain demonstrates the biological basis for behavior. As some classmates have mentioned, we can see how drugs (both legal and illegal) affect our brain tissues and brain functions. We can see the physical effects of external, environmental input. Similarly, we can see things happening in the brain even without any input. And then there are many things we can see when looking through lenses but that we can't clearly associate with certain thoughts or ideas -- at least not yet. Imagine how much we could see a hundred years ago, either with our own eyes or with special tools, but didn't know how to identify until more recently!

Even if the huge descriptor "the brain" were to account for all of our behavior, that wouldn't take away from the intense, exciting mystery involved in behavior (and in the brain). Plus, if we CAN associate certain parts of the brain with certain behaviors and even certain thoughts, even though we didn't used to be able to do so, doesn't that show that as we fix, revise, and hone our scientific methods we just see more and more a) complexity and confusion and b) clarity?

I don't feel satisfied by the idea that a whole (ill-defined) section of behavior is to be labeled "the mind" and blocked off from biological exploration only for that reason. I'd rather assume that there's a lot we don't know - and keep looking. I'm exhilarated by the idea that scientific exploration always yields more and more questions. For everything we see, or learn HOW to see, there are millions more things we still don't understand. For me, that's a reason to keep working, to think, "We aren't YET in the know because we haven't YET found the right means." For me, it's all too much to chalk up to nothing, or to associate with some transcendental thing that we don't even search for physically. Biology and behavior are both intriguing and confusing, and I want to be able to question each of them further.

For me, the main question is not "Is there a separation between brain and behavior?" but rather "How do the brain and behavior interrelate?" While I recognize that many people enjoy the idea of an elusive mind (or soul or spirit), I'm not drawn to that idea. Moreover, I don't find it threatening to think that there is a biological basis for our behavior -- including interior, unseen activity, like thinking. The idea that we can observe and describe things biologically is appealing to me, not scary. Scientific observation doesn't take anything away from our higher-level functions; it doesn't place them into a tiny box or try to define them too clearly. As we talked about in class, describing things scientifically does not mean unlocking all their mysteries or granting scientists some all-knowing Truth.

I'm bothered more by Descartes' idea than by Dickinson's because it seems, to me, to accept too readily that there are things we can't even discuss or observe. I don't want to give our humanity any special value. Why can't we talk about it and examine it the same way we do other organisms? Yes, we are highly evolved creatures, but that doesn't mean we should take consciousness, decision-making, and other pre-frontal-lobe activities and place them in an "Untouchable" or "Unknowable" box.

At the same time, however, I do think it's important to remember to separate scientific discovery from assumptions and from truth. Saying that the mind might be a function of the brain says nothing about how complicated a process making the idea of oneself is or how much each of us differs in that and other processes. I'm intrigued by Emily Dickinson's formulation of the relationship between the brain and the sky -- between an individual and the world -- but do still want to probe deeper. I'm not satisfied just by saying, "Okay, the brain creates the mind and the sky. Throw everything inside and lock it up." I still want to explore it. Even if it's all a construction of the mind (at least in the terms set up by Constructivism, which complicate things more than Dickinson does), I still want to know how it works.

If we are living, moving, growing beings, so are our brains. Our conceptions of ourselves and our worlds are vastly different when we're infants from what they are today, just as our behavior changes. How do the ingrained growth processes that we all grow through, AS WELL AS the more flexible ways in which we're changed, built, or affected as individuals, play into this discussion?

If the brain=behavior but both brain and behavior are constantly changing, what does the equal sign even mean? What kind of correlation do these two ideas have to one another?

The relationship between the brain and behaviour is a unique relationship that remains a mystery. A person's behaviour is a result of the activity of the brain, but I think that the brains activity is not just based on the network of neurons and the nervous system, it is based on a persons perceptions, and external environment as well. A person's point of views etc. are not necessarilly components of the brain but more so are components of a person's mind.

Descartes says that 'much of observable behaviour is a result of the nervous and a result of the mind.' As disconcerting as it is I think that the mind does construe alot of what we percieve which affects the way our brain cuases us to behave. I have a greater tendancy to agree with descartes point of view on the brain and mind then with Crick who just believes that our behaviour and personality is simply the result of the nervous system. There is no denying that the nervous system and neurons play a large part in commanding the way we act/behave, but the attitude to behave in such a manner is derived from our mind which is filled with our perceptions, and opinions all based on our upbrining and other external stimuli.

