What is the brain?

Hey. Sorry for not getting around to this earlier... it seems my fate to not post on serendip until the discussion for the week is pretty much over. But maybe I'll do better next week...

Anyway, the thing that interested me most about the "output with no input" or "self-generated output" idea was constructing an environment in which the mind might be totally deprived of stimulus (or input. or both if you would like to distinguish between the two). I purposefully make use of the word mind rather than brain, I don't want to confuse the two for those who like the Cartesian dualistic model of thought and body. I think that we agree that most of the actions we consider "meaningful" and "important" are produced or in some way processed by our conscious mind. That is to say, they are voluntary actions we make a choice to preform. (Not to imply that our smooth muscle functions aren't important, but rather they aren't significant in the way that I would like to investigate here...) If we focus on these sorts of actions, those that are determed by a choice of the mind, (or a physiological response of the brain, if you consider there to be a difference between the two phrasings) then what would it take the deprive our consciousness of any sort of input? Would that also imply depriving the brain/mind of memory? Or would memory beconsidered an internal aspect of the input-output box, even though it is at least in part the result of collective external experience?

I suppose a question which must be investigated prior to any of these musings would be the difference between conscious and unconscious (might non-consciousness play a role here too?) Any way, those are my thoughts for the week. Hope every one had a wonderful superbowl weekend.

-Molly.

I'm am trying to go back to the “Harvard Law of Animal Behavior”, and agree as some mentioned above that this means that it is possible that animals will behave whatever way it please--whether there is a motivation (input) or not. However going back to the example of a baby, it will cry for various reasons---some that we may not know as we probably cannot remember what we may have been thinking when we were young. However generally people who have experiences with babies have found that either the baby cries for milk, or to get changed, or because they may be uncomfortable in a certain position. As the baby matures and becomes a toddler the kid has made an observation that every time he/she cries, they will get attention. It reminds me when I was little and I would cry and sometimes when my dad would ask why my mom would sometimes just claim "for no reason at all but attention"--however my wanting of attention is still an underlying reason/motivation so doesn't that count as a possible input.

I am reading from a lot of people that the term input/output are challenging as we often think about math, computer science or something mechanical--however I would propose that it input could be analogous with the term motivation, and behavior would be analogous with output. The motivation could be physical or mental.

Now going back to the arrangment of each individuals neurons and whether people from the same culture/religion share the same arrangement of neurons--I think this is quite possible depending on the different influences, such as how they came about learning about the certain culture or religion. I would argue that it may be one thing to identify yourself with a culture or religion--but mentality wise you may be on a different page altogether. It is our experiences that influence our different motivations and produce different behaviors--thus the way we may perceive or understand content may vary from someone else.

I found the class discussion about twins and the simalirity/differences in their behavior to be rather interesting. Afer reading some braod articles about the behavior of twins, and the genetic make up of twins I have put together some thoughts about why identical twins would behave differently to the same input despite their identical genetic make-up.

While the twins may have the same genetic make-up, and have shared manyof the same enviromental influences such as family upbrining, there have still been many different influences in the lives of twins such as their peer groups. So while the genetic make-up may be identical/similar different genes may have developed in one rather than the other.

Behavior is not coded for by one gene in the genetic make-up but is a polygenic trait. So while twins may have the same genetic make-up their behavior will be different based on whcih of the genes are activated etc.

When there is an input from the outside world, the behavior/output of identical twins will differ based on their experiences and the development of certain traits or genes in their identical genetic make-up.

I have spent most of the weekend thinking about everything I do and why. I only caught myself once doing something that I was not prompted to do and that was drop something, which in my mind was out of my control. Otherwise from cleaning the kitchen to sitting on the couch and watching TV, to changing the channel was all prompted there was always an input before there was an output. I therefore strongly disagree with the final diagram presented in class last Thursday.

I have a dog also, she is an Italian Greyhound and lives inside the house so I am always in really close proximity to her and I spent the weekend observing her also, she ran to the door when there were people walking by it, once she jumped off the bed simply to strech, but I am sure that was prompted by a change in position, maybe she was uncomfertable. As for if she comes when I call her, sometimes she doesn't but that does not mean she parallels the female grasshopper. Just because there is a specific response expected does not mean that it is going to happen all the time, that is why statistics and probability exist. It certainly does not mean however that there is an output without and input.

