BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR INSTITUTE 2003

Forum 3 - Thoughts After the First Day

A general issue was do we accept that idea that the brain is an explorer, that our business as educators is to "open minds" (or help keep them open, make them ever more open) and, if we do, what do we do with/about curriculum standards/grades/testing?

A related issue was is the potential of us/our students "limitless"? Or is it instead the case that the potential of individual humans is infinite but limited in various ways? And a second related issue was what do we do if we have a story that seems to work (ignoring a few "outliers") and has for many years ... keep it or try to change it? Why? For ourselves, for our students?

I also want to keep in play the idea of "two minds". That may not seem immediately related to all of the above but I think it is, in important ways.

Anyhow, that's some of what yesterday made me think about, want to think more about. What about you? Jot down a few lines about what yesterday made you think about ... so we can see where everyone is before we get started on new stuff this morning. If you need memory jogging, we talked yesterday about science and what it is, about everything being in the brain, about differences in brains, and about a replacement for the "spaghetti" model of the brain. What did any (or all) of that make you think/wonder?

On diversity: Opposites Attract? Not in Real Life

On reading and the brain: Two Kinds of Brain Problems are Found To Cause Dyslexia

On another "practical" brain/behavior identity issue: Doctor's Toughest Diagnosis: Own Mental Health

Imagine living during the 1850's and thinking about the brain. Emily Dickinson was a remarkable woman not only in terms of her writing but the things that she thought about. The average woman was not into matters of that nature (it wasn't her place.)

I began to think about other aspects of the brain and its functions as I was reflecting and discussing some of the theories of Steven Hawking with a friend. The level of thought and the ability that he has to create his own reality is, in my mind, astonishing. In many cases, some of his theories go beyond what we would think of as rational thought. I began to entertain the notion that science does not prove nor disprove anything.

I also began to think about people we term as psychic. One in particular that I always found facinating was the "sleeping psychic" Casey. I began to wonder if there are other aspects of the brain that allow a different model for thinking and summarizing observations. If so, what are the differences and how would it be possible to explore those differences.

When I was a kid I thought that when I grew up I would know everything; now I am glad there is so much left for me to behold because I intend to live for a long time and it could get pretty boring were there nothing left to experience anew.

When I was a kid I thought that when I grew up I would know everything; now I am glad there is so much left for me to behold because I intend to live for a long time and it could get pretty boring were there nothing left to experience anew.

It is funny--I feel excited about these questions. I guess that is are hope--to excite our students with questions and the need to find answers. Is this a possibility.

I wonder what Paul has up his sleeve today!

I prefer positing that the potential of individual humans is infinite but limited in various ways? This also relates to the unreal expectations that have been foisted upon curriculums from outside the schools, for instance, assuming that everyone should have rigorous algebra, but not allowing any leeway for students. With your second related issue of what do we do if we have a story that seems to work (ignoring a few "outliers") and has for many years ... keep it or try to change it, I don't believe that a conservative approach is necessarily wrong. After thirty five years of constant curricular change for what seems to be the sake of change, initiated by some new educational perspective, I've become wary of educational revolutions frequently engendered from the university level or in response to political agendas.

The notion of "two minds" that emerged in Dickinson's poem was interesting. One was clearly the individual, the other participated in what may be designated as the "All". It's a nice Romantic conceit that's not too unlike Jung's "collective unconscious." It seems somewhat of a religious leap of faith to therefore assume man's perfectibliity. it's rather a naive flaunting of determinism.

I think the aspect of the session based on the several models of the brain provide a basic comprehensive comparison of organism formations. The models demonstrated that despite several unrelated biological characteristics featured by organisms, the basic building blocks are the same. However, the size of the region locations were different.