From Emily Dickinson's poem I find it interesting how it is said the sky can fit into the brain. The brain can contain the sky because it can comprehend the concept of the sky. The sky may be more vast/bigger than the brain but it is much more simplistic and can not be compared to something as comple as the brain.

I find myself clearly "on the fence" on the issue of whether behavior is completely determined by the brain/nervous system or whether there is some other, alternative “mind”, “soul” etc. that may contribute.  I find that for me this is particularly difficult in terms of abstract notions such as emotions and creative or original thought.  I can see that motor neurons cause our physical behavior but what causes our internal state to be translated into a particular motion.  Is it the sum of our experiences which interprets our environment and then accordingly physically reacts?  The range of each individual’s experiences is so vast that this I suppose is entirely possible.  Added to this is the fact that how we process/experience an experience may also differ based on prior experiences or our actual physical differences from others.  Due to the abstract nature of emotions etc. this is a very hard point to even support without even touching on what is “true” (if that exists…).  Our understanding of the brain and how it functions is really quite elementary and I am still waiting on more evidence to make any sort of even remotely conclusive decision on this point.  However, I’m not sure that I am overly concerned about this.  Whether or not I transcend my physicality is almost irrelevant to me at this point, as that belief does not affect my personal experience of emotions etc.  Someone something along this line in class, and I found it to express my own thoughts: that the validity and experience of emotions etc. is not necessarily hindered by their source or knowledge thereof.  My experience with science thus far leads me to believe that as with most dichotomies it is probably some intertwined combination of multiple factors.

My first reaction in class was that there absolutely is a mind and a brain that co-exists and governs our behavior and personality because there is os much to a person and his/her personality that i could not even begin to grasp the idea that everything could be simply be a code of chemical/electric reactions in our body. However, when I began to read everyone comments (which were all very interesting) I realized I didn’t not need “the mind” to explain any observable part of human behavior and more some. I, from what I know now, just see that the physiology of the brain although it is not all understood has the potential to explain our emotions, our subconscious, our thoughts, even maybe why we have morals and other complex questions. Hormones, chemicals, and neural messages govern humans. The only question that I ask is whether we feel happy because our sensors received a chemical message, or is that chemical message sent because we are happy? I do not know the “right” answer to this question, if there is such a thing, but I currently think that we feel happy because of something, that causes a signal in the brain that passes through out body. This something can be ice cream, a love story, or even something that is not observable like the our subconscious. You know, when you have those days when you are just in a good mood! I love those days. See you all soon.

 ~Nelly Khaselev

Initially in class during the discussion on the independence of the brain and mind, I was indecisive of how to link the two entities together---or are they one? In my opinion, they are two entities yet their purpose and function and are dependent upon each other. The brain’s ability to process information chemically is what determines the mind or consciousness of one’s being (i.e. serotonin levels that effect mood, sleep, appetite, etc.) Contrastingly, the brain is certainly affected by consciousness levels as scientists have observed in certain illnesses such as Seasonal Affective Disorder where mood variations are believed to be attributed to the amount of light that an individual is exposed to. Depressed-like symptoms occur when the amount of light exposure is low, and treatments for this kind of disorder include light therapy.

For some it may be easy to simply say that the brain and mind are one for the brains processing is the actual manifestation of consciousness. How can this explain persistent vegetative states where brain activity is still present yet consciousness has reached a minimal low?

This interdependency, or loop between the brain and mind is what makes it the most intriguing and complex organ of the body. No dualistic character can be associated with any other organ of the body, except the brain.

 But it is this idea that makes neuroscience so interesting: even with individual differences, it seems as though every person's brain processes sensory information using the same methods, leading to similar results. Since there is no way of knowing the answer to this question, it makes the field all the more interesting and exciting that can lead to many theories attempting to describe how the brain and the environment interact. Whether Emily Dickinson was right that the sky is only a manifestation of the brain and the mind or Descartes was right in his belief that the brain and the mind are distinct entities, the decision may never be known, which will allow the allure of the subject to grow making the field an interesting one to watch.

