Reply
Tue 2 Dec, 2003 03:49 pm
The knee jerk, or Patella reflex, is familiar to most people...
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Labs/Anatomy_&_Physiology/A&P202/Nervous_System_Physiology/Patellar_Reflex.htm
And many neural systems work through reflex without conscious control or input, but is it possible that even our thoughts and ideas (which are very complex neural activities) are somewhat reflexive, in that they happen as a result of neural stimulus, [possibly] without passing through a conscious phase of consideration?
When we think about a new idea and form an opinion, we consciously control our thoughts. But once an opinion is formed, is it then triggered automatically as a reaction to the same set of ideas (neural stimulus) which produced it in the first place?
One implication of this (if it's true) might be that it's necessary to intentionally prevent a previously set idea from being triggered as a reaction to previously experienced stimulus (ideas). In this way, "keeping an open mind" might be the effort required to block pre-set neural paths.
This question was prompted by
this thread.
and the following sub-topic which developed...
rosborne979 wrote:Years ago I was watching a PBS show which dealt with Linguistic Acquisition in children.
The show was quite detailed and covered many aspects of the process, but one of the most interesting was the physiological method in which the brain develops from birth to approximately two years of age, and the way in which certain neural pathways are honed.
The key point in the process is that neural pathways in the brain are not grown to support new thoughts, rather, unused pathways become less functional, and more used pathways more robust.
It was noted that before two years old, the developing brain uses up more sugar, and produces more energy than at any other time in our lives. It's during this time that the general neural structure of the brain is being grown (and at a fantastic rate). After this time, most of the neural complex is complete, but it is not yet molded by the use (or disuse) of specific pathways.
So in the end, the brain doesn't build the pathways it needs, it loses the ones it doesn't.
I found this a very interesting and meaningful physiological mechanism associted with thought. And it stuck me that the nerves of the brain are probably not unique in this methodology; something which athletes almost know intuitively as they feel themselves learning a physical skill. The repeated firing of certain neural pathways makes them easier, and more efficient to fire again. So practice doesn't make perfect, but it does leave a well worn path for the next impulse to follow.
Best Regards,
Makes sense, no - since it does appear our brains do lots of simplifying of life for us - and having a sort of reflex response to familiar things makes sense in terms of not having to reinvent the wheel every time.
One wonders if emotional reactions might also become paired to such habitual (rather than "reflex"?) responses, hence farther intensifying a no longer consciously thought out response.
I am certainly aware, when I wish to really consider a new argument about a familiar concept, of putting aside in a semi-conscious way previous thoughts and responses - including emotional ones.
Hi Dlowan,
I'm also aware of becoming tense or nervous sometimes when particular topics come up. I have learned to recognize this response and to control it consciously, but I do have to catch it every time and intentionally control it. So it seems to be a reflex.
Just as our eyes can only focus on a small point at one time, but our peripheral vision continues to take in everything around us, our brains can focus on single ideas while reacting to other ideas reflexively.
I dunno - experience something funny in my opinion, I was just in Mexico for a 7 days and after about the 3rd day Spanish words were abounding in my head - heck I new the words but in dictionary type manner.
husker wrote:I dunno - experience something funny in my opinion, I was just in Mexico for a 7 days and after about the 3rd day Spanish words were abounding in my head - heck I new the words but in dictionary type manner.
Yeh, the same thing happens to me. I get that with accents as well (southern or british for example). If I hear them, they ring in my head for days.
I hate when you go somewhere different for a few days but when you come back everyone wonders why you are talking with an accent
Ahh, this question reverberates, certainly with the language and thought thread.
I studied physiological psyche in the sixties, thus am way behind, though I have done the odd bit of reading whenever learning is in some headline or other. What I understood then, was that there are nerve net reticuli that form, that are eased pathways, and that various amounts of energy are required to forge new ones.
I think it was the language and thought thread, where Craven gave a link or comment re not just new synapses connecting with new learning, but that, and let me distinguish this, maybe it wasn't connected to new learning, there is evidence of new nerve formation (dendrites?) - something more than just new synapse meetings.
Whatever, I want this to be explored and to hear about it.
As a practical consideration in my own life, I know that new ways of thinking are challenging, and might on my own posit lazy bone zone. Very understandable both psychologically and biochemically/biophysically. (Biophysics, damn, I declined a job in a biophysics lab, one of life's mistakes.)
All this makes me wonder all sorts of things, such as the play of emotions re impact for shutting off routes.
...but most, a key interest for me, is what the hell is the role of curiosity? Curiosity seems to me to be one of the most valuable traits there are. Curiosity is what carries us across rivers of no-no alligators.