In my opinion there is not nearly enough evidence to support this claim. I believe it is natural to react to the world around us. Even taking off our sweaters when we get indoors, or turning on the air conditioner when we are hot, or simple cleaning because we feel our enviornment is messy. There is an input for every output.

A brief perusal of the topics posted thus far lead me back to two concepts I have mulled over on my own for quite some time: predictability and “reason.”

The field of research I would like to enter (which I consequently invest with a great deal of respect), behavior analysis would argue that one of the basic tenants of the behavior of an organism is that it be predictable., This doesn’t mean that we as humans are good at predicting behavior or even articulating it when we were successful at predicting behavior. The idea is that it’s not something or someone inside the head which drives behavior (and I know this idea won’t be popular in this class) but rather that certain aspects of the environment either support or deter certain behaviors. While it’s easy to point at a single immediate scenario and argue that there’s “no way” that anyone could predict a female cricket’s “random” taxis away from a male, we proved in class that if you move the focus away from the imminent sexual pairing to the wider environment of a field, the potential presence of a predator, food source or superior mate can explain her seemingly aberrant behavior. But the scale of analysis need not be limited to the immediate context; a subject’s ontogenetic and phylogenetic history can come into play when trying to explain why certain behaviors are maintained and others extinguished. So whether or not a behavior is “predictable” is less of function of whether or not predictability is an intrinsic characteristic of the behavior itself and more a function of whether or not a certain aspect of the environment has a strong enough influence on the behavior itself (called “stimulus control”) such that it can be detected by the person describing the behavior as predictable.

Following along that line of discussion, the reasonability of a behavior is thought to be determined by an observer’s description of a behavior than a specific aspect of that behavior. Much as the collection of gases over our heads is a “sky” only within our brains, attributes such as “intentional” or “reasonable” have more to do with how the observer describes a behavior. As Professor Paul Neuman says in his paper on intentionality(1), we wouldn’t describe a player dropping the ball during the Superbowl this evening as an intended behavior, but if his hand had just moved a few inches in the correct direction we would say that that catching behavior was intended. Intention doesn’t explain why the behavior occurred in the first place, and thus to a behavior analyst who is interested in understanding the cause of behavior reason and intention are particularly useful distinctions. So instead of describing a behavior as reasonable or predictable, perhaps we should investigate what it is about the behavior that leads us to describing it as reasonable or predictable.

Reading over all the comments, I’d have to say that I agree that the brain is a system, a series of input/output boxes relying on each other to organize and create behavior. It is hard to call our brain a machine, merely because of the image it creates in my mind about something rather inhuman and emotionless/like a metal-box… but in reality what better term is there to use? The idea of organization can be comforting because of its ability to establish stability of thought and the mind’s processes; one example of this deals with human relationships. In order to properly relate and empathize with a fellow human, we would somehow have to be able to share or allude to similar thoughts and actions. Being able to understand ideas that are not our own creation occurs by referencing them to similar or contrasting thoughts in our own minds is exactly what an input and output system defines. This phenomenon is only possible if we all share similar brain mechanisms to allow us to process the same information in parallel manners. Not to say that we all think the same, but as we are all human beings with a common organ like the brain, it seems obvious that this similarity is a connection that relates us all together. If we did not all share that same “system” in our brains, thus sharing similar brain setup and functioning, how would we be able to fully communicate and relate to each other?

I agree with Tara's point above when she mentions that there is no set neuron path that triggers a specific response or action in the human body's behavior. 

Like mentioned in class, all our generalized 'input/output boxes' are constructed with so many different 'input/output boxes' and it is the combination of so many different 'input/output' tracks that determine a different signal.  There are so many (seriously.....sooooooo MANY) combinations and possibilities of variation in behavior.  Thus, to those who question the complete randomness of thought and sudden urges of behavior...these jerks are totally plausible. 