Given that this forum was meant to meander, I'm going to take the initiative and discuss one of my oh so favorite topics: loopy-science. When Nietzsche asserted that "God is dead!" what he really meant was that we, humans, created the all-powerful entity to whom so many are willing to ascribe their own greatness. So too have we lowly monkey created the unwieldy giant that is science, a concept as subject to foibles and folly as any other of man’s making. Two specifics topics come to mind when I consider the human origins of science; the limits of language and the necessity of self-reflection for the scientist.

Too often science has been thought of delivering a truth tantamount to that of a religion. A veritable war of words rages on the internet between fundamentalists of either religious and scientific persuasion, and unfortunately but for the words “Darwin” or “Jesus,” the structure of the arguments are largely identical. Science and religion (for now I’ll focus on the religion I’m more familiar with, Catholicism) share other similarities; both make use of the Latin language in an obfuscatory manner, both come with socially legible vestments that demarcate the wearer as a practitioner, and both are thought to revolve around glass receptacles filled with mystical liquid. While many followers of “Science” fail to conduct themselves in manner which distinguishes their beliefs from religious faith, science itself calls for the scientist to consider himself and his role within science as a body. The scientist should be aware that he is first and foremost a human, not the objective all seeing eye that the public often regards him as. The scientist needs to consider her position not only within her phylogenetic history, but her ontogenetic history as well. Education, family structure, citizenship; all these social structures will augment the practice of science within the lab.

Language is a particular favorite limit of mine. I’ve always tended more towards a Whorf-ian conception of language, which asserts that language comes after perception of reality and thus comes to drive our understanding of the “physical” reality around us. If language really does control how the world is perceived by the brain, then certain “truths” or physical laws may be limited to the language within which they were invented. Consider a hypothetical language which has no means to express time (Whorf asserts that Hopi is one such language, but this assertion remains controversial[1]). If one cannot express time, then among many other issues, one cannot express velocity. While this would make physics much easier for speakers of English, what does this do to the reality of the speaker of our hypothetical language? More to the point, what does it do to their science?

1. Whorf, Benjamin, “Science and Linguistics,” in Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ED. Carrol, J.B., MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass., 1956.

What struck me the most about Thursday's class has to be the different trains of thought when talking about the brain/mind dualism. I believe it was so interesting to me behind of my overall lack of knowledge of neurobiology and its connection to behavior. Though I found the trains of thought of Descartes, Dickinson, Crick, Ramachandran and even Grobstein interesting, I voted for the Dickinson et al mindset that its all brain/neurons/matter but thinking back,  I am unsure/on the fence. I made this switch because I found it kind of disconcerting to think in Dickinson's terms that everything we see is only constructions of the brain and nothing more but I also agree with Crick that there may not be a mind in addition to the brain. 

I hope that throughout this course I am able to make the distinction between the mind and the brain (if there even is one). 

In reading through the posts that others have already submitted, I’m most intrigued by Anna’s. Anna brings up the point that we tend to forget to apply the theory of evolution to humans and the human minds, and reminds us that, if you believe in evolution, then the intricate faculties of the human mind arose because of reproductive pressures.

I was certain that I was in the “brain=behavior” camp, and this argument is the one that I couldn’t find when I was first trying to state my opinion. Evolution is the mechanism by which I am comfortable saying that I don’t believe that there is a mind or a soul that determines free will and makes moral judgments. I think that every “moral” a person holds can be explained rationally, often making use of evolution, game theory, or economics. I am now reminded of a book review I saw in the New York Times on Friday for The Logic of Life by Tim Hartford. The reviewer says of Hartford, “The premise is simple. Human beings are rational creatures who respond to incentives and rewards. No matter how bizarre a choice might seem, there is logic at work […]” I think that there are many subconscious motivations that we too readily attribute to the mind, the soul's direction, fate, divine intervention.

