Do You See What I See?

Upon learning about brain development and plasticity, it was interesting to contemplate the future possibilities in brain treatment and modification.  There are many diseases and traumas (Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's, comas, strokes, hemorrhages, etc.) that can damage the brain indefinitely, leaving victims with impaired brain functions, such as memory loss, speech impediments, and vegetative mind-states.  However, many advancements in stem cell research are paving a promising path toward finding ways to cure or improve the crushing effects of such diseases/traumas.  For example, researchers have recently found the proper factors to induce human stem cells to differentiate into dopaminergic neurons—the neurons that are degenerated by Parkinson's Disease in the brain.  Findings of this magnitude can have tremendous impacts on treatments of all kinds in the future.

The manner in which different brain regions specialize on different sensory information was rather intriguing as well, such as Broca's area being the center for language production.  What I found more interesting was the binding problem, which questions how various brain areas integrate sensory information to produce a perception of a single object.  In other words, how do we know that what we see is also what we hear?  At first, many scientists believed that the information would converge at various association centers within the brain.  It wasn't until later that researchers debunked the hypothesis of data convergence at association centers because they found that few neurons combine one sense with another.  So the question remained—how do we know that what we hear is coming from what we see?

After inquiring the binding problem, I'm driven to go a little further and contemplate the variations across consciousness.  What happens when someone has a mental ability most others don't, and how does this difference in mental ability affect that person's consciousness and perception of reality?  A recent analysis on synaesthesia—a condition caused by an unusually high number of connections between two areas of the brain's sensory cortex, making the senses inseparable—demonstrates the different kinds of associations one sensory datum can elicit on the perception of the observer.  For instance, a synaesthetic individual may perceive a certain color when shown a specific number, or the individual may experience a certain taste or smell that is triggered by a specific sound.  Another way to think of synaesthesia is that it is the predisposition to have extra pathways between areas of the brain, thereby making it easier for these individuals to associate one set of sensory information with different regions of the brain.  Synaesthesia serves as a great example for the evolutionary changes occurring in human consciousness.  Not all humans fall under this condition, and even those that do vary in their perceptual capabilities.

This is where the boundaries of reality blur when it comes to consciousness because one is left to wonder what reality really is and whether we all experience it similarly.  Without a doubt, most of us share common perceptions upon which we are able to build on the reality that we perceive, but what of those people who we categorize as "abnormal," such as schizophrenics?  I can say with absolute certainty that the reality schizophrenics perceive is much different than the one that I perceive, but is that because my reality is real and theirs is less so?  Is it that dopamine imbalances occurring in their brains causes their reality to be less real than my own?  I think not.  Perceptions are highly varied across the human species with reason, both good and bad.  Perhaps we're each meant to explore reality in different ways and perceive different aspects of it, each of us representing one piece of the multi-dimensional puzzle that is reality.  Conceivably, what may be real to me may not yet be real to you, and vice-versa, the point being to communicate the differences and fill the gaps between them.  Do you see what I see?

To Use, or Not to Use, That is the Question

Learning about drugs' effects on the brain was very intriguing.  The way that cocaine blocks the reuptake transporter of dopamine in the presynaptic terminal thereby increasing the stimulating effects of dopamine; the way that nicotine increases dopamine release in the pleasure center of our brain—the nucleus accumbens; the indirect process through which cannabinoids increase the effects of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens by inhibiting gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)—a common inhibitor of dopamine in the synapses of neurons; the resemblance of most hallucinogens to naturally occurring neurotransmitters, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and serotonin, and the profoundly different effects each type of hallucinogen has on perception.  I like to learn about the different physical effects that drugs have on our brains, and how those effects are transcribed in our perceptions of reality, our behaviors, and our consciousness.

The best definition for consciousness that I have encountered is that it is awareness of awareness.  That being said, I'm led to wonder: how exactly did consciousness arise in the human species?  How did we come to be aware of our awareness?  When did we develop a concept of the self and the other, and how did this happen?  When I think about these questions, it makes sense to me that language and consciousness must have arisen together.  Without words, we have no way of formulating ideas or concepts, and for this reason, they are inseparable and must have given rise to one another.

There is a building body of evidence that supports the hypothesis that we may have evolved a consciousness by using mind-altering drugs, such as hallucinogens, that occur in the natural environment.  "Food of the Gods" by Terrence McKenna outlines details of his own research on ancient cultures, tribal civilizations, and their use of hallucinogens to support this hypothesis.  Apparently, there are many ancient civilizations that deified the cow and hallucinogenic mushrooms.  McKenna believes that back when our species were primarily nomads, the humans of that time began to follow herds of cows in the grasslands of Africa to feed on them.  Consequently, humans must have encountered the mushrooms that grew on the dung of the cows they would follow and eaten them as well.  These events, McKenna believes, must have catalyzed the evolution of the human brain and, subsequently, human consciousness. McKenna argues that the visual acuity caused by the psilocybin in the mushrooms conferred an adaptive advantage in the hunting abilities of those humans who ate them compared to those who did not ingest or respond well to the effects of psilocybin.

