Week 13 - Neurobiology and Behavior

What struck me most about our discussion of experience, storytelling and neo-cortex is that conscious experience is a phenomenon that does not extend to all organisms. While this is obvious for, say, a tree, more seemingly ‘conscious’ animals (ex. Frogs) lacking neo-cortex can in fact act in ways similar to organisms that possess neo-cortex and have experiences (or “stories”, as told by the neo-cortex). Given that some instinctual behaviors are present irrespective of the I-function[1], this leads me to question what the evolutionary advantages of possessing an I-function, or neocortex are, and how consciousness came to exist. From what I’m finding on the web, the development of the neo-cortex in general is thought to be associated with the evolution of cortical development:                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Predatory behavior in particular is associated with larger brains. Catching prey requires highly tuned sensory and motor systems. The neocortex is made up of both primary sensory areas that receive input from the thalamus, and primary motor areas. In mammals with more neocortex, the primary areas are connected to many other areas that further process sensory input and produce motor plans. Much like the duplication of genes, it has been suggested that cortical areas have been duplicated as well. Like the duplicated gene mechanism, such a change would have the advantage that one area could evolve rapidly while the other provides the original function, or they could coevolve, each providing important and possibly refined aspects of the original function. Such duplicated areas most likely arise due to mutations in genes that control processes during development. http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-evolution3                                                                                                                                                                                            So it seems as though the ifunction developed hand-in-hand with the other components of the nervous system as a means of rapid evolution, adaptation of behavior, and increased cognitive, social and planning abilities As for what makes primate neocortex unique,  “Early primate lifestyle resulted in a number of adaptations that were critical to the eventual evolution of humans. Like most mammalian predators, early primates had forward facing eyes which allowed for focused pursuit with good depth perception in a large part of the visual field. The arboreal life required grasping hands, and prey were probably captured by visually-guided hand and mouth movements. Consequently, the visual system of primates dominates the sensory cortices, and its structure, even within the brainstem, is unique to primates. Another important difference between the neocortex of the primate and that of other mammals is a large prefrontal cortex which is the rostral or front part of the cortex not devoted to motor function. These areas seem to be instrumental in higher cognitive functions such as planning and social behavior.”  http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/brain-evolution3                                                                                                                                                                [1] For example, a specific inborn reaction of many species when confronted with the presence of a predator (or danger in general) is to stop moving, or be “frozen in place with fear”. Two examples of this behavior by conscious species is deer freezing in car headlights and the videotaped reactions of terror victims frozen in fear in the immediate aftermath of explosions.   It is thought that this behavior is a defense mechanism that developed, through evolutionary adaptation, when confronted by a predator (predator species are generally adept at detecting movement by prey). Those individual organisms possessing the behavior were more likely to escape predation.   

How is it that the I-function, which plays almost no role in many of the brains functions, has such a strong influence in the way we react to things we experience, such as the Rothko painting or the photo of the baby? And due to the fact that animals, the majority of which do not have a neocortex, act in similar ways that we do in similar situations, would that mean that they can have the reaction, but not the experience? While animals do not have an I-function in the same ways that we do, many species, especially those which are high on the intelligence list, have some self-awareness, which causes me to wonder about the I-function in general.

Last week’s class made me think about the connection between feelings, actions, and experience. There is obviously a correlation between what we feel and how we act. However, which one comes before the other is significant, because it determines the importance of previous experiences on our actions and emotions. We determined in class that feeling is what the I-function uses to try to explain action. The I-function obviously involves previous experience. This is most probably why everyone experiences certain events, objects, etc. in different ways and associates them with different things. If I see a dog, I automatically feel like cuddling it, therefore going towards it to pet it. My friend, however, who had a traumatic experience with a dog at a young age, will literally run to the other side of the street when she sees the same dog. I understand that when we look at the feeling-action model, there is a reason why we are all so different and feel and act differently. However, I would be interested in knowing why our primal experiences, which are based on an action-feeling model, are not the same; if they are unconscious and impulsive signals that seem to have nothing to do with the I-function, then how is it possible that people can have different primal experiences? Wouldn’t our reactions be more or less the same? I’m not sure if I understand this all correctly, but I would certainly like to learn more.

Is it really possible to measure creativity and if so, how? The example of the frog jumping to different points to get to the same place doesn't seem so much like an example of creativity but more of randomness. If the Harvard rule of animal behavior says that an animal will act however it wants, why is the example of the frog any different? Or is the Harvard rule a generalized observation for creativity? Creativity seems to be a concept that describes general productivity or actions of people. We are creative in someway in everything we do- from painting, to solving equations, or having a discussion- so because of this immensly heavy presence it seems as though it would be incredibly difficult to measure creativity as some seperate variable, but instead perhaps it is a constant. If that were true then maybe it means there isn't any specific function in the brain for creativity- it's a part of every thing- having a brain means having the ability to be creative(?)

