Week 7 - Neurobiology and Behavior

There's an article on CNN Health today that discusses a man who describes himself as an "expert" on happiness. He recently published a book Happiness: A History, and basically says that the more you look for and desire happiness, the less happy you actually are. What disturbs me about this analysis is that it makes absolutely no connection to biology! Isn't there some kind of connection between hormones, genetics, and the ability to be happy? Or at least not be miserable? Isn't that what anti-depressants are all about?

The author doesn't attempt to define happiness and says even he can't achieve it, but all this blathering seems to prove his point correct - the more you talk about happiness, the more elusive it becomes. It just doesn't seem like his analysis about happiness is a correct or at all "scientific" one. What exactly was the point of him writing this if not to illuminate the obvious? Why exclude science from a conversation in which science could be of use? Frustrating.

Yesterday I was looking through the news aggregator section of the forum area and I stumbled upon a very interesting article entitled "Lotto Makes Sense, Even For Losers". The author of this article presents evidence about why playing the Lotto is the most popular form of gambling, even though it has the worst odds. It was stated that this is due to the fact that the lotto causes people to fantasize about what they could do with a huge amount of money. Not only do they fantasize, but they also feel that their fantasies could come true because of the numbers they choose and they physical piece of paper they are able to hold. The author also states that evidence has been found that when a person is fantasizing about winning, the same neurons are activated in the brain that are activated when the person actually does win. I wonder if this happens with other types of fantasies as well. If so, I believe that this would help explain why day dreaming is so appealing to people. Every one day dreams, every one fantasizes...could this be the reason why? Are we fantasizing because it makes us feel the same way as if the thing actually happened? I don't have an answer for those questions right now, but I think it is very interesting to think about.

Ah yes, now (in my opinion) we are starting to touch on the meat of neurobiology as it relates to other disciplines (such as philosophy). With the discovery/categorization of central pattern generators we have encountered some new problems. Where is consciousness is all this? Who or what or where are these central pattern generators controlled? How do they communicate? Are these patterns the same across all species? And the questions go on, and so many remain.

My current concern is with purpose and control of purpose in these central pattern generators. I can’t help but think back to Richard Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene when it comes to the “control” situation. How much is really I-function? And is I-function either directly or indirectly influenced by our genes? Take an example: let’s say that you are scared of heights. So your I-function experience of heights may be altered by your genes and then this I-function information again influences your central pattern generators which may have varied effects (produce sweat or nausea when being exposed to a height-ful situation, etc.). I don’t know that it is so easy to define the control of not only these central pattern generators but also the I-function’s influence on them.

The next piece is communication. Does the I-function communicate with central pattern generators in the same way that action potentials are propagated? Can the I-function not only receive and transfer information but also censor it? Could this be why you don’t remember trauma or a traumatic incident because you have been able to censor it out of memory? And how does the I-function communicate with central pattern generators? Are there neural signals alone or could there be endocrine and neuroendocrine and other ways that we don’t yet even understand? Certainly I think neural signals are conserved in the body as an extremely useful (and for that matter) used way of communication, but can the I-function even be more subtle?

All of this leads me to the idea of purpose with respect to control. Who or what is really in control here? Right now it seems like the I-function is batting cleanup for whatever doesn’t fit nicely into our already developed scheme. I’m not sure that I am so okay with all of this. It seems unlikely that the I-function has complete and ultimate control since actions seem to be able to enter and leave this I-function-related capability box. An action can become so instinctive that you don’t even realize you are doing it, but then you are in a car accident and you have to learn everything all over again. And I have to ask, where is the I-function located? Does it have a physical location or is it something within the different parts.

Control (in my mind) is directly linked with purpose. We think of purposeful actions and we like to assume that we have some control over it. But could we train our central pattern generators to assume this role of purpose for us. How trainable are we? (This has some daunting implications…) I’m not sure what role the I-function has in our purpose, both our executable purpose (day-to-day activities) and this idea of ultimate “purpose.” It seems to me we are at a point where we need to identify who is really in control here.

Addressing Fatalism as a Result of Lessons Learned

It is interesting. Based on something Durkheim wrote in the context of discussing religion, I write this as shorthand for what he was saying: Science as a dominant, legitimate truth producing mechanism takes away the magic from imagination. For me, I attach imagination to science in the sense that I base some freaky ideas on established or un-established scientific “truth.” It is fun.

I am not disheartened that this class at times demystifies the things that we have grown to believe are mystically and spooky. The class can at times be a party-pooper. Yet, that is one perspective. For me, no one can take the mystic away from the things/phenomenon that science tries to explain—especially because there are so many unknowns about the known. And the knowns are pretty freaky themselves: i.e. a holographic universe.

Addressing Feeling What is not There: I’ll Think Myself into Satisfaction

Ehuster: in a post you wrote: “I have seen that we can experience phantom limbs that we think are there but it's because the nerves think that they are there. I was so confused in class this past week because my brain couldn't wrap around the fact that we can feel what is not there ... being wrong has never felt so right.”