The thing that I find amazing is that despite all of the different combinations and possibilities of behavior being triggered, the brain still is able to group things and have some sort of organization to which thoughts trigger different behavior.  For instance, muscle memory and morality.  We act certain ways because certain actions and thoughts have been embedded in our system since long ago.  Due to so many different combinations, you would think there would be easily an error in the brain's process or a backfire that would disrupt the visible trends completely, however, yet still, the brain triggers relatively accurate responses to different inputs.

 The brain is pretty on-point.

The last two posts (by Emily and Sophie) have touched on some of the ideas that I have been considering since Thursday’s lecture.  I too find the idea of internal v. external “inputs” to be very interesting.  The idea that the nervous system was capable of internally generating input was the aspect of our model that I found to be the most intriguing. 

            I wondered whether or not a thought or memory could be considered a type of internal input, because thoughts definitely affect the way a person reacts in any given situation.  A number of thoughts triggered by an external input, for example, could combine with that input and with each other to produce an unexpected output.

            When we talk about how different people react to the same input in different ways, we are necessarily basing this observation on external reactions that are visible.  As others have already mentioned, it is impossible to know an individual’s thought process.  So, different thoughts and memories could explain differences in what is conventionally referred to as “conscious” behavior.   But what about “unconscious” behavior?

            The excerpt that Sophie posted about how some processes are viewed as “physical” whereas others are viewed as “mental” led me to the observation that we do not often consider variation in behavior that is considered “physical.”  I am referring to bodily functions that do not seem to be subject to influence by memory-for example, food digestion or breathing.  These processes are all controlled by the brain, but involve inputs and outputs that are not as readily observable.  I think that it is extremely unlikely that all humans use the exact same neurons and the exact same pathways to maintain these functions.  However, because we do not “consciously” tell ourselves to expand and contract our chest cavity, or to secrete stomach acid, we often assume that these behaviors are identical in all people.  I think that slight differences in these behaviors probably exist, and that the “brain as a machine” model would most easily account for such differences; small variations in neuron connections (or in the construction of the “machine”) could lead to slightly varied outputs.

            So, although I feel that there can be no outputs independent of the brain, there definitely seem to be some inputs that are much more likely to generate thought (and therefore “awareness”) than others. The “conscious”/”unconscious” dichotomy persists.  However, I think the fact that our beliefs and past experiences can affect even some of our actions is very cool.  Some people have expressed discomfort over the idea that there may be no free will.  I say, even if memories and thoughts are just different types of internally-generated input, imagine what our lives would be like if we were not able to generate this input: if every action were as automatic as inhaling. 

            I think that both structural differences (i.e. unique neuron pathways) and internal input in the form of thoughts are responsible for behavioral differences, and that the brain somehow incorporates both of these features. 

Our latest class discussion was rather comforting to me in terms of dealing with the input/output question. It's confusing (and seems to be for lots of others, too, judging by this thread) to think that things can happen with absolutely no discernible cause or that clear-cut causes can have no effects. But I think it makes a lot more sense when considering what we talked about in class: the idea that what happens inside the nervous system interacts less than 1% of the time with what happens outside the nervous system.

If 99.999% of neurons are interneurons, then it's going to be insanely difficult, and possibly pointless, to match up behaviors, or arrangements of neurons, with inputs and outputs -- at least if we think of inputs and outputs as being things that come into or go out from the large-scale nervous system (and thus the body). In the case of sensory and motor neurons, we can see things happening as a result of things coming into the nervous system or things being sent out from the nervous system. But, when it comes to interneurons, we don't necessarily see any big interaction happening with the BIG box.

I wonder what that says about the little boxes, though. If each little motor neuron has its own input/output box, and other types of neurons send inputs to that box or receive outputs from it . . . does that not still mean that we can have inputs and outputs for every change in behavior? Or can each little box, or each little neuron, do things completely of its own accord, without really connecting itself to any other neuron? It's easy for me to accept that the nervous system as a whole needs no inputs or outputs to do something -- just because so much happens WITHIN the box, without interaction with other things -- but does that mean each little input/output box can also send or receive without interacting with other input/output boxes?