Studies on chimpanzees have also demonstrated that they too have learned to take advantage of the bioactive properties of plants.  Dr. Richard Wrangham, a primatologist for Harvard University, was the leading researcher of such findings in the 1970's.  In one of his articles, Wrangham discovered that chimpanzees would ingest the juices of the leaves of specific plants, or eat the bark of certain trees to alleviate themselves of parasites in their digestive tracts.  Perhaps we too, at some point in our evolutionary path, experimented with multiple types of plants to conceive of their beneficial properties and used them under necessary circumstances.

Next, I would like to bring up a stringent point in my discussion.  The topic on drugs and drug research is a highly controversial one that brings many issues, both ethical and moral, into a muddy stigmatic stir.  I think it's time that we really begin to straighten a few of those things out, otherwise we cannot expect any kind of advancement that drug research can offer.

First of all, the author of our physiological psychology text has misinterpreted the finding of a study on the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the active ingredient in marijuana leaves—on rats.  In the study, the control rats learned to press a lever for food on a fixed-interval schedule of 30 seconds.  The rats that were under the influence of marijuana, however, would press the lever sooner than the rats that were in the control condition.  For example, instead of waiting the 30 seconds to press the lever, the rats in the experimental condition would press the lever every 10-15 seconds.  Both the author and the researchers used these findings to support the common notion that "time passes more slowly" when under the influence of marijuana.  In other words, they went as far as to say that the 10-15 seconds felt like 20-30 seconds for the rats under the influence of THC.  But how can they know what the rats are feeling?  I don't understand the premises these scientists have used to come to such an immeasurable conclusion about the results.  Studies in biochemistry have shown that THC signals the pancreas to produce more insulin which causes tissues in our bodies to metabolize more glucose from our blood.  This sudden increase in glucose metabolism decreases our blood-glucose levels which, in turn, sends another signal to our brain to tell us that we are hungry and need more glucose.  I am convinced that the rats in the previous study have no concept of time, but simply a serious case of the "munchies."

I contend with the notion that "time passes more slowly" when under the influence of marijuana, but I believe there is a specific neural mechanism at work for such an experience to be perceived.  This process definitely requires further research, and it would help if researchers would expand their knowledge in other fields of science to make more well-rounded conclusions about their results.  A misinterpretation of results in this particular type of research can have grave consequences.

Secondly, I would like to enlighten my audience with a research article on the hallucinogenic effects of dimethyltryptamine (DMT) on human subjects by Dr. Rick Strassman.  This study was not necessarily revolutionary, as investigations on the effects of hallucinogens on humans have been done before, but it placed a prominent foot in the door since the popularity of research on hallucinogens over the last 50 years has rapidly declined due to social stigma.  Strassman does a wonderful job at articulating the significance of modifying drug research if we wish to learn more about our consciousness and its evolutionary development.  Moreover, he has refined the methodical approach to acquiring test subjects for safer practice of drug administration, and he highlights the importance of drug research in the psychotherapeutic arena.  Surely, we can follow Strassman's steps and find a happy medium in drug research.

Lastly, I would just like to add that I neither advocate nor denounce the use of drugs.  Drugs have imposed a very important advance in our lifestyles by bettering our health and increasing our longevity. It is important to understand that drugs are not meant to be abused, or you may fall victim to a long, torturous path of addiction that may prove fatal to your well-being.  And remember: just because you can't develop a biological addiction to certain substances, it doesn't mean that you are invulnerable to psychological addictions.  Be wise and be safe.  ¡Hasta la vista!

Ready...Aim...Fire!

Neurons are by far the most spectacular types of cells in the human body.  Without neurons, we would not be able to see, taste, smell, touch, hear, feel, or even think!  Neurons make up the most integral part of our bodies that allow us the complexity of human thought, behavior, communication, and emotion.  And yet, it continues to baffle me how complex human behaviors can be reduced to electrochemical gradients that allow neurons in our nervous systems to communicate with one another at astonishingly high speeds. 