I would phrase it a little differently than experiencing something that is “not there.” It maybe easier for us to grasp. I would phrase it as such: The brain can feel what it thinks or thinks it feels. Now, that is empowering. Let me think myself into enjoying a nice piece of dark chocolate: Mmmm, the satisfaction.

Addressing Losing the Idea of Unifying Force

Yes, before and also now, I had an idea of a unifying force that holds us together and constitutes us—individually & collectively. This course does not discount this for me. It even helps me get more specific in where I attribute this holding-together function.

For example, I still have not forgotten about the electromagnetic field thing that we learned in the beginning of the class. We came to the conclusion that uneven random motion creates order.

That order constitutes who we are: If there are numerous central generators that act randomly with respect to other central generators and that motion is uneven, then there will be some ordered created in the form of an electromagnetic force field or something else.

This can be true for society in some sense, for we begin to define ourselves by the morals that hold us together. To the foreign observer, an individuals action may seem random as compared to another in that persons same society. However, upon closer inspection, with a wise eye, the foreigner would realize that there is some method to this madness he is observing.

Addressing Getting “Answers”

The questions are just getting started for me. I have not let go to the questions to which I have brought to class (all my classes). I will keep holding them, like a folded letter, to light of viable conclusions until I get a satisfactory message. I have not received one as yet. So let the investigation continue…

I’ve noticed that the New York Times Magazine has featured several articles in neuroscience. In particular, I liked the March 11, 2007 issue called “The Trials of Neurolaw.” The article, “The Brain on the Stand” discussed the controversial and revolutionizing effect of admitting more neurological evidence into the court system.

Once government test called the Impulse Test includes the possibility of a mental defect but does not does specify the extent. Could any slight abnormalities or imbalances in the brain excuse the defendant from punishment? What about simple chemical imbalances? Does age, born defects or trauma qualify as improper functioning? How does the legal system define a normal or abnormal brain? Mental defect seems to absolve too many people of the responsibility for their actions.

An interesting point made about age referred to the immaturity of adolescent brain. Many neurobiologists don’t consider neurons in the prefrontal cortex to be fully developed until the early 20s. The prefrontal cortex deals in part deals with a person’s control over their impulses. Teenagers are notorious for their strong impulses and lack of control over them. They often have poor judgment, rash decisions, immaturity. Why then does the penal system punish juveniles 18 and under instead of 21 and under?

Brain scanning may facilitate the distribution of justice. PET scans can detect trauma or abnormality in emotion generating region or decision making regions. Physical problems are significant pieces of evidence for the defendant’s case. Furthermore, investigations and criminal identity can be more reliable. Areas of the brain specify in face recognition. A victim’s brain could be monitored when identifying a suspect. If the face recognition area is stimulated when looking at a particular suspect, then the victim’s brain identifies, whether conscious or subconscious, the suspect.

I really enjoyed reading this article and would like to better understand why humans submit to impulses. How does the brain formulate criminal actions? Why do minds become so warped that a criminal might be able to justify such an actions? I’m sure outside factors such as the environment or upbringing influence behavior, but I would like to focus on biological reasons. Which parts of the brain, besides the amygdale and frontal cortex, create impulses? What other detectable brain reactions might aid the legal system? This article has opened my mind to the many ways neurobiology can positively change the legal system.

“The Brain on the Strand.” by Jeffrey Rosen from the New York Times Magazine. March  11, 2007

http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/insanity-defense

I came across a fun article in march 13th NY Science Times entitled, "What's so funny? Well, maybe nothing" that has to do with our perceptions of choice that we had been discussing in class. It seems that now scientists are leaning toward the notion that laughter may be an automatic response to a situation rather than a conscious effort. Scientists have found that human laughter is linked to the rhythmic sounds made by primates when they tickle, chase and play with each other. Even rats have been found to emit ultrasonic chirping while tickled that cannot be heard by human ears. Prof Panksepp of Wash U, who was interviewed, stated that he believes laughter to be the result of ancient wiring within mammals brains which encourages young animals to play with each other. He went on to say that "Primal laughter evolved as a signaling device to highlight readiness for friendly interaction. Sophisticated social animals such as mammals need an emotionally positive mechanism to help create social brains and to weave organisms effectively into the social fabric." According to the tests cited in the article humans tend to laugh more when they are in a situation in which they do not have the upper hand and are trying to make allies. We want to be liked and included and for that reason we will laugh at even a bad joke that is told by a superior. I thought this article brought up another challenge to the way in which we think about actions that we thought were by choice. So next time you find yourself laughing out loud, take a moment to ask "was that really funny?"

Prof. Grobstein mentioned a couple of examples in class of when the motor cortex was damaged and the resulting postures in different animals. A particular example used was a condition called Spastic Paralysis in humans where the arm was locked in a flexed position as a result of damage to the cortex. The person is paralyzed in the sense that he can not willingly move his arm, but the nervous system was still in control of the arm because it was sustaining it in a flexed upwards position, and also if you through a ball at the person the arm would block it as part of reflex programs.