I agree with rosborne's first post, dlowan, but I like the use of, is it called the reflex arc, better than knee jerk. The reflex arc is formed or developed, isn't it? The literal knee jerk is inborn. Our thoughts are more likely to be habitual, but I really think that some are genuine reflexs.
Of course, I've been wrong before.
Yes, we all do. They're called stereotypes. It's a psychological phenomenaom called the norm of least cognitive effort or something like that. Basically boils down to that we can realistically form multifaced viewpoints and perspectives on very few things in the world. The rest of them, we associate with the response most conditioned with the thought. In such cases, we can overcome these inherent reflexes/stereotypes. But we need to conscioulsy work to do it.
I just had a danged reflex thought after smaking my shin on the dishwasher!
For all I know, that just might be a true reflex.
Why not?
The "reflexes" we are all familiar with involve nerves connecting muscle tissue and the lower part of the central nervous system (spinal cord), so why not those involved with higher CNS activity?
The "muscle memory" that athletes (including singers, pianist, typist, etc) allude to is merely the burning of deeper and familiar pathways that allows an individual organism to better adapt to its environment on a "real-time" phenotypical basis. Yes we do see the growing and shrinking of neural dendrites, the individual nerve cell's effort to reach out and (almost) touch another. This allows for extraordinary flexibility in an organism's lifetime responses to stimuli. Our ability for our bodies to so adapt probably has its origins way, way, back (at least paramecia I'm thinking).
The limiting side of this coin, which has been noted in this thread, is also interesting: once this pathway is created it becomes favored and the individual's response to given stimuli or initial thoughts becomes less varied and necessarily less diverse. We now see the learning of a second language and the redefining of a secondary pathway for those suffering from spinal cord damage (say re-learning how to walk) is almost precluded, given the elapse of time, and certainly not as refined as the original pathway. Perhaps, this applies to the organized concert of neuronal firing we know as abstract thinking.
Is this why we see new mathematical and scientific paradigms emanating from mainly those individuals before they become 30 years of age? Indeed, is this the source of Einstein's frustration in trying to rectify his thoughts with a comprehensive Grand Unified Theory? His neural pathways, already laid down, analogous to roads leading him to dead ends in design space?
JM
Rosborne979, this topic is huge and endlessly fascinating. Yes, the brain has stored reflexes or responses, such as the quick drawback from fire; but false reflexes can be stored when trauma has caused permanent change in the brain, making it difficult to keep an open mind, as in your quote:
Quote:One implication of this (if it's true) might be that it's necessary to intentionally prevent a previously set idea from being triggered as a reaction to previously experienced stimulus (ideas). In this way, "keeping an open mind" might be the effort required to block pre-set neural paths.
rosborne979 wrote:One implication of this (if it's true) might be that it's necessary to intentionally prevent a previously set idea from being triggered as a reaction to previously experienced stimulus (ideas). In this way, "keeping an open mind" might be the effort required to block pre-set neural paths.
I don't know what Diane said (and please give me a synopsis), but if one has a reflex, they are acting before any real cognitive process happens, the superego is never tapped. So, we wouldn't be able to stop the reflex in time.
Individual, that article was focused on reactions to fear. It doesn't address the entire question that rosborne was asking.
If an event is traumatic enough, even similar cues that resemble the original event, can cause a false reaction--even false memories. I will copy the last few sentences of the article which explain much better than I ever could.
A friend of mine related the following:
Quote:"I played the tooth fairy game the other day with interesting results. My 4 year old son's tooth fell out so my wife and I encouraged him to offer it up to the "Tooth Fairy" with the promise of an exchange of currency...blah, blah, blah. That night I crept into his bedroom with all the stealth of a CIA black op, but to no avail. As I was making the switch, he woke up. Well, obviously the jig was up... he now knew there was no such thing as a Tooth Fairy...the end of innocence.
The next morning at breakfast was revealing. My son tried to debrief me as to what it was like to be the tooth fairy. It seems my son interpreted the bedroom incident differently then I. He now thought that I was the Tooth Fairy!"
I found this interesting, perhaps a true unadulterated thought reflex demonstrated in the former juvenile observation and that of the latter adult...what?
JM
JM, what a wonderfu example of how different a child's brain is to that of an adult. Children are still capable of fantasy and even of making something in which they believe into reality in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
In the case of trauma, adults learn to do that, but with a destructive outcome.
What is amazing to me is that our brains can work so quickly to connect to a reflex that is not appropriate to the event. You'd think that a reflex would be too immediate for that to happen.
Diane wrote:What is amazing to me is that our brains can work so quickly to connect to a reflex that is not appropriate to the event. You'd think that a reflex would be too immediate for that to happen.
Would you mind expanding on that?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace