rss

Tag: "brain"

3
Is living in a city damaging your brain?

Is living in a city damaging your brain?

If we are to believe the results of a new study from Marc Berman, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, the answer is “yes”. These finding come at an interesting crossroads– for the first time ever, more humans live in cities than in rural settings. The findings argue that the brain becomes confused and tired as it is forced to respond to the massive amounts of stimulii that are present in cities. The brain is constantly searching its surroundings, trying to anticipate threats. Not only does one have to negotiate traffic and constantly re-assess the changing visual landscape, but this is often done while carrying on a conversation or mentally planning a route through the city. Quoting from Boston.com:

The reason such seemingly trivial mental tasks leave us depleted is that they exploit one of the crucial weak spots of the brain. A city is so overstuffed with stimuli that we need to constantly redirect our attention so that we aren’t distracted by irrelevant things, like a flashing neon sign or the cellphone conversation of a nearby passenger on the bus. This sort of controlled perception — we are telling the mind what to pay attention to — takes energy and effort. The mind is like a powerful supercomputer, but the act of paying attention consumes much of its processing power.

Interestingly, the researchers found that just showing people a picture of an urban environment was enough to cause substantial impairment to the test subject’s levels of attention and working memory. Similarly, a different study quoted in the article shows that even very small amounts of exposure to nature were enough to confer significant improvement on subjects’ cognitive abilities and sense of well-being.

Additionally, the research indicates that living in cities may also have a harmful effect on one’s level of self-control.

8
Why it matters that humans are animals.

Why it matters that humans are animals.

I have written numerous posts advocating that because humans are animals they should be recognized as such (for example, see here , here, here , and here). For zoologists and others who study animals, it is obviously true that we are animals. We do hundreds of things that the other mammals do, plus a few extra. You can see it every day when you eat, breathe, emote, poop, become fatigued and fall asleep. Yet millions of Americans are horrified by the thought that human beings are animals.

Consider that we aren’t simply animals. Our species is a carefully defined type of animal. We are apes. Frans de Waal explains:

Darwin wasn’t just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn’t go far enough . . . We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.

If you want even more detail on what type of animal humans are (we are in the ape sub-division of primates), watch this brisk video by Aron-ra.

Again, this sort of information is really disturbing to many people, especially religious conservatives.

So why don’t I simply leave religious conservatives alone? Why do I persist on standing on rooftops and proclaiming this message that humans are animals? Why don’t I just whisper this sort of information only to my closest of friends: “Pssst. Human beings are animals.” Why don’t I just let it be, and keep it all to myself? What could possibly be at stake that I feel compelled to spread the word that human beings are animals? I was in the process of assembling my own list when I just happened to read Chapter 12 of Mark Johnson’s new book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding.

Johnson is well known for his work with metaphors and embodied cognition with George Lakoff. Chapter 12 of his new book contains a section that leaped out at me: “The Philosophical Implications of the Embodied Mind.” In that short section, Johnson sets forth nine reasons why it really and truly matters for people to acknowledge that they are animals and to fully accept that their minds are embodied, not free-floating entities independent of physical laws.

Johnson’s biggest target is the “objectivist theory of meaning,” the idea that meaning “gets defined without any connection to the experience of the creature (i.e., the human) for whom the words are meaningful. Johnson points out that those who follow the objectivist theory of meaning believe that words and sentences somehow “carry” meaning without even trying to explain how words and sentences ever come to acquire meaning. It should send up immediate red flags that the predominate theory of meaning relies on floating thoughts, a theory of meaning that is not biologically anchored. Reacting to (and rejecting) this objectivist approach, Mark Johnson premises his analysis “with a mind that is not separate from or out-of-ongoing-contact with its body and its world.” His worldview includes a specific definition of body and his impressive list of why it matters for human beings to take seriously “the embodiment of mind and meaning.” Here are those reasons (I will be borrowing liberally from Johnson’s book with these descriptions, beginning at page 279):

2
Computer souls

Computer souls

[A kitchen table conversation between a parent and a child]

Daddy, if my computer burned up in a fire, would it still compute?

No, Mary. Programs don’t simply run by themselves. They depend upon extremely complicated hardware and software. If your computer burns up in a fire, there would be no hardware and no software with which to run your favorite programs.

But I’ve used my computer for a long time. I’ve grown emotionally attached to it. It makes me sad that it won’t actually compute if it were to be destroyed. Doesn’t my computer have a soul that continues running my programs somewhere else after my computer burns up on Earth?

I’m sorry, Mary. There is no computer heaven and there is no computer soul. There is no evidence of either of these.

But we can’t prove that it won’t keep computing after it burns up in a fire, right?

No. Sorry, Mary. Without hardware and software, no computing will happen. The ashes of your burned up computer would lack any systematic structure. They certainly lack the complex organization required to run programs. It is impossible for any computation to occur without the hardware and the software intact. Your claim that a computer would keep computing even though it is completely destroyed is an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary proof. We have no such proof whatever.