Finally, like Caitlin, I still think that the faculties of the human mind are amazing and inspiring. Just because I don’t believe in a soul doesn’t mean that life and natural is doomed to be depressing, clinical, and devoid of mystery or beauty. (:

Maybe this class will convince me otherwise, but as of now I am firmly of the belief that there is no such thing as the "human spirit". I know that some people feel that Crick's theory makes human beings seem like machines, but I don't feel this way. Obviously we have a long way to go before we understand everything about the brain, or it's abilities. In contrast, there are some people who can understand and create the most complex machines available today. If the brain is like a machine, it is the most incredibly complex machine in existence. I think it is a more apt description to say that machines are extremely simplified versions of the brain.

I think it will be interesting to see everyones response to this same idea after we have finished the course. I wonder how more knowledge about neurobiology will effect my opinion on this subject.

While researching the brain it was interesting to come across that the Ancient Egyptians during mummification practices for the dead would value the heart assumed as the intelligence seat rather than the brain. Where the brain was considered cranial stuffing..this seems to remain as a belief by many, for example by the saying that we still use today when someone commits something to memory that they “memorized it by heart” rather than by brain...., also feelings such as love and hatred are affiliated with ones heart so in a weird way it is somewhat understandable to see why the Egyptians may have believed that ones conscience was based on their heart. It would be interesting to research the origins of the heart and how it became adopted in commercial world as the symbol of love.

I guess that my position on the nature of the brain/mind paradigm can be best explained as similar to the position that I hold on the existence of ghosts and psychic phenomenon. I am a person, who you might have guessed, is intrigued by the paranormal and supernatural elements of life and who finds that the existence of an "other" experience of reality, time, etc. somehow necessary for my existence i.e. I want to believe/believe in this phenomenon. However, I am also the first person in a group to tear apart a so called encounter of the paranormal, hack it up into logical parts of possible elements that could explain such phenomenon as occurrences very much grounded in the generally perceived vision of reality i.e. natural magnetic fields, and dust motes caught in the light are just as at the cause of a so called ghostly encounter as any actual entity of the paranormal. In the same venue, I find the mechanical, neurological explanations that seem to explain things such as ghostly encounters, past life experiences, out-of body experiences just as intriguing and necessary as the phenomena themselves. Yet, the "genuine" paranormal can still exist for just as viably in my understanding of existence as the studies that demonstrate intentionally induced experiences of the kind through the manipulation of brain chemistry and physical stimulus of certain brain regions related to specific senses, etc. There is something intriguing and acceptable in the notion that we are no more and no less than ingenious vehicles of nature, organic machines, that life is without any profound agency on a cosmic scale. There is a type of comfort that can come from a void, with a lack of agency or meaning, there is in turn a certain lack of responsibility, a kind of freedom in a nothingness. Yet, the void that undermines our agency and divests us of purpose is disturbing as well, if only in that we find it disturbing and experience a deep seeded need to perceive a mind or a soul. Even when we can agree that our behaviors and all the complex variables that differentiate us are the sum of all the little electrical charges in all of us, we still cannot disregard the result of that sum and thresh it of its impact on our lives, i.e. even if we can explain love chemically, can break it down into a biological process, when comes to our own experience we cannot negate its existence or its effect on us and what it means. Perhaps this cognitive dissonance between the logic that we can digest and accept, and which tells us we are an organic machine, yet still somehow ignore is another emergent property of our existence, that we must believe in the authenticity of ourselves (as a soul as a mind) on some level, despite observations that bring us to other validations of reality, seems to be a very unique coping method, else existence would be to hard to maintain. Yet, why even develop in such a way that demands a mechanism to maintain our drive to live. We can understand death in a logical sense, but its experience, what it is, escapes us. We can know that all things "end" yet our own ends are inconceivable. We can understand on a logical level that we are just biological matter, yet how to just be biological matter is impossible and even repulsive for many of us. For, we must live, and thus must cope with life even against our own understanding of it, and yet other organisms are alive with seemingly less need for such a mechanism.

I guess I must be a little confused about the mind-body dualism we so often speak about when discussing neurobiology or the history of pychology. I have always thought of the mind as being a separate entity from the body, though the body includes the brain. Both function together to motivate, drive, and create behavior bidirectionally. Somatic symptomatology can be caused by psychological problems and vice versa. For example, during finals week many of us may experience a cold or other sickness resulting from a lowered immune system, which is caused by elevated stress levels. On the other side of the same coin, genetic predisposition can affect one's likelihood of manifesting a psychological disorder, such as depression. Examples such as these lead me to support Descartes position on mind-body dualism.