Two conclusions were made from this:

1-     The body has evolved to adapt to gravity. When the cortex is damaged, the body positions itself to oppose gravity. This opposition to gravity is in the core programming and core hardwiring of our bodies. It’s like an essential central pattern generator and our bodies move otherwise by inhibiting this pattern. This incorporation of the scientific principles of gravity cannot be overlooked. In my viewpoint, it is clear supporting evidence of evolution because our bodies evolved systems and core central patterns to incorporate characteristics of the surrounding environment. In this way, this find is amazing.

2-     The ability for the I-function to interact with the nervous system and produce desired movements is inhibited when there is damage to the cortex. By default, it was concluded that the I-function is potentially located in the cortex. When we learned this it felt really good to give the I-function, what was an abstract concept since the beginning of class meetings, a potential physical definition. The ability for us to control our body lies in the cortex. Wow!

These astounding advances and conclusions naturally spawn other ethical issues. In the latest issue of The New York Times Magazine, Jeffrey Rosen wrote about how neuroscientific advances might amend the legal system. Some particular examples talked about studies by Adrian Raine who examined the brains of convicted murderers using PET scans and brains of people with antisocial personality disorder correlated with violence and found that the convicted murderers had reduced glucose metabolism in their prefrontal cortex and people with antisocial personality disorder had significantly less grey matter in their prefrontal cortex. This brings up the idea that the cortex which potentially allows for the I-function to function, if damaged or is not functioning properly, might influence or not inhibit our natural inherent actions, and things like spastic paralysis, or as Raine suggests, violence occur. A number of questions comes to mind.

Can we ever not hold people accountable for their actions if their cortex is not working properly? How much influence does the cortex hold over a person’s behavior? Is disinhibited behavior a result of cortex malfunction or is cortex malfunction a result of disinhibited behavior (outputs can influence inputs)?

Should we be further researching these findings, are we just giving criminals an excuse?

In the NYTimes' ScienceTimes section on 3/6/07, there was an interesting short that caught my eye because it involves the two bio classes I'm currently taking--this course and developmental biology.According to researchers at Cornell, in embryonic zebra fish, neurons the ventral side of the developing spinal cord fire when the fish is swimming slowly, while neurons on the dorsal side fire when swimming quickly.  When zebra fish swim slowly, only the tail muscles are active, but while swimming quickly, the entire body is involved.For the developmental biologist, these studies have shown that different proteins are released from the dorsal and ventral sides of the spinal cord, and create concentration gradients which help in the differentiation of nerve cells.  From this information, it sounds like the cord secretes morphogens.  Knowing how cells become specified is quite important to the developmental biologist.For the neurobiologist, these patterns in firing look like they could have something to with central pattern generation.  But in order to say for sure, you would need to see the order of the neural firing--whether they're all firing at the same time or in a pattern like in the crayfish example, and if certain neurons are removed, what sort of effect does that have.It would be interesting to know how early these sorts of movement patterns develop.  This could give us information on how quickly the motorneurons are able to function in a zebra fish embryo.  Also, what are the other properties of these proteins secreted by the spinal cord? Are they only made during development or do they have another purpose in the grand-sceme of the zebra fish lifecycle?  One last question. If you somehow made a mutant that wouldn't be able to create the spinal cord proteins, how would that effect the neural firing and movement of the embryo?The wiring in the nervous system from zebra fish to humans is completely dependent upon the development of the particular organism.  We can change the neural connections in our brains by listening to a lecture and learning the material, but we wouldn't have any wiring to change if development hadn't proceded as planned.  (That's not to say that development is the same between all humans, there is infinite room for variations, as we've already covered).  I guess my point is that as we move forward in the course, I would like to explore neural development on a behavioral level.

When I read this article in the New York Times, it made so much sense to me and explained my relationship issues almost to a T. In the article, it says that in certain situations, being dependent on a person can be beneficial, especially in times of hardship. For example, a couple that is highly dependent on each other will be much more anxiety ridden over a dispute than a couple in which the two people are more self-sufficient. In the dependent couple, there will be more of an effort to reconcile for fear of abandonment. It has also been found that more dependent people tend to do better in class because they are more likely to seek help from the professor. It is suggested that these dependent or self-sufficient traits originate from attachment styles that are acquired during childhood. Children who are less secure cling to their mother more whereas securely attached children are more able to explore and be independent of their mother.

From reading this article, it made me think about our conversations about choice. It can be said, if simply relying on the Emily Dickinson model, that attachment style is due to certain connections or pathways that are formulated in the brain during crucial stages of development. Therefore, do we really have a choice in the way we act in relationships if we are already pre-wired to feel a certain way? Can a dependent person learn to be more self-sufficient? If we are not able to adjust to certain situations or relationships, then what is the point of marital therapy? If two personalities clash and if we know that we have been programmed to act and feel certain ways, should we not then seek out others that will compliment our personality traits rather than struggle to change in order to make a relationship work?