But Lisa Jenkins says that burned up computers do keep computing. She says that you only need to have faith and that no one can disprove that burned up computers live on in a parallel world. She says destroyed computers keep working, but not in a physical way. She goes to a special building on Sunday where thousands of people all believe that computers keep computing even after they are completely destroyed.

No, Mary. The same thing happens to computers as happens to your own body. As you know, when your body dies, your entire body rots, including your brain. As you know, when your brain is rotted, you don’t have any more thoughts because there is no intact functional neural structure anymore, and therefore no basis for any continuing thoughts.

Oh, daddy! It’s not the same! Yes, I know that when my body dies, it will be impossible for me to think anymore. My computer is different, though. I just can’t believe that my amazing computer would stop computing just because it gets completely destroyed! Don’t try to compare my beautiful computer to a human brain!

It’s not a matter of what you want to believe, my child. It’s a matter of what actually happens in the real world. You can continue using your computer for now and loving the way it works, but it would be unhealthy to believe that it would keep computing even if it was destroyed. As a parent, it’s my job to level with you regarding difficult topics like this. I’m so sorry.

11
Shucks, it’s hard to be a materialist!

Shucks, it’s hard to be a materialist!

I have these two smart, atheistic, science-respecting-type friends. Their respect for science falls short of any active pursuit of the subject. Each one can enjoy a good documentary that bashes creationism or socially conservative evangelism- such low-hanging forbidden fruit!- but the interest ends about there. Still, I think of them both as rational, generally skeptical thinkers.

My intellectual pursuits run more to the science side than do theirs. I’m only a lowly social sciences buff, with a truly shaky grasp of the “hard” stuff, but I have taken enough courses in research methods and statistics to understand much of the philosophy of science. I often have to represent science to these smart but humanities-focused friends.

I can’t remember how materialism came up between the three of us, exactly. I remember attempting to stumble my way through a question about social cognitive neuroscience, and the fact that some criticize the field as nothing but “gee-whiz, lookit what lit up right there!” I said that it comes as no surprise that a real-life mental process has visible, biological trappings.

Or maybe it came up when discussing the classic battle of therapy versus medication for depression. I told my friends that major depression probably always involves real, observable changes in serotonin or other neurtransmitters. I said that this doesn’t prove that medicine is the answer in all cases. Maybe a depressing situation can push a distressed person into having the chemical trappings of depression. Therapy that cheers a person up could cause the chemical problem itself to recede.

For some reason, my rational friends struggled with the marriage of the mental and the chemical. How strange, how eerie it was that every mental process has a biological sign, they said.

I shrugged at this and set my sarcasm level to stun. “Well of course it’s biological,” I moaned, “If you’re a materialist, this shouldn’t surprise you.”

They blanched. What did I mean?

0

How is high-speed high-volume inter-connectivity affecting our brains?

What happens to our brains when we sit at our computers for long periods of time interacting with the cyber world? This question was considered in an article called “Meet Your iBrain,” appearing in the October/November 2008 issue of scientific American Mind.
The authors cite a 2005 Kaiser family foundation study that found that “young [...]

4

Prayer turns a brain tumor into a worm

Can prayer turn a brain tumor into a living worm?  That’s what this news reporter seems to be claiming in the middle of her report.

The real message is still an interesting one:  be careful with washing hands and eating pork, or you could end up with a big worm in your brain.   Surprisingly, the surgeon [...]

0

How well do old brains work?

This year’s presidential campaign offers a choice between 72-year old John McCain and 46-year old Barack Obama.  This large difference in age provoked Christopher Beam of Slate to review the scientific literature comparing the function of old brains versus younger brains.  Here are a few things to contemplate, assuming your brain is spry enough to [...]

4
The precise anatomy of the modern Republican brain.

The precise anatomy of the modern Republican brain.

I’ve spent a lot of time studying Republican political anatomy.   You see, I’m not only an armchair anthropologist, but I’m a social neuro-surgeon (a brand-new expertise, created today).   After careful review of all available relevant data, I have developed a precise chart (click on the thumbnail below) detailing each of the major features of the [...]

18
What is it like to be dead?

What is it like to be dead?

The answer is we don’t know.  
I don’t know.  You don’t know.   No one knows.   That’s it.   Off with you . . .  [I figured that this title would draw some Bible-toting fundies to the site].
So you can all leave now.  There’s nothing here to discuss.  Go visit some other blog post.  Have a nice long [...]

2

Did our brains grow big because we learned to cook?

Consider that 60% of the energy expended by a resting baby is consumed by the baby’s brain.  A resting adult brain uses 25% of its energy.  Compare this to the average ape brain, which uses only 8% of the apes energy.  In short, having a big brain requires a lot of energy.
The June 15, 2007 [...]

1
A brain?  No thanks, God.

A brain? No thanks, God.

No further comment necessary, right?  Except that I’m publishing the above image with the express permission of Pixwit.com.  
Oh, and one other thing.  Don’t overlook your chance to earn $1,000,000 by participating in Pixwit’s “Miracle Challenge.”  If you win, just send me my 10% finders’ fee.   Oh, and there’s that one little thing . . .  [...]