After some additional thinking about our discussion in class this past week I can state that I agree with our transition from 'stimulus' and 'response' to 'input' and 'output,' repectively. With respect to the relationship between inputs and outputs, I thought a very interesting question was raised in class: is there really a such thing as having NO input...and JUST an output? I have always firmly believed that everything happens for a reason, but as humans we lack the ability to consistently identify the reason. So, even when we say or do something that we would consider to be 'random' or 'without reason,' I am still convinced that biologically something occurred to make us act in that way (whether on the molecular, cellular, or organismal level) to produce an output.

Another related question that comes to mind is: "Is there a such a thing as having JUST an input and NO output?" If the female cricket chooses to be what we might call 'unresponsive' to the male cricket's call, do we or do we not consider that to be an output? If the female decides that she prefers to sleep or to search for food instead of seeking the male, we could consider her movement away from him and towards the location of these activities as an 'output.' And if she stays completely still, appearing to ignore his call (as if she was deaf), I think we could also consider that to be an output. I think it is cricitcal to associate output with both 'action' AND 'inaction.'

On Dictionary.com I found some definitions of the word ACTION: "the state or process of acting or doing," "behavior or conduct," "a function or the performance of a function of the body or of one of its parts." So I think that whether the female is active or inactive, she is still acting, behaving, conducting herself in a specific manner, responding, and "outputting." If we claim to observe JUST and input or JUST an output, I think we would be oversimplifying what is really occuring at some biological level. I think there is always an input and always an output (whether it is active or not). I think we are in the right place in our class discussion though with our focus not just on the existence of an input/output structure, but also on the relationship between the two.

Granted, in some ways the regular patterns help establish consistency, continuity, credibility, concreteness. If each of our individual systems (or brain-to-body relationships) didn't have a high degree of reliability and predicability, then how could we function from day to day? Similarly, the traits and activities our brains all share enable us to relate to one another and our world with an at-least-acceptable level of comfort, expectation, and self-consciousness.

Still, I think the imperfections serve to ground the "system" concept in a real-world context. If the brain were less sophisticated - or more sophisticated, for that matter - it would be too hard (or too easy) to describe. If everything were random, based ONLY on inclinations or thoughts or morals, I'm not sure how anyone could function in the world. On the other hand, if we could sum up the brain in simple, well-established, extremely logical stimuli/response categories, well, why would we even need to study it? I think the brain is somewhere in between.

Free will and systematization are not mutually exclusive. If crickets' brains were not organized in some way, in some system, then why would males continue to chirp and females continue to move toward them? Their expectations do work, at least sometimes, at least in some way. By that same token, though, the fact that females do not always respond predictably (or at all!) to males' chirps means that uncertainty, randomness, and agency are all a PART of the system - not necessarily built into it or accounted for in any systematic way, but nonetheless things that describe it, complicate it, and result from it.

Humans work in a similar way. It seems as if humans across all cultures, when they can, use available tools and materials to build shelter for themselves and use that shelter in inclement weather. But we all build different types of shelters, and lots of us enjoy being outdoors during bad weather. Some people perform rain dances or ski in the snow; others hide inside as soon as it gets too warm or too cold. How can we account for those differences? By saying that we have free will? By saying that we've grown up in different places and become accustomed to different behaviors? Can't we account for the similarities the same way, by saying we've affected and been affected by each other? Where, then, do pictures of the hypothalamus and readings of hormone levels fit into the description? Can't they show us DOING free will, growing up, becoming accustomed? Can't they let us observe the same things, just by different means, through different lenses?

Both similarities and differences seem to be backed up both by biology and by behavior. Just as we can see, at play in fMRIs, the commonalities and oddities of our internal and external features, we witness the same things by thinking, perceiving, and interacting with other people and things in the world. I think the only way of accounting for both differences and similarities, or at least the only way that both confuses and satisfies me, is to say that we all have agency but ALSO that we're all influenced by systems both inside us and external to us.

• different outputs for the same input
• taking in inputs with no output
• generating outputs with no input
• a "semi-autonomous" input/output box consisting of input/output boxes