It's interesting that neurons, like just about everything else in life, need dualistic properties to function.  For instance, during a resting potential, the inner membrane of the neuron has a negative charge and the extracellular space outside the neuron bears a positive charge.  Without this resting potential, the momentary reciprocal in electrochemical charge across the membrane would not occur, and communication between neurons would not be possible.  I like the way this video animates the exchange in electrochemical charge of the membrane during an action potential:

The most interesting aspect of neural functioning would be the work on mirror neurons by Giacomo Rizzolatti and his colleagues.  This review of several studies on the mirror system has compiled a subsantial amount of noteworthy findings on these peculiar networks of neurons along with great insight on the functions they serve.  The mirror system is a mechanism that allows one set of neurons to transform our sensory input into a motor format within another set of neurons.  This mechanism between mirror neurons enables us to understand what others are doing, including their intentions and feelings, by internalizing the observable input and interpreting it when we imagine ourselves performing the behaviors we observe.  The studies on mirror neurons highlight the physiological perspective on social cognition, which is the aspect of psychology that focuses on how people interact with others in social situations.  Researchers in this field have also found that children with autism tend to have less activation in the motor neurons that internally mirror the acts of the people they observe.  It is thought that this inactivation is responsible in part for the inability of autistic children to understand others' intentions.  The long and elaborate process we use to interpret and understand people involves a vastly complex mechanism that astounds me and leaves me to wonder what other neural processes remain hidden from us. 

Mind/Matter?

Of all aspects from this week's readings, I must admit the "hard problem" of philosophy caught my interest the most: what exactly is the purpose of consciousness?  Psychologists tend to be more concerned with the relationship between mental experience and brain activity.  In psychology, this is called the mind-body problem, as proposed to us by the philosopher Rene Descartes of the 17th century.  "I think, therefore I am" was his famous philosophical statement, and Dualism his theoretical tribute to the mind-body problem which suggests that the body functions like a machine following the laws of nature and that the mind, or soul, operates independently from nature and is seated at the pineal gland of the brain.  There is a fundamental problem with Descartes' premises, however.  One can easily refute the mind's independence from nature with practically endless piles of empirical data, from Pavlov and Skinner's findings on conditioning behavior to modern technologies, such as fMRI, that are currently being used to illustrate the associations between brain activity and mental experience.  Of particular significance to this topic is a recent study conducted by the University of Southern California.  The idea behind the study was that certain types of eye movements are characteristic of particular disorders.  The researchers asked their subjects to watch 15 minutes worth of video clips and used eye-tracking data with machine learning technology to predict with relatively high accuracy which of their subjects were classified as having either Parkinson's disease (PD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).  This type of innovative technology along with others (MRI, fMRI, PET, MEG, etc.) can give us further insight to the dependent relationship of both mind and body.  For example, a person with ADHD surely views the world differently from someone without the disorder precisely because the disorder has molded and distorted the mind of the disordered individual.  Any advantage or disadvantage set by nature will affect the mind of any being, and whether the effect inflicts the conscious or the unconscious mind is of a more profound and controversial matter.

Finally, and most importantly, I can get to the central issue at hand: what is the purpose of consciousness?  With the rapid advances in technology of this age, we are becoming more and more acutely aware of the association between the mind and the body.  If indeed they are inseparable, then should we dare to entertain the possibility of life after death?  I like to think so.  I believe there is so much more to nature than we can possibly fathom at this point in time.  

One of my favorite writers is Terence McKenna who happened to be a rather well-known ethnobotanist until his untimely death in April of 2000.  In one of his documentaries he expressed his beliefs about the extra-dimensional workings of nature and stated: "Nature is some kind of minded entity.  Nature is not simply the random flight of atoms through electromagnetic fields.  Nature is not the despiritualized  lumpen matter that we inherit from modern physics, but it is instead a kind of intelligence, a kind of mind."  I contend with his beliefs to a high degree.  From what I understand, nature has an order—a structure or form if you will—and out of these forms all of life is rendered to achieve certain functions.  One of the forms that I find most convincing of such convictions is the apparent construct of the cosmos, as we know it, and its striking similarity to the shape of a neuron:

Currently, I hold to the idea that a collective consciousness exists and that nature is the entity to which it belongs.  Each living creature contributes with the use of its senses what it can to this collective consciousness and feeds it with the experience that it craves.  This feed, in turn, builds it up and continues to shape nature and vice versa.  I suppose you can call this minded entity of nature God.  In saying this, I admit that I am both an evolutionist and a creationist.  My theories are not set, however.  They are still evolving as time progresses, and I will make sure to keep you posted on them as they change.

We may never come to understand fully the purpose of consciousness while we are alive, but surely we all come to discover its purpose on our final day.  During our seven-minute process of death, after our hearts have stopped beating, we will experience the mitosis that severs the mind from the body.  Will our consciousness survive the pitfall of death?  Will we be born to a higher state of existence?  I suppose we'll find out...someday. Until then, I guess our minds will continue to probe and dissect the mind of nature, or the nature of mind.