I am really interested in how we have control over our I-function. Initially in the course we were presented with this specialized box which we added to our brain function model. The I-function box was supposed to represent the experience of input, and we identified the I-function with conscious behavior. I am not sure which side of this statement that we have shaken up with this week’s discussion: that the I-function is responsible for mediating some conscious activity or if there is more than we first thought which is under unconscious control. After this week’s discussion I may need to rethink how I conceive of the I-function and what processes it is and is not involved in.

Creativity manifests itself in many different ways. The idea that creativity has little to do with the I-function is mind-boggling and reassuring all at the same time. Creativity is independent of environmental influences; it is something within us that we cannot necessary control, except to inhibit it. If we allow that creativity doesn’t have to do with the I-function then we can say that it is unconscious activity. Whoa. There are so many implications for this! Think about all those other processes which we conceive of as being unconscious: digestion, heart rate, and breathing. Is it possible then that these processes could be over-ruled by the I-function? Where are the limits of this system? I don’t know that this makes sense, but if we put creativity on the same level as these other processes, then not only does it deserve our respect, but it also deserves our attention. Think how detrimental it would be for us if we were to stop our breathing—it seems the same degree of implications could stand for stopping creativity.

Creativity is an example of variability. Variability is something which is intrinsic to the nervous system, it is a property of the nervous system itself. So then this variability is natural, it is something which is intrinsic to us as human beings. So then, why would we ever want to limit it? Why would we ever want to curb it or hinder it from being expressed? I feel like I know from my own personal experience that the act of being creative is important to helping me function properly, but what I didn’t really understand was how essential this act was to me being able to function properly. If breathing is necessary to function properly and creativity is on an equal level, then expressing ourselves creatively is a necessary part of human existence. This perspective seems much too romanticized to be science! I mean I really like the idea that coloring should be a part of the curriculum not just in pre-school but all the way through your schooling and into your life!

I think the other important aspect of creativity is to look at what it is. We have already identified creativity as variability. Within its very name we are able to allow for different ways of expressing this creativity. Different ways that I can think of expressing creativity: through art, music, dance, and writing, just to name a stereotypical selection. I am also encouraged to think of creativity more creatively (sorry about the pun!). Could emotions be a way that we express our creativity? What about through dreams? If creativity is such an inherent part of what it means for us to be ourselves and to function properly, then it seems quite logical that creativity would need to come out in some way. The nervous system has five different ways of doing one thing. It seems this variability, this ability to change and adapt and the inconsistency that may result are all intrinsically part of the nervous system, and these aspects contribute to the creative, spontaneous, unpredictable beings we find ourselves being.

I was thinking a lot about our discussion of primary emotions and feelings that then lead to our I-function creating a story for whatever feeling we have. To use the baby example: I see a little baby crying on its own…I get a warm, even maternal feeling, I think that baby is awfully cute…and so my I-function creates the story: this is a helpless baby that I need to care for. I think it’s an elegant idea and I’m quite happy that it finally begins to explain what the I-function is really for.

All the same I don’t know if I completely buy it. It seems that there are instances where the story could come before the primary perception. In class we talked about painters like Rothko who wanted to strip down an audience’s experience of a painting to their primary perceptions. It would seem that for me at least this is true. I look at the Rothko painting I feel warm and happy. But is that truly a primary perception? Am I not perhaps just associating it with the feelings I get from a sunset, or a warm fire. Perhaps when I see the painting my I-function is making sense of all the color and shape input and creates a story: “this looks like a sunset”. Consequently I think of the feelings I associate with sunsets, warmth, happiness…and apply them to my experience of a Rothko painting.

It is funny how color can mean so many different things. There are studies that show that gender prefers different colors: men prefer blue over red, women prefer red over blue. What about culturally? Are we taught to like a certain color more than an other as we grow due to our different cultures? In the chinese culture, red is considered good luck however, in others, red is a bad sign. How does this channel into our e-function? Can we really be programmed to prefer a certain color beter?

I was just thinking...

I wonder if morality is just another story from the I-function. Thus to disucss the evolution of morality one has to discuss and address the evolution of the I-function--the story teller.

When did humans begin telling stories?

Another thinng: Dealing with Adaptation: Good is Just an Argeement

Maybe it is just comforting for our I-function, which like predictability, to have the moral be the same and maybe it is also comforting for the rest of our nervous system, which likes change, to have the lighting or the scenary change. Maybe something is good when it pleases both the I-function and the rest of the nervous system. More plainly--good is just an argreement.