I also think the subject of the soul is an interesting and controversial one. I don't believe the soul needs to be thought of in terms of spirituality. Rather, I think the English language lacks an accepted terminology for whatever it is inside us that makes us think and feel in a way that is unique and distinct from any other life form. The "mind" or "soul" or whatever we want to describe "it" as is a dynamic aspect of the self which differs from our genetic biology which is unchanging.

As discussed in class on Thursday, I felt that the choice Dickinson makes with the capitalized "You" is reminiscent of the distinction the Vedic texts make between the self and the Self. While the self is the temporary, material body, the Self represents the source of individual souls or the eternal element of each individual. Poets choose their words and punctuation with intense care, so the utilization of the capitalized "You" makes me believe that perhaps the mind and the brain are seperate entities.

There is also an internal bias because supporting Descartes represents a more romantic and wistful belief as opposed to understanding the mind to be the product of neurons and electrical impulses. There is also the question of what the term "the mind" really means-does it refer to what is popularly known as the soul? If not, then the Vedic principles discussed in the previous paragraph suggest that the mind and the brain are actually the same thing and that both are temporary, material elements.

Like Crick and Emily Dickinson, I have always held the belief that the brain and other components of the nervous system were completely responsible for all aspects of behavior.  However, I also agree with Caroline’s comments about what we call “consciousness.”  Reacting to stimuli in a purely physical way is one thing, but being fully aware of what is happening around us, and having opinions, etc…is another. 

            Never having believed in the concept of a “soul”, and being disinclined to see the “mind” as a separate entity, but nevertheless feeling that an individual’s unique thoughts and opinions were important and did not deserve to be reduced to chemical interactions, I have had trouble articulating exactly how I feel about consciousness and behavior.  After much consideration, I think that my views can be summed up most accurately in the idea that the “mind” or “consciousness” is an emergent property of the nervous system (an emergent property, as I understand it, being a property of a system that is unlike/unable to be explained by properties of the individual components of the system).  That, somehow, all of the nerve impulses, and received signals, and physical and chemical responses can combine to produce a thought in the individual, which then becomes a part of that individual’s knowledge.  Since all individuals other than identical twins have some genetic differences, and since no two individuals can have the exact same set of experiences (or, to look at it physically, be exposed to the exact same set of stimuli, in the exact same order) every day, all people could then be expected to have unique collections of thoughts, opinions, and reactions/behavior to different situations. 

            So, though I see consciousness as property of the brain, and hence agree with the statement “brain=behavior”, I still find the experience to be amazing, and think that the thoughts and ideas of others are no less valuable than they would be were they generated by some separate entity.

I consider myself to be a rather concrete and science-based thinker...so whenever I think of the brain, I see it as one of the most amazing and miraculous lumps of tissue ever imaginable that is present in many forms of life. In fact, it is something so special/valuable that humans cannot and may not ever come close to creating one of their own. Although we have sent sophisticated probes to Mars and we have build surgery-performing machines that negate the need for the physical presence of a surgeon in an operating room...there is still much missing from these devices. How could we ever create a being/machine that could do what the human/animal brain can do? Could we really create something that could taste, smell, feel, develop/express emotions, experience pain/happiness/fear/attachment/love all at once...plus much more? It has always been a mind-blowing phenomenon to me (no pun intended!), just one of those miracles of life...so miraculous though, that it definitely demands consideration.

During class on Thursday, I tried to venture beyond my concrete way of thinking about the brain, and our discussion of science (as a collection of observations that does not necessarily represent the truth) helped. But with that said...I still have some concrete thoughts about the more abstract topics that we discussed. For example, when we compared physical the size of the brain (maybe it weighs 5lbs, smaller than a football) to the infinite size of the sky...can we not also argue that the brain itself (whether actual or a plastic model) is a construction of the brain? So I guess I'm still on the fence...I wonder if Emily Dickinson thought of the brain in this light!